Hillary as Secretary Of State? Change?

[BeAChooser]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/clinton-to-accept-secretary-of-state-job/?hp


November 21, 2008, 2:35 pm

Clinton Is Said to Opt for Secretary of State Position

By Peter Baker


Hillary Rodham Clinton has decided to give up her Senate seat and accept the position of secretary of state, making her the public face around the world for the administration of the man who beat her for the Democratic presidential nomination, two confidants said Friday.

... snip ...

As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton will have a powerful platform to travel the world and help repair relations with other countries strained after eight years of President Bush’s policies.

... snip ...

Mrs. Clinton would bring a distinctive background to the State Department. As first lady, she traveled the world for eight years, visiting more than 80 countries, not only meeting with foreign leaders but also villages, clinics and other remote areas that rarely get on a president’s itinerary.


Consider this, folks ...

Hillary was co-President (that's what Clinton called her) during an administration that saw over 100 people flee the United States just to avoid questioning in a scandal (called both Chinagate and also CampaignFinanceGate) involving the selling of access to US secrets and technology in exchange for millions of dollars in illegal foreign campaign contributions ... much of it from Red China. Hillary was directly implicated by Johnny Chung in receiving some of the illegal funds (in brown paper bags, no less). Nolanda Hill testified that Ron Brown, who was killed in a plane crash during a trade mission to Bosnia, admitted to her that Hillary Clinton conceived of the scheme to sell trade mission seats.

Hillary was directly implicated in a scheme (called FileGate) to illegally access thousands of raw FBI data files on political opponents (mostly republicans) and illegally transfer that information into DNC computer data bases (presumably for use in blackmailing and smearing those opponents). She publicly denied knowing Craig Livingstone who was head of White House Security at the time and who was involved in obtaining the files from the FBI. Yet there are numerous photos of her in friendly and close proximity to Livingstone and there is sworn testimony by an FBI agent that Nussbaum said Livingstone was recommended for the job by Hillary. Deborah Perroy, a White House staffer, also testified to this. And Livingstone himself later admitted she hired him. Yet Hillary claimed she didn't even know him.

Sworn testimony also indicates Hillary was the mastermind behind this highly illegal scheme (FileGate) and was present at many points during the transfer of the material to the DNC and White House computers. Linda Tripp testified she overheard William Kennedy, former Rose Law Firm partner of Hillary Clinton and then associate White House counsel, and Marsha Scott, the first lady's confidante, discussing Hillary Clinton's plan to share the FBI files on a computer database with the Democratic National Committee.

To this day we don't know what happened to the material that was transferred to those computers. We only know that Kennedy even took FBI files home (another violation of the law, by the way) and was seen loading them onto his laptop at the kitchen table (according to sworn testimony by his wife). In fact, according to Special Prosecutor Ray, the illegal files were still in White House hands years after Kenneth Starr told the public they'd been returned to the FBI.

And just to illustrate how serious this scandal really was, prior to Filegate a person went to jail for 10 years for illegally accessing a single FBI file. Of course, under the Clinton DOJ (what a misnomer), no one went to jail even lost their job, and Hillary was hardly even questioned.

Hillary was directly implicated in a coverup involving the possible murder of Vince Foster. The day Vince Foster was found dead, it was Livingstone who was dispatched to the morgue along with Associate White House Counsel Bill Kennedy to identify Foster's body. Circumstantial evidence certainly suggests Livingstone planted Foster's car keys in one of Foster's pants pockets during the morgue visit. The keys were retrieved later by Park Police who had already searched Foster's pockets at the scene and found nothing. Livingstone was also spotted at the White House the next morning by Secret Service agent Bruce Abbott, who claims he saw Livingstone and an unidentified partner removing a box of files and a briefcase from an area near Foster's office. It is known for a fact that her personal secretary went into Foster's office after his body was found and it was sealed by Park Police to remove boxes of material. Hillary was also the one of the first to see the so-called suicide note and there is testimony that she ordered staff not to tell Bill about it.

And of course, that isn't all. I could list MANY other scandals she was personally involved in both before, during and after Clinton's Presidency.

Yet this women is going to be Secretary of State? Oh yeah, CHANGE. :rolleyes:

[Cleon]

Yet this women is going to be Secretary of State? Oh yeah, CHANGE. :rolleyes:

Why, was she Secretary of State before? If not, then yes, it's a "change."

As far as I'm aware, the current Secretary of State is a woman named Condaleeza Rice. Do you have information to the contrary, indicating that Hillary Clinton is currently the Secretary of State?

[Tricky]

Poor Vincent Foster. If he had known his corpse was going to be gnawed by zombies, he might have picked a more secretive way to commit suicide.

[Wangler]

Why, was she Secretary of State before? If not, then yes, it's a "change."

I've heard similar defense statements before by Obama supporters, when his appointments up to this point have been criticized for being too "inside the beltway".

I think that the majority of Obama supporters were looking for genuine change in the way executive branch politics and politics in general are done, not just a simplistic change of personnel.

I fear that Obama will give supporters a bit of a letdown if his "change" only involves nameplates and business cards.

[Cleon]

I think that the majority of Obama supporters were looking for genuine change in the way executive branch politics and politics in general are done, not just a simplistic change of personnel.

And you don't think having Democrats in the Cabinet would be a change from the way George W. has been doing things?

[kallsop]

Clinton era retreads are all over the Change. There hasn't been one bold selection yet that has made anyone go "wow, things are really shaking". I don't envy Obama. The economy has been relentlessly talked down for 8 years and it happened - we have flipped over to the lose-lose Nash equilibrium (Prisoners Dilemma). What's it going to take to move back to the win-win equilibrium?

It might take 8 years to bring the economy back, and he only has 4 to make Change. If the game hasn't Changed much in 4 years, he will have to deal with a tough reelection and massive democrat losses in Congress.

I've got to go now and fill out my bank holding company application to get in line for my TARP CPP bailout money :)

Application for TARP CPP (http://www.taxpayer.net/user_uploads/file/Bailout/capital_purchase_application.pdf)

[gdnp]

And of course, that isn't all. I could list MANY other scandals she was personally involved in both before, during and after Clinton's Presidency.Please do. We are fascinated.

Yet this women is going to be Secretary of State? Oh yeah, CHANGE. Clearly, you haven't seen the connection:

Circumstantial evidence certainly suggests Livingstone planted Foster's car keys in one of Foster's pants pockets during the morgue visit.

The planting of the car keys were simply a ploy to cover up Livingstone stealing Foster's...CHANGE.

A quarter, two nickels, and four pennies, for anyone interested.

[gdnp]

I've heard similar defense statements before by Obama supporters, when his appointments up to this point have been criticized for being too "inside the beltway".Look, if you take the same players but add a new coach and a new playbook you may end up with dramatically different results. Or if you take the same computer and load new software.

I think that the majority of Obama supporters were looking for genuine change in the way executive branch politics and politics in general are done, not just a simplistic change of personnel.I think the majority of Obama supporters are looking for a return to the high growth, low unemployment, effective foreign policy, budget surplus days of the Clinton administration. Give me 5% unemployment, 3% growth, 13000 DJIA, and budget surpluses and I don't care if you call it "change", "more of the same", or "tomato soup". I'm in.

I fear that Obama will give supporters a bit of a letdown if his "change" only involves nameplates and business cards.
The average citizen probably can't name a single Bush cabinet officer. I think people are looking for results, not names. Get them affordable, accessible health care and they won't care if it comes from Hillary, Barack, Daschle, or Oprah.

[applecorped]

Best of luck to her.

[CptColumbo]

Best of luck to her.
Yeah, there is a lot of work to do and the new Prez is going to have domestic issues on his mind for a while.

[Cicero]

Hopefully, she won't be dodging any sniper fire during her travels as Secretary of State. As First Lady, she was fearless.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc

[Darat]

Off-topic discussion about unemployment rates under President Clinton moved to http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4219293#post4219293

[applecorped]

Hopefully, she won't be dodging any sniper fire during her travels as Secretary of State. As First Lady, she was fearless.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc

Let it be.

Wait and see.

[BeAChooser]

Why, was she Secretary of State before? If not, then yes, it's a "change."

So Cleon, I take it you aren't going to argue that any of the facts I noted about Hillary's involvement in Chinagage, Filegate or FosterGate are wrong?

[BeAChooser]

Poor Vincent Foster. If he had known his corpse was going to be gnawed by zombies, he might have picked a more secretive way to commit suicide.

How do you know he committed suicide?

[BeAChooser]

Please do. We are fascinated.

Actually, gdnp, I think you are clearly having enough trouble dealing with the ones I already mentioned. :D

[BeAChooser]

I think the majority of Obama supporters are looking for a return to the high growth, low unemployment, effective foreign policy, budget surplus days of the Clinton administration.

Well in that case, the next four years may be a BIG disappointment.

Because you don't create growth through welfare, socialism and communism. What you get is an illusion that in the end collapses.

And you won't bring honesty to our foreign policy by putting a basically dishonest person (meaning Hillary) in charge of that foreign policy.

[gdnp]

Well in that case, the next four years may be a BIG disappointment. Quite possibly. I have high expectations. The question is, if Obama doesn't turn out to be the boogyman you predict and is successful in cleaning up the messes left by Bush, will you be happy or disappointed? How far does your hatred of Obama go?

Because you don't create growth through welfare, socialism and communism. What you get is an illusion that in the end collapses.
Good. Since Obama is not advocating any of those solutions.

Oh, and BTW. You also don't create wealth through allowing the free market to create opaque financial instruments that no one understands and trade them in a giant pyramid scheme that finally collapses like a house of cards. Or are you still arguing that the feds put a gun to the mortgage originator's heads and forced them to make these risky loans, rather than placing the blame where most of it belongs, on the people who made billions repackaging and reselling these loans?

And you won't bring honesty to our foreign policy by putting a basically dishonest person (meaning Hillary) in charge of that foreign policy.
Hillary is a politician. No more or less honest than most, IMHO. Putting an honest person like Colin Powell in the job certainly didn't avoid the use of the office to spread lies.

[gnome]

I am disappointed in her being chosen as Secretary of State... for a couple of reasons... mainly because I don't find her very charismatic or persuasive, and I think we need better, but also because it means more Clinton bashing. I'm just tired of rehashing the same old discredited stories. I was looking forward to her exit from presidential politics.

[Cleon]

Because you don't create growth through welfare, socialism and communism.

:dl:

[Dr Adequate]

Because you don't create growth through welfare, socialism and communism. What you get is an illusion that in the end collapses. The elction's over, Obama won, you can stop pretending he's a communist now.

Perhaps (I confess your mental processes are obscure to me) you hope to keep the lie fresh, as it were, for 2012. But you should bear in mind that after four years of Obama in office, no-one's going to be fooled by this sorry crap, are they?

[Cleon]

So Cleon, I take it you aren't going to argue that any of the facts I noted about Hillary's involvement in Chinagage, Filegate or FosterGate are wrong?

You mean am I going to wade through your pile of assertions, misrepresentations, nonsensical conspiracy theories, complete gibberish, and "six-degrees-to-something-that-have-happened" crapola, only to have you come back with another pile of irrelevancies, accusations, misrepresentations of my posts, and general dishonesty?

No. No, I'm not.

[shuize]

Obama's selections seem to indicate he may be interested in governing more from the center. If so, I think that's a probably good thing. However, I find it amusing to watch the guy who used "change" as a club to beat Clinton with during the primary now turn around and offer a slew of Clinton-era politicians -- including Clinton herself -- leading posts in his administration.

[BeAChooser]

The question is, if Obama doesn't turn out to be the boogyman you predict and is successful in cleaning up the messes left by Bush, will you be happy or disappointed?

First of all, gdnp, I don't agree that everything you (or Obama) calls a mess is a mess ... or at least a mess created by republicans. For example, I think Bush has done an great job protecting America from terrorists and other foreign threats. I don't think the mortgage problem is due to Bush but rather due primarily to democrats and their policies. I much prefer the approach to illegal immigration that republicans have to the one that Obama and democrats promote. And if we have an energy crisis, then that too is a problem created as much by democrats as anyone else and one which Obama is far less likely to solve than Bush or McCain.

But if Obama can manage to turn the economy around so we get high growth and low employment while not making government more of leach than it already is, I'll be pleased. If he can do as well as Bush did as far as preventing terrorist attacks on the US, in spreading democracy around the world, in securing our oil supplies, then I'll have to admit he was a good president in those areas. Especially if he manages to do all the above without breaking all the laws that the Clinton administration broke.

But what are you going to do if during the next four years we suffer a major terrorist attack as a result of trying to deal with terrorists like they did during the Clinton era ... i.e., by sending in the lawyers? What are you going to do if all the freebies that Obama hands out increase unemployment (as has happened in many socialist countries around the world)? What are you going to do if by putting so many Clintonistas back into high positions we see the disregard for law and privacy that we saw during the Clinton years? What will you do if the educational policies of Ayers when promoted by an Obama administration turn out just as ineffective as they were during CAC?

How far does your hatred of Bush go?


Quote:
Because you don't create growth through welfare, socialism and communism. What you get is an illusion that in the end collapses.

Good. Since Obama is not advocating any of those solutions.

That's EXACTLY what he's promoting. His so-called tax cuts are nothing more than wealth redistribution and welfare. He's promising free health care to tens of millions. Many of those who voted for him even think he's going to give them free gas and houses. Now if he doesn't turn out to be a socialist, I'll be very surprised and the first to admit I was wrong in my fears. But if he does turn out to be a socialist and tries to make good on all the promises he made, will you admit you were wrong?


You also don't create wealth through allowing the free market to create opaque financial instruments that no one understands and trade them in a giant pyramid scheme that finally collapses like a house of cards.

The problem with what you say, gdnp, is that the pyramid you allude to was indeed created and managed primarily by democrats. For example, Fannie May and Freddie Mac were democrat run institutions. The LIE that Obama told during the campaign was that Bush and McCain never made any attempt to fix the mortage problem or monitor the lenders. They did. They didn't succeed because democrats in Congress (like Franks) were busy defending the illegal and unwise activities of those institutions. And Obama claimed during the campaign that he did try the fix the mortgage problem. That was outright lie. In fact, he was one of the largest recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie.

Hillary is a politician. No more or less honest than most, IMHO.

Well you are entitled to your opinion. But I don't see you actually trying to challenge any of the facts about Chinagate, Filegate or FosterGate that I noted in the OP. :D

[BeAChooser]

I'm just tired of rehashing the same old discredited stories.

NONE of what stated in the OP is discredited. You are either lying or uninformed if you claim otherwise. If you challenge me, then I invite you to take any of the claims I made and show that what I claimed is false. Because I can back up everything I noted with multiple credible sources. Now having gone through this exercise multiple times in the past with folks just like you, I predict you won't even try. :D

[BeAChooser]

The elction's over, Obama won, you can stop pretending he's a communist now.

Do you deny that his father, mother, several brothers, childhood mentor, and many other people he has associated with over the years are communists? Do you deny that "wealth redistribution" and "social justice" are common themes of communists?

But you should bear in mind that after four years of Obama in office, no-one's going to be fooled by this sorry crap, are they?

And perhaps you should bear in mind that four years from now they'll think you were the one spouting "crap" and extremely gullible.

I just hope that JREF archives can still access these threads four years from now. :D

[BeAChooser]

You mean am I going to wade through your pile of assertions, misrepresentations, nonsensical conspiracy theories, complete gibberish, and "six-degrees-to-something-that-have-happened" crapola, only to have you come back with another pile of irrelevancies, accusations, misrepresentations of my posts, and general dishonesty?

No. No, I'm not.

Why is it that EVERY time democrats are confronted with the truth about the Clintons, THEY RUN.

Pick any one of the assertions I made, Cleon.

I bet I can prove it true. I bet you can't prove it false. :D

[jmcvann]

Republican to Democrat
Conservative to Liberal
Frat boy to Harvard Law Review president
Brash cowboy to thoughtful conciliator

I'm happy to start with those four changes. I will not try to predict the future, nor distort the past.

And BAC -- do you get your opinions straight from the RNC? "Many of those who voted for him even think he's going to give them free gas and houses." Seriously? The misconstrued sentiment of one person is now "many of those..."? Get outta town.

[Cleon]

Why is it that EVERY time democrats are confronted with the truth about the Clintons, THEY RUN.

Not a Democrat. As I've told you many, many times before.

Thank you for demonstrating your complete inability to be honest with even the most mundane facts.

[BeAChooser]

The misconstrued sentiment of one person is now "many of those..."? Get outta town.

How did I misconstrue what she said?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

"I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know ... if I help him (BAC - meaning Obama), he's going to help me."

And if she was just picked randomly from the crowd, isn't it likely that her sentiments were shared by many others?

[BeAChooser]

Not a Democrat.

You just voted for Obama and defend the Clintons. :rolleyes:

[ANTPogo]

And if she was just picked randomly from the crowd, isn't it likely that her sentiments were shared by many others?

No.

I suggest researching how polls are constructed and analyzed, or failing that, taking some kind of statistics course.

[jmcvann]

How did I misconstrue what she said?

"I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know ... if I help him (BAC - meaning Obama), he's going to help me."

And if she was just picked randomly from the crowd, isn't it likely that her sentiments were shared by many others?

What I heard was her hope that the economy would improve and she would be better able to afford gas and her mortgage. And that sentiment - as I interpret it - probably was shared by many. No one thought that "... he's going to give them free gas and houses." I find your interpretation is disingenuous at best.

[Cleon]

You just voted for Obama and defend the Clintons. :rolleyes:

1. I did not vote for Obama.

2. I only "defend the Clintons" inasmuch as I point out that you are completely full of it. I've never voted for either Clinton.

0 for 2, and again, your dishonesty is apparent.

[gnome]

NONE of what stated in the OP is discredited. You are either lying or uninformed if you claim otherwise. If you challenge me, then I invite you to take any of the claims I made and show that what I claimed is false. Because I can back up everything I noted with multiple credible sources. Now having gone through this exercise multiple times in the past with folks just like you, I predict you won't even try. :D

I seem to recall a thread with information competing with yours that had multiple sources as well. So if I look at a lot of evidence and I decide someone else's is better than yours, I'm lying. That makes sense.

Is it impossible for someone to sincerely disagree with you? There's only people that agree with you, and people that are lying?

[jmcvann]

NONE of what stated in the OP is discredited. You are either lying or uninformed if you claim otherwise. ... Now having gone through this exercise multiple times in the past with folks just like you, I predict you won't even try.

Could you BE any more transparent in your attempt to just pick a fight and show your superiority? Dude, this was all hashed out during the election. Get over it. I see nothing in your claims that I didn't see over the past 18 months. The conservative media (Fox, WSJ, etc.) found nothing to support any of your claims. Maybe you didn't read about it while holed up in your parents' basement playing WOW.

[Dr Adequate]

Do you deny that his father, mother, several brothers, childhood mentor, and many other people he has associated with over the years are communists? Do you deny that "wealth redistribution" and "social justice" are common themes of communists? The election's over. Obama won. You can* stop pretending he's a communist now.

* Note that when I say you can stop, this does not necessarily mean that I think you're capable of stopping, I mean that it serves no rational purpose for you to continue, i.e. "can" in the sense of "can afford to".

And perhaps you should bear in mind that four years from now they'll think you were the one spouting "crap" and extremely gullible.

I just hope that JREF archives can still access these threads four years from now. :D Perhaps you should try basing your estimations of future events on events in the past, such as your long track record of spouting crap and being extremely gullible.

But I can see why you prefer to base your attempts at soothsaying solely on wishful thinking.

[gdnp]

What are you going to do if by putting so many Clintonistas back into high positions we see the disregard for law and privacy that we saw during the Clinton years?

Disregard for law and privacy? We are just ending an administration that tried to make its own rules with signing statements, executive orders, and legal memos. Indefinite detention without trial, secret prisons, torture, and suspension of habeus corpus. That gave us the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping. With retroactive immunity for the phone companies. And that is just the stuff we found out about. I'll take the Clinton administration over that any day of the week.

[RandFan]

I'm no Hillary fan but she has earned the respect of her constituents in New York and many Senators on both sides of the aisle. I'm happy to give her the benifit of the doubt and see how she does.

I'm rooting for her success because it is in the best interest of America. Go Hillary.

:rolleyes:

Looks like I picked a good week to start sniffing glue.

[Tricky]

Disregard for law and privacy? We are just ending an administration that tried to make its own rules with signing statements, executive orders, and legal memos. Indefinite detention without trial, secret prisons, torture, and suspension of habeus corpus. That gave us the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping. With retroactive immunity for the phone companies. And that is just the stuff we found out about. I'll take the Clinton administration over that any day of the week.
Ah, but they insisted on complete exclusion of prying eyes when it came to things like Cheney's meetings with Enron and on the memos of the Valerie Plame affair. How can you say they disregard privacy?

[Tricky]

Just a general statement using an analogue about the whole "change-but-the-same-people" thing.

A few years ago, my company dramatically changed the way they look for oil. In the past, we had teams of geologists, teams of engineers, teams of support staff etc. These teams worked with each other, since, after all, they each had the same type of expertise and would understand each other's work better than unrelated teams.

Problem was, communication between teams was wretched. The geologists didn't know what the engineers were doing and so forth. The company decided to reorganize into project teams, including only a few of each discipline of professional in a team. Networking between geologists on different teams was encouraged, but your primary responsibility was to the project, not the discipline. This was a highly successful strategy which enabled us to work much more efficiently than we had before, all because some people at the top recognized that we weren't using our resources to maximum effect.

So the change occurred. We became better. But it was with the same people. Retooling the way the company operates can make a tremendous difference (for better or worse) even without actually changing the tools. I see no reason why this same principle cannot work for administrations.

[BeAChooser]

1. I did not vote for Obama.

2. I only "defend the Clintons" inasmuch as I point out that you are completely full of it. I've never voted for either Clinton.

0 for 2, and again, your dishonesty is apparent.

Well then I'm curious why you joined this thread, Cleon. Obviously, you didn't want to talk about the OP ... which was clearly about Clinton's criminality and why Obama would want someone with that criminal past on his cabinet. You seem to want to derail that discussion into something else. You say I'm full of it, but yet offer nothing to prove I'm wrong in anything I posted about Clinton. So why don't you try that. Try sticking to the OP.

[BeAChooser]

I find your interpretation is disingenuous at best.

And I don't think you know Obama's constituency.

Now, I'm asking all posters on this thread to stick to the OP. If you want to discuss something other than Hillary's criminality and why Obama would pick someone with such a history, take it elsewhere because it's off-topic.

[BeAChooser]

Could you BE any more transparent in your attempt to just pick a fight and show your superiority? Dude, this was all hashed out during the election. Get over it. I see nothing in your claims that I didn't see over the past 18 months.

First of all, Hillary's criminality was NOT hashed out during the election ... it was ignored. You point out to me ONE mainstream article or media outlet that discussed her role in Chinagate, Filegate or the Vince Foster Scandal the last 18 months. Ball is in your court, DUDE.

[Darat]

Can you point me to a list of her criminal convictions?

[BeAChooser]

Can you point me to a list of her criminal convictions?

Why does someone have to have been convicted to have done something illegal? Maybe she wasn't convicted simply because her husband controlled both the Department of Justice and the FBi ... and the mainstream media was in their pocket so these matters got little public notice outside those conservatives who discussed them in a small number of venues.

My challenge is this ... if you think any charge I posted in the OP was unfair, then tell us why. Because I can back each up with credible sources.

For instance, it is a fact that Hillary denied even knowing Livingstone, yet there is sworn testimony by several (an FBI agent and members of the White House staff) that it was she who made the decision to hire Livingstone. There is also a statement by Livingstone saying that she hired him. And like I pointed out, there are numerous photos showing her in close, friendly proximity to Livingstone during the time she claims she didn't even know him. That being the case, there is also sworn testimony indicating she was the mastermind behind Filegate. And surely you aren't going to try and argue that Filegate was not a crime. :rolleyes:

[Cleon]

Well then I'm curious why you joined this thread, Cleon.

Waitaminnit...I don't conform to your biases, and because of that, you wonder why I joined this thread? :confused:


Obviously, you didn't want to talk about the OPWell, that's just silly. I'm the first comment after the OP, pointing out that selecting Hillary as SoS would be a change, as the current SoS is not Hillary Clinton...How was that not a comment on the OP?

[Cleon]

Why does someone have to have been convicted to have done something illegal? Maybe she wasn't convicted simply because her husband controlled both the Department of Justice and the FBi ... and the mainstream media was in their pocket so these matters got little public notice outside those conservatives who discussed them in a small number of venues.

Yay for conspiracy theories!

'Course, the slight hitch there is that for the past eight years, the FBI and DoJ haven't been controlled by Bill Clinton. And there are no statute of limitations on the crimes you accuse her of.

So is Bush in the pocket of the Clintons, too?


My challenge is this ... if you think any charge I posted in the OP was unfair, then tell us why.

*sigh* Here we go again...

Hillary was directly implicated in a coverup involving the possible murder of Vince Foster.


Your evidence for this?


The day Vince Foster was found dead, it was Livingstone who was dispatched to the morgue along with Associate White House Counsel Bill Kennedy to identify Foster's body. Circumstantial evidence certainly suggests Livingstone planted Foster's car keys in one of Foster's pants pockets during the morgue visit. The keys were retrieved later by Park Police who had already searched Foster's pockets at the scene and found nothing. Livingstone was also spotted at the White House the next morning by Secret Service agent Bruce Abbott, who claims he saw Livingstone and an unidentified partner removing a box of files and a briefcase from an area near Foster's office. It is known for a fact that her personal secretary went into Foster's office after his body was found and it was sealed by Park Police to remove boxes of material. Hillary was also the one of the first to see the so-called suicide note and there is testimony that she ordered staff not to tell Bill about it.


...None of which "directly implicates" Clinton in any coverup. That's even assuming that's all true, which I take with a grain of salt a huge honkin' saltshaker the entire Dead Sea's worth of salt.

It's more of the standard BaC Six-Degrees-to-Something-that-might-be-suspicious modus operandi.

[BeAChooser]

I'm the first comment after the OP, pointing out that selecting Hillary as SoS would be a change, as the current SoS is not Hillary Clinton...How was that not a comment on the OP?

Just because I used the word change in the OP doesn't make your post on-topic, Cleon. The topic is clearly about allegations of Hillary's criminality and why Obama would want her as Sec of State given those allegations. Not about her being a change, in and of itself.

Note that on a thread I started (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121199 ), in the OP I asked a single question ... "We let the Clintons and DNC get away with stealing two elections using illegal foreign contributions. Are we going to let Obama, too?" When posters challenged the validity of my assertion about the Clintons and DNC (in much the same vague manner you have), and I responded by posting detailed information on their criminality, I was informed by moderators and Admins that I was off-topic ... that the thread had to do only with Obama and his foreign contributions. My post on Clinton was moved to a separate thread and I received a warning. So if a post that specifically addressed an aspect of the Clinton's behavior that was mentioned in the thread's OP question is off-topic, I really doubt that a general discussion about "change" is on-topic in this thread. :)

[Cleon]

Just because I used the word change in the OP doesn't make your post on-topic, Cleon.

Oh, gee, I'm sorry if I didn't respond to the part of the OP you felt I should respond to. :rolleyes:

But if you honestly feel it was off-topic, report it, and the (other) moderators will handle it.

[skepticalbeliever]

I think Obama lied about all this change nonsense. All he has done is given us a Clinton restoration. But I wouldn't want Obama to have to make big foreign policy decisions with out holding Hillary Clintons hand because he doesn't have enough experience. All Obama is good for is giving speeches. There was no substance behind his candidacy.

[Cleon]

I think Obama lied about all this change nonsense. All he has done is given us a Clinton restoration.

And yet, that is certainly a change from the status quo.

[BeAChooser]

Yay for conspiracy theories!

Labeling something a conspiracy theory is not adequate to dismiss that theory. You've actually got to show the arguments made by those proposing the theory are invalid. I've provided specific facts (and could add many more to those) which indicate possible criminality on the part of Hillary and those close to Hillary. A proper approach to discrediting the allegations would be for you to show those facts aren't true. Anything less is simply spin.

Course, the slight hitch there is that for the past eight years, the FBI and DoJ haven't been controlled by Bill Clinton.

What makes you think Bush would order his DOJ and FBI to investigate these matters given that he told folks during his first campaign that he was going to "move on" with regards to allegations against the Clinton administration? In fact, if Bush wouldn't even prosecute in the Riady Non-Refund ... where Riady stood up in a California Courtroom and told a judge, under penalty of losing his plea agreement if he lied, that the Clintons and DNC had NOT returned millions in illegal contributions as they'd publically claimed (and the prosecuting attorney told the judge that was true to the best of his knowledge) ... why would you believe Bush would have gone after Hillary for anything? One of my biggest complaints about the Bush adminstration (the one that got me tossed off Free Republic) is that he didn't pursue many clear cases of criminality in the Clinton administration.

Bush had lots of understandable (even if I didn't agree with them) reasons for "moving on" ... not the least being the fear that if he went after the much beloved Clintons, he could forget about getting any of *his* agenda through Congress for the next several years. That was the reason many at Free Republic defended his moving on. He could also be certain the media would crucify him and Republicans in the next elections. Plus, he might set a precedent wherein the next administration would go after him for anything he might do that was the least bit shady. And finally, he may also have had other reasons ... several thousand of them .... the contents of those raw FBI data files on mostly republicans that Hillary's people were illegally entering into DNC and White House databases during Filegate. Remember that Special Prosecutor Ray admitted in a TV interview several years after Filegate that the files were STILL in White House hands, contrary to the public statement made by Ken Starr years earlier that they'd been returned to the FBI. Remember that George Stephanopoulus warned that if they went after Clinton there would be "scorched earth"? All of this is a matter of public record.

So why don't you just deal with the specifics I mentioned, instead of trying to lead this thread off on a derail?


Quote:
Hillary was directly implicated in a coverup involving the possible murder of Vince Foster.

Your evidence for this?


I'm surprised you even have to ask after all the years this was discussed by folks like me presenting facts like those below.

But in any case, let's start with the fact that Vince Foster, in addition to being deputy White House counsel, was the personal attorney to Bill and Hillary Clinton. In that position, he might know a lot about the illegal activities of the Clintons over the years. Wouldn't you agree? And Foster's connection to the Clinton's was mostly through Hillary. Vince and Hillary had been partners in the Rose Law Firm ... a scandal that was still being investigated at the time that Foster died.

Isn't it amazing that Vince Foster could leave the White House without leaving a video record or log entry showing that he left the White House? Isn't it amazing that Park Police would search his body at Fort Marcy Park and not find the keys to his car. They would only show up ... in the same pocket police searched earlier ... after Craig Livingstone visited the morgue to supposedly identify a body that had already been identified earlier that evening ... the same Livingstone that was involved in Filegate ... the same Livingstone that Hillary denied knowing but who multiple people, including Livingstone himself, said was hired by Hillary. And to add one more mystery to the mix, when emergency workers first examined Foster's car in the Fort Marcy Park parking lot, they found the car doors locked. Yet when police checked it, less than an hour later, the doors were unlocked. Hmmmmmm ...

But maybe that connection to Hillary is too tenuous. :)

Let's add the fact that Hillary's Chief of Staff, Margaret Williams, was observed by the Secret Service removing thick folders full of material from Foster's office just a few hours after his death ... before Park Police sealed the office. In fact, sealing of the office was apparently delayed by Hillary and Nussbaum so that this search could take place. Don't you find the timing of that a little curious? Don't you find the need to do it a little curious? What were she searching for, Cleon?

You realize, of course, that Williams had no official duties in that office. So what was she doing there? Do you think she went into that office without orders from Hillary? She was Hillary's Chief of Staff with an office right next to Hillary's. She was at Hillary's beck and call 24/7. Do you know that a Congressional committee which conducted 69 depositions and held 17 days of hearings on Foster's death (http://nick.assumption.edu/WebVAX/Foster/Mack6Mar96.html ) found that Hillary called Maggie Williams at 10:13 pm the night Foster died and that "right after talking with Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Williams proceeded to the White House to Mr. Foster's Office"? The committee also discovered that after searching Foster's office, Williams called Hillary back and they talked for 11 minutes. Yet when Fiske investigated the Foster death, guess who he didn't depose. Williams. Hmmmmm ...

Cleon, don't you find it suspicious that Williams said in testimony that "I took nothing from Vince's office. I didn't go into Foster's office with anything in mind concerning any documents that might be in his office. I did not look at, inspect, or remove any documents." whent Henry P. O'Neill, a Secret Service agent who was on duty that night, testified "I saw Maggie Williams walk out of the suite and turn to the right in the direction that I was standing. She was carrying, what I would describe, in her arms and hands, as folders."? Who should we believe? Maggie Williams or a Secret Service agent? And why did Hillary clearly send Williams to Foster's office? Can you answer that question or not?

Do you know that Williams later admitted to Whitewater investigators that Hillary ordered her to take sensitive documents from Foster's office two days after his death and store them in her bedroom closet for safekeeping? But given the above, isn't it more likely she actually picked them up the night of Foster's death? What would be so urgent as to require this? Well, I'm sure you heard that a document connected to Whitewater, with Hillary's fingerprints on it, magically appeared in the White House residence a few days after the statute of limitation on the Whitewater matter expired? So could Williams have been covering for Hillary that night? Could what was in that office or something else Foster was working on for the Clintons (like their much delayed Trust) have been a motive for murder?

By the way, guess what Maggie Williams was doing the last 9 months or so? Working on Hillary's campaign. In fact, Maggie Williams was Hillary's campaign manager for much of that time. Here's the way the NY Daily News described her back in February when her position in the campaign was announced: "Maggie Williams is renowned as the ultimate Hillary loyalist, fierce and unwavering in her devotion for nearly 25 years." Hmmmmm....

Witnesses also saw Patsy Thomasson, director of the White House's Office of Administration, in Foster's office during the same timeframe. Again, she had no duties in that office. She sat at Foster's desk, went through his files, reportedly looking for the combination to Foster's safe. Coincidently, two envelopes reported to be in the safe by Foster's secretary, Deborah Gorham, addressed to Janet Reno and to William Kennedy III, disappeared. When asked the next day about the safe opening, Mack McLarty, White House Chief of Staff, told reporters that Foster's office did not have a safe. But that claim was proven false in the final IOC report. So who sent Patty to Foster's office? Hillary?

After all, she was a very close friend of the Clintons and a former associate of drug dealer Dan Lasater, who also had a long history with the Clintons (including Roger). The records show that she covered for Hillary on other occasions. For example, she seems to have lied to Congress about the composition of Hillary's Health Care Task Force and it's budget. She also was implicated in TravelGate, which you should know Hillary helped instigate. Do you know the number of times that Patsy testified in court or before Congress and said she didn't remember, didn't know or something to that effect? From what I read ... 420 times ... almost a record where Clinton toadies were concerned.

Bernard Nussbaum also went into Foster's office before the Park Police arrived. He was Foster's superior so perhaps he had a reason. But what was that reason? To obstruct justice? When Park Police arrived, he prevented them from entering the office, citing "national security". Yet he allowed Patsy Thomasson into the office even though she had NO security clearance. And note that neither Williams or Thomasson worked under Nussbaum so that wasn't the reason they were there either.

Curiously enough, in the testimony that Williams, Thomasson and Nussbaum later gave, they differed on key points ... one being who got there first, who did what and who left last. But they were consistent about one thing. All denied taking anything from the office that night ... despite the fact one was observed doing so and there were documents reportedly missing. :rolleyes:

Now tell us, Cleon, are we expected to believe these three people went into Foster's office late at night on their own accord and just looked around or is it more likely that someone higher up ordered them to do this because there was something in the office they wanted removed? Maybe Bill was involved, but we know Hillary was. The phone calls prove it. In fact, there were numerous phone calls not only logged between Hillary and Williams but between Hillary and Nussbaum in hours after Foster's death.

Even more curious, at 11:19 pm Hillary called someone named Susan Thomases in New York. Three minutes after Williams spoke to Hillary following her search of Foster's office, she too called Thomases and spoke with her for 20 minutes. About what? When first confronted by the Congressional committtee, Williams denied having called Thomases at all. When the committee asked for her phone records to prove her claim, she and her lawyer stated they were not available. The committee obtained them a week later, and they proved that Williams lied.

And this wasn't the only time that White House staff denied talking to Thomases that night and in the following days. Phone records proved that several people lied about that. So who is Susan Thomases? Apparently, a New York lawyer and long time friend and advisor to Hillary, described as the "go-to" guy on the Clinton team. Something must have really spooked Hillary and Williams to call on her so late at night. And then to deny talking to her. But was she ever deposed by Fiske? No. But perhaps you could tell us her interest in Foster's death? :D

How about the fact that Craig Livingstone (who was already a key figure in what happened after Foster was discovered dead) was seen the next morning coming off an elevator after visiting the wing and floor where Foster's office was located carrying a briefcase and accompanied by an unidentified man carrying a box of loose leaf binders. He later denied removing anything from Foster's office but admitted to carrying a box of documents.

Now when Livingstone was questioned by Fiske's people, he reportedly gave statements that contradicted the account being given by the White House. A law enforcement source at the interrogation was quoted saying "it was clear to everyone in the room, including (Livingstone's) attorney, that he was not telling the truth" yet when Livingstone asked to stop the questioning, Fiske's people let him leave. Then during a second interview, he showed up with new legal representation and a story more in line with White House claims about what happened. At the second meeting, Livingstone's new attorney told investigators that Livingstone had been confused about the times, but had written a memo-to-file detailing the chronology of his activities ... and then told them the memo had disappeared. When investigators asked for a set of all Livingstone's memos to file, they were told he hadn't written any before or since. But despite all that, Fiske accepted Livingstone's memo story at face value. You see, Fiske was part of the coverup, too.

Is there any other reason to think Foster didn't just commit suicide and that ties back to Hillary? Well, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee concluded that Hillary was one of the first people to see the alleged suicide note. They said it was her instructions that Bill Clinton NOT be informed of its existence ... and that the note NOT be turned over to law enforcement. And it wasn't, until about 28 hours later. These facts are documented in the OIC report. Now a number of Clinton staffers swore under oath that the first lady had no role in the handling of Foster's note but a memo was discovered, written by White House lawyer Miriam Nemetz, quoting then-White House chief of staff Mack McLarty as saying Mrs. Clinton "was very upset and believed the matter required further thought and the president should not yet be told". Why would she do that, Cleon?

And what about that suicide note itself? You remember the story? Bernard Nussbaum opened and upended Foster's briefcase in front of Park Police, showing it to be empty. Three days later, Stephen Neuwirth, Associate Counsel to the President, announced that a suicide note was discovered in that briefcase. I'm sure you're thinking "that's proof" it was suicide. :rolleyes:

The government refused to release photocopies of the reconstructed note and fought efforts by The Wall Street Journal to obtain a copy under the Freedom of Information Act. Eventually a copy was leaked to the WSJ, however. Then, three noted and independent handwriting experts looked at the published note. All were board certified and all three declared the note an obvious forgery. Reed Irvine (of AIM) met with Sergeant Larry Lockhart, the U.S. Capitol Police handwriting expert who the government said concluded that the note was written by Foster. He showed Lockhart a sheet of paper with 12 words that were found in both the Foster letter that had been used to authenticate the note and the note itself. They had been copied and enlarged. Lockhart was told that these words came from two documents, neither of which was identified. He was asked if, in his professional opinion, all 12 words had been written by the same person. Lockhart conclude "very possibly" and "probably" they were NOT by the same person. He pointed out indications of conscious efforts to imitate the handwriting. When he was told he was reversing the opinion he gave the Park Police, he acknowledged that he had not used any enlargements for his 1993 analysis.

Furthermore, the note was undated and unsigned. It said nothing whatever about suicide or farewells to family and friends. The beginning and the end of the note are written in first person but the middle part is written in third person (and, curiously, exonerates the Clintons of all sorts of allegations). Finally, note that the FBI failed to find Foster's fingerprints on the note. And one more thing. The note was torn into pieces ... which the three experts said is a red flag for forgeries.

And Hillary was one of the first to see the note and then ordered it's existence kept secret from even her husband for 28 hours. And you don't find that the least bit suspicious, Cleon? :rolleyes:

And of course there are many other facts that suggest Foster did not commit suicide. There are so many I would have difficulty listing them all. They include the FBI tampering with evidence and witness intimidation by the FBI. They include the fact that Starr's chief investigator, Miquel Rodriquez, resigned saying there was a coverup. And my point is that if one concludes Foster didn't commit suicide, then it would make sense to look at those around him who might have had the most to gain from Foster dying. And Hillary and Bill would be on that list.

[gdnp]

Can you point me to a list of her criminal convictions?

Can you point me to a list of her indictments? Censures by the senate? Reprimands?

[Dr Adequate]

All Obama is good for is giving speeches. There was no substance behind his candidacy. Why do I never see the people who pretend that Obama's an empty suit debating with the people who pretend that he's a rabid ideologue?

Yes, the two fantasies fulfil the same emotional needs and appeal to the same sort of people, but surely they're mutually exclusive.

It reminds me somewhat of the tacit truce between the creationists who wish to pretend that Archaeopteryx is "a modern bird" and those who pretend that it's a dinosaur with feathers stuck on.

[joobie]

Why do I never see the people who pretend that Obama's an empty suit debating with the people who pretend that he's a rabid ideologue?

probably because they're the same people, who don't bother to realize the logical disconnect involved.

[Darat]

Why does someone have to have been convicted to have done something illegal?

...snip...

In the UK we have (on the whole) a justice system based on the concept of "innocent until proved guilty" and (on the whole) it is only courts that make the decision as to whether someone has done something criminal or not. So ggain I'll ask you, can you provide me with a list of her criminal convictions?

[Darat]

Can you point me to a list of her indictments? Censures by the senate? Reprimands?

What has this to do with my question to BeAChooser?

[Ausmerican]

What has this to do with my question to BeAChooser?

I think it was meant to add to your own question. Thereby pointing out that not only has HRC not been criminally convicted of anything but is AFAIK free of indictments, censures by the senate and reprimands as well. Just IMHO of course. gdnp may have meant something totally different in which case I am sure he'll say so.

[Darat]

Ah - that makes some sense.

[Cleon]

Labeling something a conspiracy theory is not adequate to dismiss that theory.

Tough.

*snip*

Again, none of that "directly implicates" Hillary Clinton.

The best you can do, again assuming your facts are correct (which is something I do not take for granted), is show nth-degree connections.

Which, again, do not "directly implicate" Hillary Clinton.

See, for you to use the phrase "directly implicate," you need to show evidence that she was directly involved. So far, you haven't--just more of your usual she knews someone who knew someone who did something you find suspicious.

[Tricky]

Can you point me to a list of her criminal convictions? Can you point me to a list of her indictments? Censures by the senate? Reprimands?
And this is the point where rabid anti-Clintonites reach logical disconnect.

The Clintons have been investigated more than any presidential family in history. They were so hated by the Republicans that they set an investigative team out to find dirt on them. The team had an enormous budget and carte blanche to follow almost anything, regardless of how unrelated to the the original "crime". Heck, even Ken Starr concluded that there was nothing suspicious about Vince Foster's suicide, and he was the most agressive Clinton pursuer on the planet. All these forces and brilliant minds arrayed against the Clintons and what were they able to get any substantial, indictable info on?

Lying about a blow job.

Oh sure, you can find as many "tell-all" books and partisan sources as you like that claim they have solid evidence on the Clintons, but if that evidence is so solid then why wouldn't it hold up in court? Are the wicked Clintons so powerful that they could successfully thwart the entire judicial system of the United States?

I am no great fan of the Clintons, but the tenacity and refusal to quit demonstrated by the anti-Clinton people, in the face of all evidence, puts Twoofers to shame.

[gdnp]

What has this to do with my question to BeAChooser?

Sorry, I was agreeing with you. I should have prefaced my statement, which was addressed to BAC: "BeAChooser, could you present us with a list of her indictments..."

Although indictments don't prove guilt, they at least suggest that there is enough evidence that someone thinks that it is worth the time and effort to examine the question. He cannot even meet this low threshold.

ETA: thus demonstrating that I should refrain from posting after 1 AM. On a work day .

[Ladewig]

Bush had lots of understandable (even if I didn't agree with them) reasons for "moving on" ... not the least being the fear that if he went after the much beloved Clintons, he could forget about getting any of *his* agenda through Congress for the next several years. That was the reason many at Free Republic defended his moving on. He could also be certain the media would crucify him and Republicans in the next elections.

Given that neither of those reasons apply now, why doesn't he sic the DOJ on the Clintons? If he is afraid of allegations of political persecution, why doesn't he appoint an independent investigator?

Plus, he might set a precedent wherein the next administration would go after him for anything he might do that was the least bit shady.

If he didn't do anything shady, why should he fear an investigation?


And finally, he may also have had other reasons ... several thousand of them .... the contents of those raw FBI data files on mostly republicans that Hillary's people were illegally entering into DNC and White House databases during Filegate. Remember that Special Prosecutor Ray admitted in a TV interview several years after Filegate that the files were STILL in White House hands, contrary to the public statement made by Ken Starr years earlier that they'd been returned to the FBI. Remember that George Stephanopoulus warned that if they went after Clinton there would be "scorched earth"? All of this is a matter of public record.

So what? What exactly do you think is in these FBI files that would make Republicans afraid of prosecuting treason and murder?

[Darth Rotor]

About Hillary as SoS (I am glad you recognize here quality, Tricky, similar to the savory tidbit served in Army mess halls . . . )

How is Hillary Clinton as SoS a change, as viewed by the Muslim Heads of State in the Middle East? (Not that I care all that much, but maybe they do, and maybe that colors the ability to make deals.)

She voted for the Iraq war. Her husband's administration supported various 1990's initiatives pursuing women's rights in a global context. This might have pre poisoned the well for her, in their eyes. (Hard to say.)

I read a fine editorial this weekend that asks this question:

Will she be a good and faithful servant to Obama? Will he have her back when she is out executing her duties as SoS? Or, will the heads of those important states be able to exploit an internal schism? The article touched upon how Lincoln's cabinet was in may ways dysfunctional, despite his having kept his enemies close.

DR

[BeAChooser]

Can you point me to a list of her indictments? Censures by the senate? Reprimands?

I give you the same response I gave Darat. Since when does someone have to have been indicted to have done something illegal? People commit crimes all the time and never get indicted or convicted. You know this. Especially if the person committing the crime controls the police and prosecutorial system. In Hillary's case, her husband controlled the FBI and DOJ.

As far as the senate is concerned, they couldn't even convict Bill in a trial where he clearly committed impeachable offenses. Even Senator Byrd admitted that he did commit impeachable offenses then voted to acquit. So Hillary was in a real sense, *above the law*.

You, like all the rest, don't want to face the question of what Hillary told Williams immediately before and after Williams searched Foster's office. You don't want to face the question of why she clearly lied to investigators. And you won't face the fact that she didn't get indicted and prosecuted despite committing perjury. Like I said, it happens all the time when the people committing the crimes control government.

You like all the rest here simply want to avoid facing the very real possibility that Vince Foster didn't die of suicide like the Clinton administration claimed. Because then you'd have to take a really hard look at the conduct of the Clinton administration. And that might open up a whole can of worms.

The simple truth is this. The claim that Foster committed suicide rests almost entirely on the assertion that he was severely depressed. But that assertion is full of gaping holes ... and lies by the government. Let me prove it.

Fiske claimed that Foster's weight loss was "obvious to many". But Foster's medical records are consistent with Foster losing no weight, based on his weight just before starting his White House job and his weight when he died. They indicate he weighed 207 pounds in August of 1990. On December 31, 1992, at a physical the month before he went to Washington, he weighed 194 pounds, and according to his doctor's notes was on a diet and exercising. Foster's autopsy weight was 197 pounds. So in fact, the records show that Foster gained about 3 pounds from the start of employment to his death. In short, Fiske lied.

Fiske claimed the Foster family doctor prescribed an "anti-depressant" the day before the death. The doctor, however, told the FBI that he did not think Foster was significantly depressed and that the prescription was merely to help Foster sleep better. The amount of the drug he proscribed was about one-fifth the initial average daily dosage to treat depression which supports the doctor's explanation. Again, Fiske lied.

The FBI and Foster claimed that Lisa Foster said her husband was "fighting depression." But the handwritten FBI interview notes from May 9, 1994 show that she told the investigators he was "fighting" a "prescription" for sleeping pills dispensed several months earlier for insomnia. According to Lisa, he was concerned the sleeping pills could be addictive. But the typed FD-302 report of the interview states in the equivalent location that Foster had been "fighting depression." In other words, the FBI altered the interview report to enhance Fiske's claim that Foster was depressed.

Fiske and the administration claimed that Foster's family and friends noted Foster's depression. Again, that's a lie. During the first few days after his death, before the claims of depression were made by the government, when those people were interviewed, NONE of them mentioned any signs of depression, and they were all stunned by his suicide. The Park Police conducted a 70 minute interview of the family and friends who gathered at his house the night he was found dead. If Foster had been as severely depressed in the weeks before he died as the Clinton administration claimed, those interviewed that night should have described symptoms of clinical depression. They did not.

Here are some specific quotes from the Senate depositions and testimony of the Park Police regarding those interviews:


One of the last things I got from Mrs. Foster - I asked her was he - did you see this coming, was [sic] there any signs of this. . . .everyone said no, no, no, no, he was fine. This is out of the blue. . . [Foster's sister, Sheila Anthony] was talking with us. . . I spoke with her, [the other Park Police Investigator present in the Foster home] spoke with her. She was very cordial. I remember asking her, did you see any of this coming, and she stated, no. Nobody would say anything about depression or that they noticed some signs, they were worried." "[We] asked, was there anything, did you see this forthcoming [sic], was there anything different about him, has he been depressed, and all the answers were no."


The Senate staff attorney asked the investigator this:


Q: Did anyone at the notification [the death notification and initial interviews at the Foster home, 9:00 - 10:10 PM EDT on July 20 mention depression or anti depressant medication that Foster might have been taking?

A: I mentioned depression, did you see this coming, were there any signs, has he been taking any medication? No. All negative answers.


In short, Fiske lied AGAIN.

Three secretaries in the White House Office of Legal Counsel were interviewed by the Park Police two days after the death (according to Park Police notes). Here is what the notes said: "There was nothing unusual about his emotional state. In fact, over the last several weeks she did not notice any changes, either physically or emotionally. She noticed no weight loss." "Mr. Foster's demeanor seemed normal to her." "She stated that she did not note any unusual behavior by Mr. Foster on [the day he died]". That last was Foster's personal secretary. This just doesn't match the suicide theory at all. In short, Fiske LIED.

Lab work done as a part of the autopsy of Foster immediately after his death included specific tests for the presence of antidepressants. The tests all came back negative. Dr. Anh Hyunh, who did the blood toxicology, stated in the official report that no Trazodone (an antidepressant) or Valium-derivatives were found. It was not until a re-test of the blood months later by the FBI Lab that the presence of both Trazodone and Valium was reported - just before Fiske issued his June 30, 1994 report claiming Foster was clinically depressed. Isn't it obvious, gdnp, that they lied to help confirm Fiske's claim? And we now know, thanks to the testimony of Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, who worked at FBI labs during this time, that the FBI Labs were routinely tampering with evidence. Whitehurst sued the FBI as a whistleblower regarding tampering and received a substantial cash settlement from the FBI, suggesting his allegations had merit.

The first known official claim that Foster had been taking anti-depressant medication, came from Lisa Foster nine days after the death. She told the Park Police that Foster had taken Trazodone [Desyrel] the night before he died. When asked how she knew this, the notes say "LF [Lisa Foster] told VF [Vince Foster] to take one and she also saw him take it." But the night of the death, when asked by the Park Police if her husband had been taking any medication, specifically any anti-depressant medication, she said NO. One wonders given the history of the Clinton administration at witness intimidation, what sort of *encouragement* Lisa was subjected to in order to get her to change her story? Maybe the experience of Patrick Knowlton is a clue. Or Juanita Broaddrick. Or Paula Jones.

The change in Lisa's story occurred in a session with Park Police in her attorney's office, three days after the discovery of the torn note (a note whose *discovery* and characteristics are highly suspicious as I noted earlier in this thread). The meeting occurred two days after she and her attorney attended a meeting at the White House to discuss the then still-secret torn note. Also suspicious is what the deposition of the officer who conducted the *interview* reveals. He said "You know, we didn't have to question her a whole lot." He says the widow gave more of a verbal statement than an interview. The officer thought "she had gone over it with her lawyer so many times she had it down pat. . . I don't think we ever asked her a direct question." And note that investigators did not interview any of Foster children because the attorney "would not make them accessible to us." Don't you agree that's a LITTLE suspicious, gdnp?

And what about this attorney of Lisa's ... James Hamilton? Do you know that he made a point, during the Lisa Foster's FBI interview, to remind everyone that photos of the suicide note were not to be allowed out, even in response to a Freedom of Information Act Request. Now how could he make such a demand? Where did his authority really come from? Well let me give you a clue. Hamilton was general counsel of the Clinton transition team and the author of a memo to Clinton counseling stonewalling in the Whitewater case (that's the one connected to the documents that they took from Foster's office and later found on Hillayr's nightstand). And note that Hamilton is the lawyer that helped keep the Foster photos under lock and key recently ... the photos that might have told us whether Foster was murdered ... because there serious doubt (which I can discuss if you like) about the nature of the wound. The government claimed one thing. Many other facts point to something entirely different.

Another example of a sudden change in witness testimony from "no depression" to "depression" came from Beryl Anthony, who was married to Foster's sister, Sheila, the Assistant Attorney General in Clinton's Administration. Beryl was a former Democrat Congressman from Arkansas and a former President of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In an interview on July 22, when asked if Foster had been depressed during the two weeks prior to death, Beryl is quoted saying: "There is not a damn thing to it. That's a bunch of crap." But suddenly on July 27, the night the torn note was given to Park Police, his story miraculously changed. He told the Park Police (according to the interview report) "that he and his wife had noticed a gradual decline in Mr. Foster's general disposition to the point of depression." And he claimed that his wife had given Mr Foster a list of three counselors, psychiatrists or other doctors who do counseling. And guess who else was at that White House meeting to discuss the torn note that Lisa attended? Sheila Anthony. Are you getting the least bit suspicious yet, gdnp?

You should be ... if you are really a skeptic. But I'm almost certain that none of you self-proclaimed *skeptic*s on this thread will touch the above facts with a ten foot pole. Because your skepticism seems to be influenced by your political leanings.

[Darat]

I give you the same response I gave Darat.

...snip...

Which was "none".

[BeAChooser]

In the UK we have (on the whole) a justice system based on the concept of "innocent until proved guilty" and (on the whole) it is only courts that make the decision as to whether someone has done something criminal or not. So ggain I'll ask you, can you provide me with a list of her criminal convictions?

Darat, are you using a 100 foot pole?

A crime is an act committed in violation of a law. It is a crime regardless of whether the act is investigated or prosecuted. It is DESERVING of punishment and may be punished on conviction, but it was a crime even if it wasn't investigated and prosecuted.

Now instead of spinning in this manner, why don't you tell us what Hillary told Williams to do and what Williams did the night of Foster's death. And then try to convince us that wasn't obstruction of justice.

[BeAChooser]

Again, none of that "directly implicates" Hillary Clinton.

Well then you should be able to tell us what Hillary ordered Williams to do the night of Fosters death. What did they talk about in the phone call before Williams searched Foster's office and in the phone call immediately after she did? What did Williams remove from the office? Where did she put it? And what did both she and Hillary discuss with Susan Thomases? And where did the documents that the secretary said were in the safe go? Furthermore, why did Hillary and her staff lie about Hillary not being involved in the handling of the suicide note? Why didn't she immediatedly turn that note over to authorities? Why did she even try to keep it secret from her husband? Since you seem to think you know all the answers, Cleon, fill us in on these details. :D

assuming your facts are correct (which is something I do not take for granted)

I can't help if you wish to stick your head in the ground, Cleon. The facts I've listed can be verified via many quite credible sources. You only have to use your browser. Did I mention they held senate hearings on the matter? Did you ever read about Patrick Knowlton and the addendum he wrote that a court ORDERED be attached to Starr's report on the death of Vince Foster? Or did you keep your head in the ground the whole time those things were being discussed? :D

[Cleon]

Well then you should be able to tell us what Hillary ordered Williams to do the night of Fosters death. What did they talk about in the phone call before Williams searched Foster's office and in the phone call immediately after she did? What did Williams remove from the office? Where did she put it? And what did both she and Hillary discuss with Susan Thomases? And where did the documents that the secretary said were in the safe go? Furthermore, why did Hillary and her staff lie about Hillary not being involved in the handling of the suicide note? Why didn't she immediatedly turn that note over to authorities? Why did she even try to keep it secret from her husband? Since you seem to think you know all the answers, Cleon, fill us in on these details. :D


No. The onus is not on me to answer your claims.

If you have something that "directly implicates" Hillary Clinton, produce it. Innuendo, "why did so-and-so do such-and-such" questions, and conjecture do not "directly implicate" anyone.

So come on, BAC, fill us in on the evidence that "directly implicates" Hillary Clinton.

They were your words. Substantiate them.

And I almost forgot: :D

[gdnp]

Did I mention they held senate hearings on the matter?

I suspect you probably did. You seem to bring Foster up quite frequently. Did their report directly implicate Hillary Clinton in any criminal wrongdoing?

Did you ever read about Patrick Knowlton and the addendum he wrote that a court ORDERED be attached to Starr's report on the death of Vince Foster?

No Did it directly implicate Hillary Clinton in any criminal wrongdoing?

ETA: You see, BAC, I don't have time to analyze all of the material you have posted on the matter. I don't really have the interest to read it. He said this, then she said that, doesn't that raise suspicions...I don't know. I assume that the police, FBI, and (since you report it) Starr and the senate did investigations where they analyzed these discrepancies in gory detail and came up with conclusions. I would much rather review the conclusions of these groups as they relate to Clinton than try to repeat their work on my home computer. And since I have not seen any claim that any of these investigators have recommended Clinton be prosecuted, I conclude that there is probably not much there.

[Tricky]

A crime is an act committed in violation of a law. It is a crime regardless of whether the act is investigated or prosecuted. It is DESERVING of punishment and may be punished on conviction, but it was a crime even if it wasn't investigated and prosecuted.
But if an alleged crime is investigated and the investigators determine that there is not enough evidence to charge someone with, much less punish them for the alleged crime, then it is not a crime.

Vincent Foster's death was investigated no fewer than three times (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp), the last time by Kenneth Starr's crew. No evidence for a crime was found. None of your so-called "evidence" (which was present during the previous investigations) has ever been good enough to cause a new investigation. Therefore, by every legal definition, there has been no crime.

You are quite simply wrong.

[BeAChooser]

And this is the point where rabid anti-Clintonites reach logical disconnect.

ROTFLOL! Having difficulty logically dealing with the specific facts I've noted, Tricky? Have you nothing concrete to challenge them with? Why is it that EVERY time these facts get mentioned we hear the same disconnect from you folks? Rather than directly address the facts we get arguments like the following:

The Clintons have been investigated more than any presidential family in history.

Yeah, we've heard this argument before, Tricky. Countless times. Investigated by whom? A DOJ and FBI that was clearly corrupt and controlled by the Clintons? Some special prosecutors that the Clinton's helped pick and who demonstrably lied to the public on various occasions? By a mainstream media that fell over itself idolizing the Clintons and protecting democrats? Or how about Congress? Did you ever read the book by David Schippers (A DEMOCRAT) on the impeachment? If not, you might find this interesting: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_1_17/ai_72273372 . But I warn you ... it doesn't paint a pretty picture of the Senate's interest in truth. Or the Clintons.

They were so hated by the Republicans that they set an investigative team out to find dirt on them.

This thread isn't about hate, Tricky. That's a red herring on your part. It's about facts and truth, and logical implications. Silly me. I thought that was what this forum was about.

Heck, even Ken Starr concluded that there was nothing suspicious about Vince Foster's suicide

And yet, his top investigator resigned, stating that Starr was covering up what really happened. There are lots of reasons to believe Starr was controlled by the Clintons, Tricky.

He was the second name on the list of candidates provided by the Clintons for the job of independent counsel. Does anyone honestly think the Clintons, crafty as they are, would have left that position to chance? I think they had some means of controlling what Starr investigated and what he didn't investigate.

The proof that Starr was corrupt is that he blew every single investigation he was involved in, he tampered with evidence and he didn't investigate certain other important allegations even though they were timely and impeachable. His untrustworthiness is most starkly seen in Filegate and Fostergate, the two gates he actually did *investigate*. And both connect to Hillary.

In Filegate, for example, a tiny little outfit called Judicial Watch found out more about what happened using the FOIA and depositions in civil cases than Starr found out with the full power of the DOJ and FBI behind him? How could that be?

There was sworn testimony ... from democrats, no less ... that Hillary Clinton was behind Filegate. Yet Starr spent less than 10 minutes interviewing her ... asking innocuous questions. There is sworn testimony that she ordered the collection of the data in the files. Yet Starr spends less than 10 minutes *chatting* with her as friendly as can be. Something is definitely wrong with this picture and even a blind man would *see* it.

Starr also failed to ask the key witness, Linda Tripp, numerous important questions. Tripp commented about this later on, expressing her surprise at how little he delved into the matter. Most of the missing files were discovered not by Starr, but by that little outfit, Judicial Watch. And Starr never did learn who hired Livingstone. But now we know, don't we. Yes, there is definitely something wrong with this picture. :D

Another reason to suspect Starr in this matter (a big one, I think) is that he told the public that the illegally obtained files (containing blackmail material that was being illegally loaded onto DNC computers) had been returned to the FBI. But years later, Independent Counsel Ray, who took over from Starr, revealed in a TV interview that the files were still in the White House. In other words, Starr lied to the public and the blackmail material remained in Clinton's hands for years. Plenty of time to get it onto DNC computers.

Now regarding Starr's involvement in the Foster case, it is true that he *investigated* for a year and published a report exonerating everyone. But you ignore a few important details.

First is the fact that Starr was sent in to investigated after questions arose about the impartiality of the first name on the Independent Counsel candidate list, Mr. Fiske. I ask you ... if one independent counsel could be turned, why not two?

Second, you forgot to mention that this was the first time in history where the panel of judges supervising the IOC required that an addendum, basically accusing the OIC of witness tampering and evidence tampering, be attached to the final report. This is the famous Knowlton addendum which blasts the OIC for failing to address numerous facts and which charges the OIC with witness intimidation. See http://www.fbicover-up.com/ for more information. And then read these two links from AIM: http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-the-independent-counsels-final-report/ and http://www.aim.org/publications/special_reports/2003/jul15.html . Keep in mind that the evidence presented to the court by Knowlton stands uncontradicted to this day. The court rulings against Knowlton in the matter provided NO analysis whatsoever of the evidence. In short, they were nothing but a coverup too.

Third, you forgot to mention Starr’s lead investigator, Miquel Rodriguez, a rather important person. As I noted, he resigned saying that his investigation was obstructed by the OIC itself. Rodriquez says Mark Tuohey, head of the OIC in Washington, warned him he was not to challenge the findings of the Fiske Report. That's suspicious to say the least.

And Starr failed to tell the three judge panel and the public about an FBI memo to the Director of the FBI written two days after the death stating that the shot was fired into Foster's mouth without leaving an exit wound, which directly contradicts Starr's report which says there was an exit wound in the back of the head. And when Miquel Rodriguez got hold of the original photograph, he said he had the Smithsonian institution blow it up. He says the blowups show a dime-sized wound on the right side of Foster’s neck about half way between the chin and the ear ... a wound never mentioned by Fiske, Starr or in the official autopsy report. Furthermore, four of the rescue workers testified in secret before the Whitewater grand jury that they saw trauma to the side of Foster’s head or neck. This information was submitted to Kenneth Starr in a memorandum from Miquel Rodriguez summing up the proceedings of the Whitewater grand jury. Again, Starr didn't tell the judges or mention this in the official report. Something definitely smells in this case and with regard to honesty of your sainted Kenneth Starr.

According to Accuracy in Media, when Starr released his report about Foster, he refused to make public the reports written by three consultants that he had hired to study the case. AIM sued the OIC to obtain them. Turns out that in one report submitted by a Dr. Brian Blackbourne, the San Diego County medical examiner, Dr. Blackbourne reports meeting with Dr. James Beyer, the 75-year-old medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Foster. He wrote "I discussed the autopsy X-rays with him." Now that suggests that there were autopsy X-rays to discuss, but Dr. Beyer has testified under oath that he did not take any X-rays, even though he checked the "X-rays taken" box on the autopsy report. When asked about that discussion of the X-rays, Dr. Blackbourne admitted that it was actually about the absence of X-rays. According to Blackbourne, Dr. Beyer explained their absence by claiming his X-ray machine was not working on the day he performed the autopsy. That was what he had told the FBI and a Senate committee. But AIM learned that the first call to service this brand new machine was made over three months after Foster’s death. On hearing that, Dr. Blackbourne asked, "Do you mean that they couldn’t take any X-rays for three months?" No, what it meant is that Dr. Beyer was lying about the machine not working. And Starr’s investigators, and presumably Starr himself, knew that the claim that the machine was not working was false. We know that because the record of that first service call on Oct. 29 was included among the documents AIM obtained from the OIC. They had investigated Dr. Beyer’s excuse and had found the proof that it was false, but they did nothing about it. And that's just the tip of what one can say about the Foster case and Starr's *investigation*.

And finally, like I noted, another sign that Starr wasn't the honest investigator that you claim he was is that he didn't bother to even investigate other serious allegations that surfaced concurrently with his tenure. Such as the death of Ron Brown. Allegations made by military forensic pathologists and a military photographer who were involved in the crash investigation. David Schippers said he would have investigated the matter of Ron Brown ... if he hadn't been sold out. What Starr did instead of investigating (remember, this was connected to CampaignFinanceGate and Chinagate, which Starr also ignored) is interesting. Just prior to the Brown allegation surfacing, Starr announced he would be wrapping up his investigations (having found nothing) and going home. But when the Brown allegations began to get some traction in the media and, more important, noticed in the black community, all of a sudden, Monica surfaced with her sex and drug stained dress. My bet is that Clinton and Starr realized that a sleazy sex scandal that probably wouldn't lead to impeachment would trump a mass murder allegation in the press and public's mind any day of the week. And they were right. And even then, Starr blew the Monica investigation. Rather than trap Clinton with his knowledge of the dress' existance and what it showed, he told Clinton they had the dress and thereby lost any chance of catching Clinton committing perjury. Any honest prosecutor would have made that attempt.

Want to try spinning some more for Clinton, Tricky?

I am no great fan of the Clintons

Yeah. Sure you are. We believe you. :rolleyes:

[Darth Rotor]

ROTFLOL! Having difficulty logically dealing with the specific facts I've noted, Tricky? Have you nothing concrete to challenge them with? Why is it that EVERY time these facts get mentioned we hear the same disconnect from you folks?
--snip--
Want to try spinning some more for Clinton, Tricky?
--snip--
Yeah. Sure you are. We believe you. :rolleyes:
BAC, is it possible for you to present your points using about 1/3 of the calories of your regular beer? The wall of text is a less than useful tactic, if you are trying to make a point.

One of the rumors behind Foster killing himself was an alleged affair with the First Harpy. The more I ponder it, the more sense it makes.

*cut to scene seven*

Foster stares dejectedly at his manhood, tears of contrition on dripping from his cheeks.

"I have dishonored you!"

*Gun hammer is pulled back by a thumb. Camera pans to a picture of Foster's familly that sits on his desk. We hear the sound of the bang, fade out*

(The language used is a deliberate spoof on Jimmy Swaggert's very public apology to his wife after the hooker incident.)

DR

[Cleon]

So Ken Starr is part of the conspiracy, too. Wow. Just...wow.

[gdnp]

Ken Starr: in the pocket of the Clintons. I must have woken up on Bizarro earth today.

[BeAChooser]

Given that neither of those reasons apply now, why doesn't he sic the DOJ on the Clintons?

Oh I think you can think of some reasons if you honestly try. Or maybe it just has to do with Mena? :D


If he didn't do anything shady

Who says he hasn't done anything shady? Certainly not Obama's supporters and the democrats. :D

So what? What exactly do you think is in these FBI files that would make Republicans afraid of prosecuting treason and murder?

They must contain something deemed rather serious when the penalty for illegally obtaining even one them is so severe. Perhaps its because they contain "raw" data. You know ... the FBI visits your enemies and asks about you.

By the way, are you also having trouble addressing the specific facts I mentioned about Filegate and Fostergate? Because you seem desperate to avoid discussing those facts. But maybe I can entice you into telling us why Hillary called Williams just before she visited Foster's office ... if it had nothing to do with obstruction of justice. :D

[BeAChooser]

The onus is not on me to answer your claims.

Why not? You obviously claim that Hillary's conversations with Williams immediately before and after Williams searched Foster's office were innocent and unrelated ... and contained nothing suggestive of a crime. Yet, Williams lied when asked about her activities. Yet, it's now admitted that documents prosecutors were seeking at the time were taken from Foster's office and put in Hillary's closet in the White House. Documents regarding Whitewater that had Hillary's fingerprints on them. Do you know that she testified under oath that she had nothing to do with the documents during the two years they were missing and did not know how they ended up in her residence at the White House? How gullible are you, Cleon? How uninformed are you ... because this was even reported in the NY Times. :rolleyes:

[gdnp]

But maybe I can entice you into telling us why Hillary called Williams just before she visited Foster's office ... if it had nothing to do with obstruction of justice. :D

BAC, have you been advising The Professor in developing his protocol for the MDC? You seem to be using quite similar logic. You see, The Professor essentially wants to perform a magic trick, and if the JREF cannot explain how he did it have the results assumed paranormal so he can collect the big check.

You are quite fond of throwing out situations like the one above: you wish us to prove that the phone call did not involve obstruction of justice, otherwise "you win".

Sorry, that's not how it works. I have no idea what the phone call in question involved. If you have proof that it involved obstruction of justice, please submit it. Otherwise you lose.

[timhau]

This thread isn't about hate, Tricky. That's a red herring on your part. It's about facts and truth, and logical implications.

Ah! So that's why you look so out of place here. Hey, let me show you a way out. I'll introduce you to a pull-down menu and a little button so you can get to the Conspiracy Theory sections.

[BeAChooser]

Did their report directly implicate Hillary Clinton in any criminal wrongdoing?

You see folks, in gdnp's (and all these other *skeptics'*) world the ONLY way that Hillary Clinton can be directly implicated in a crime is if she admits under oath that she personally went to Foster's office and carried out documents related to Whitewater (and who knows what else) and hid them in her closet in the While House residence. That she obviously ordered someone to do that, makes it all ok. :rolleyes:

It makes you wonder what these Obama supporters may allow Obama to get away with during his administration. :D

ETA: You see, BAC, I don't have time to analyze all of the material you have posted on the matter. I don't really have the interest to read it.

You see folks, that's often the response from these folks. They won't even read the facts that are posted about these events. I understand why. It would shatter their whole partisan world view if they did. So they stick their head in the ground and PRETEND they are skeptics. PRETEND they value truth. PRETEND they believe in the rule of law. :rolleyes:

[Cleon]

Why not?

Because it's your claim. You do the substantiation.


You obviously claim that Hillary's conversations with Williams immediately before and after Williams searched Foster's office were innocent and unrelated

I claimed no such thing, one way or the other.

It's up to you to substantiate your claims, not for others to answer your questions.

Do you, or do you not, have any evidence that "directly implicates" Hillary Clinton?

So far, you haven't produced any.

[ANTPogo]

You see folks, in gdnp's (and all these other *skeptics'*) world the ONLY way that Hillary Clinton can be directly implicated in a crime is if she admits under oath that she personally went to Foster's office and carried out documents related to Whitewater (and who knows what else) and hid them in her closet in the While House residence. That she obviously ordered someone to do that, makes it all ok. :rolleyes:

Some sort of conviction or even a formal charge in a court of law would certainly help. All your "say, isn't this suspicious?" dross cut and pasted from looney websites doesn't replace actual, y'know, evidence.



You see folks, that's often the response from these folks. They won't even read the facts that are posted about these events. I understand why. It would shatter their whole partisan world view if they did. So they stick their head in the ground and PRETEND they are skeptics. PRETEND they value truth. PRETEND they believe in the rule of law. :rolleyes:

I find the parallels between this and "truther" posts over in the 9-11 Conspiracy Theories subforum rather interesting.

[gdnp]

You see folks, in gdnp's (and all these other *skeptics'*) world the ONLY way that Hillary Clinton can be directly implicated in a crime is if she admits under oath that she personally went to Foster's office and carried out documents related to Whitewater (and who knows what else) and hid them in her closet in the While House residence.

Witnesses would also work. Videotapes. Fingerprints.

That she obviously ordered someone to do that, makes it all ok. Obvious as long as your initials are B-A-C. Not to anyone else here. I am surprised that you still haven't cottoned on to that fact.

It makes you wonder what these Obama supporters may allow Obama to get away with during his administration. Wondering seems to be what you are best at.

You see folks, that's often the response from these folks. They won't even read the facts that are posted about these events.
Time is limited. Learn to present your arguments in a concise, unbiased, intelligent fashion and perhaps someone will pay attention.

Sorry, lunch is over. Work to do. :D

[BeAChooser]

But if an alleged crime is investigated and the investigators determine that there is not enough evidence to charge someone with, much less punish them for the alleged crime, then it is not a crime.

Not if the investigators are themselves part of the coverup. You are welcome to address the many specific instances I noted where Fiske and Starr LIED about the facts and tampered with evidence in the Foster case. But I note you aren't willing to go near those allegations with a ten foot pole. You just throw out some vague defense instead.

Vincent Foster's death was investigated no fewer than three times (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp), the last time by Kenneth Starr's crew.

Who is to say snopes is impartial when it comes to Clinton and democrats? I recently proved on this forum that Snopes makes claims they can't back up when they dismiss the allegations regarding William Ayers (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4173209&postcount=29 ). I have proved several times on this forum that Snopes lied about the Ron Brown case at that very link you provided (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3910399&postcount=107 ).

So why should we trust Snopes now?

Notice that Snopes doesn't address any of the facts I noted. They simply ignore them, like you are doing. I don't find that very convincing. It makes me suspect the impartiality of Snopes. You say they dismiss this because they say there were three investigations ... one by the coroner, one by Fiske and one by Starr. But Snopes fails to mentions all the questions surrounding the coroner's work. It fails to mention the many facts proving that Fiske LIED in his claims about Foster's supposed depression. It fails to mention that Starr didn't do much more than regurgitate Fiske's lies and that Starr's top investigator even resigned saying the OIC was covering up foul play.

Note that Snopes states "Vince Foster committed suicide on the night of 20 July 1993 by shooting himself once in the head, a day after he contacted his doctor about his depression." But that claim is untrue. The doctor said Foster contacted him about INSOMNIA and he proscribed medication that was 1/6th the dose normally used to treat depression.

Note that Snopes states "A note in the form of a draft resignation letter was found in the bottom of his briefcase a week after his death" but fails to mention that the briefcase in question was checked earlier in the presence of Park Police and it contained no note. Also unmentioned is that the note was torn into little pieces and that multiple experts say the note is a clear forgery. And unmentioned is the fact that the Police officer who who made the original determination that the note was written by Foster, now says it was NOT. Nor was it mentioned that the note was keep secret for over a day because Hillary didn't even want Bill to know about the note. You see, there's a lot about that note that Snopes conveniently overlooks.

Snopes claims "the 114-page summary of a three-year investigation concluded that Foster shot himself with the pistol discovered in his right hand. There was no sign of a struggle, nor any evidence he'd been drugged or intoxicated or that his body had been moved." What Snopes ignores is that many questions were left unanswered ... many facts simply ignored. Facts that suggest the body was indeed moved and the gun was planted. For starters, check this out: http://www.fbicover-up.com/proof/index.htm .

You are quite simply wrong.

No, you are not really a skeptic ... at least where matters democrat are concerned. :D

[BeAChooser]

BAC, is it possible for you to present your points using about 1/3 of the calories of your regular beer? The wall of text is a less than useful tactic, if you are trying to make a point.

I wish there were, DR. But there are so many intertwined facts leading to suspicion in this case it is difficult not to be produce lengthy posts. And as you can see by the behavior in evidence here, that even when my posts are concise and deal with only a single set of suspicious facts, they still are ignored. These posters can't even see that Hillary calling Williams immediately prior to searching Foster's office and then their talking again minutes after Williams finished searching the office is connected. :rolleyes:

But for anyone else out there who might read this thread, hopefully I've provided some details and links they've never known existed. So now they can be skeptical about what they did read regarding the Foster matter ... and Hillary's involvement in it. And then they can ask themselves whether Obama putting Hillary into the Secretary of State slot would bode well for his administration. :rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

So Ken Starr is part of the conspiracy, too. Wow. Just...wow.

So Cleon, what's your explanation for Starr telling the public that the files in Filegate had been returned to the FBI, then Ray admitting years later that the files were still in the White House? :D

[BeAChooser]

I have no idea what the phone call in question involved. If you have proof that it involved obstruction of justice, please submit it. Otherwise you lose.

Well folks, that's the logic the Clinton's relied on their entire administration. I wonder if Obama's administration will have the same pillar supporting it?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/22/scandal.glance/


Source who heard parts of the tapes says Lewinsky quotes Clinton as saying, "There is no evidence, so you can deny, deny, deny."


:D

[Ausmerican]

Despite the somewhat misleading title of this thread, which I think many would have thought was about how appointing HRC as SecState was same old, same old politics rather change, how exactly is this not a conspiracy theory thread? It is all supposition based, what if, conjecture on topics that have been investigated multiple times. What in particular makes this any less a CT than the shooting of JFK?

And who are the "folks" BAC seems to be constantly addressing? And the "we" and "us" he is always referring to himself as one of? He seems to be pretty much alone in his beliefs here and the "folks" he seems to address are the "so called skeptics here" that he puts down with his next breath.

Oh, must not neglect to :D :D :D

[maxpower1227]

I think it's painfully obvious how Obama's cabinet meetings are going to go. In the middle of a discussion, suddenly thunder will crash, the lights will go out, and when they come back on 3 seconds later a cabinet member will be dead with a knife in their back, and Hillary will be casually whistling on the other side of the table. Just repeat this about 13 more times and....

...oh wait, she'd have to off the Speaker, President pro tem of the Senate, and VP as well to be next in line. Never mind.

[BeAChooser]

I claimed no such thing, one way or the other.

:rolleyes:

What are here for, Cleon? To play word games? Let's just say that even if you aren't a democrat, you parse as well as a Clinton. :D

[Cleon]

So Cleon, what's your explanation for...

No. Try again.

[Cleon]

:rolleyes:

So, no chance that you'll quote the post where I supposedly made that claim?

Didn't think so.


What are here for, Cleon? To play word games? Let's just say that even if you aren't a democrat, you parse as well as a Clinton. :D

I'm not parsing anything. Merely challenging you to substantiate your own claims.

So far, you've been completely unable to. You have, however, been caught in a number of lies.

Which tells me that you're here just to lie out your tukhus and throw :Ds at anyone who calls you on it.

[BeAChooser]

I find the parallels between this and "truther" posts over in the 9-11 Conspiracy Theories subforum rather interesting.

What is interesting is that you don't see that *I'm* the one acting like the anti-truthers. I'm the one linking facts that prove things. You folks are the ones avoiding them. You folks are the ones using the *truther* method of debate. For example, what characteristics do we associate with 911 *Truthers*?

1) They ignore any fact that proves them wrong. But I've addressed every single point made by my opponents on this thread. It has been YOUR side that has had to ignore factual points over and over.

2) They ignore or dismiss what real experts on the subject say. I'm the one quoting the experts as far as hand writing analysis is concerned. I'm the one quoting the witness statements gathered by Park Police and the FBI in this matter. It is YOUR side that is been ignoring or dismissing out of hand what they say.

3) They throw out red herrings and employ countless strawmen. Again, that's not a tactic I've used here. That's a tactic YOUR side in this debate seems to be employing. Whether Hillary was indicted or convicted of a crime is irrelevant to whether she actually obstructed justice by sending Williams to Fosters office to remove items. Whether or not Williams was convicted of perjury, she clearly did in her testimony before Congress.

Now I can see what you hope to do at this point. Finding yourself unable to effectively challenge the many facts I've presented, you hope to have the thread removed to the CT forum. A tactic of last resort in this case. But hopefully, the administration of this forum will see that these allegations clearly have substance and should be discussed before a Clinton again represents the US as a member of the Executive Branch.

[BeAChooser]

Witnesses would also work. Videotapes. Fingerprints.

Well the witnesses say that Williams lied when she claimed not to have removed anything from Foster's office. The witnesses say that Filegate conspirators talked about Hillary being the mastermind behind the effort. The videotapes of Foster leaving the Whitehouse that night ARE CURIOUSLY MISSING. So are a few documents that Foster's secretary says were in his safe. And Hillary's fingerprints were found on documents she claimed not to have seen. The documents they found in Hillary's residence two years after prosecutors searched high and low for them. :D

But you go on hiding in your hole, democrat.

[BeAChooser]

It is all supposition based, what if, conjecture on topics that have been investigated multiple times.

Not true. As the many facts I've cited on this thread show. And this has not been investigated many times. It's been ignored. By people like you who always seem to show up on threads to defend the Clintons from any allegation of misconduct beyond a bj in the Oval Office. :D

What in particular makes this any less a CT than the shooting of JFK?

That fact that I can prove Williams, Fiske, Starr and many others in the Clinton administration lied about the facts? :D

He seems to be pretty much alone in his beliefs here

Well maybe you folks "here" need yours eyes opened if you hope to maintain any credibility where skepticism is concerned. :D

[Tricky]

Okay, Ken Starr and Snopes are in on the conspiracy to keep this silent, as well as every member of every investigative team and every judge that found there was no criminal activity. Who else? We need to start a list.

[Cleon]

Okay, Ken Starr and Snopes are in on the conspiracy to keep this silent, as well as every member of every investigative team and every judge that found there was no criminal activity. Who else? We need to start a list.

Well, there are the obvious culprits, like the Liberal Media Elitetm.

[varwoche]

Having trouble addressing the facts I cited, Lonewulf? Maybe if rank and file democrats showed a little more interest in the rule of law and truth where the Clintons were concerned, you wouldn't need to be so sensitive when I call one of you a ... democrat. :D What's unfortunate is there are shreds of damning facts about Hillary that are buried by the morass of CT nonsense you've posted.

[Lonewulf]

Having trouble addressing the facts I cited, Lonewulf? Maybe if rank and file democrats showed a little more interest in the rule of law and truth where the Clintons were concerned, you wouldn't need to be so sensitive when I call one of you a ... democrat. :D

I'm pretty sure that others in this thread have done a good enough job of demolishing what you've said.

By the way, I'm an independent voter. I'm not a "rank and file democrat", whatever the hell that means.

I'm all for rule of law. If the law finds something to bust Bill or Hillary Clinton on, call me and tell me. I'd be interested to know.

I'm only "so sensitive" because of the way you used that word. I mean, I'm willing to bet that most likely you're a Caucasian male. I just said this as a statement of fact.

Well, enjoy your life, you Caucasian male. I just added a hint of insult to it.

By the way, generalizing to the degree you've been doing, and the prejudice you've shown, demonstrates that political bigotry is just as humorous and prevalent as any other; especially when you tell them how they act and think. There are over 72 million registered Democratic voters. When you tell me that you can tell me what all 72 million think and how they act, then I kindly remind you that there's an offer for $1 million for such an extraordinary ability here at the JREF.

[Ausmerican]

Not true. As the many facts I've cited on this thread show. And this has not been investigated many times. It's been ignored. By people like you who always seem to show up on threads to defend the Clintons from any allegation of misconduct beyond a bj in the Oval Office. :D

Now be fair. Every thread you are involved in turns into this same Clinton is EEEEvul snorefest so it isn't a matter of turning up in these threads. It is a matter of you turning these threads.
And it apparently HAS been investigated many times, by both the sane and silly, or where are you pulling all your "facts" from?

And doesn't the "show up to defend the Clintons" thing get old for you? Fact check: I did not even live in the United States before mid 98. Therefore I was not even here for most of the Clinton years. I have no dog in this fight.
Do not make personal attacks

Maybe you and Cicero could get together and debate whether Kennedy or Clinton was the worst POTUS ever.



That fact that I can prove Williams, Fiske, Starr and many others in the Clinton administration lied about the facts? :D

Yes, much like troofers can "prove" that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon. And JFK conspiracy nuts can "prove" that there had to be a second shooter. Conjecture is not proof. I do not think that word means what you think it means. So what was the difference again?



Well maybe you folks "here" need yours eyes opened if you hope to maintain any credibility where skepticism is concerned. :D

Mr Pot, have you met Mr Kettle?

:D

[GreyICE]

Well, there are the obvious culprits, like the Liberal Media Elitetm.

Secret Service are obviously in on it as well. I think we can count the FBI as a given at this point. Then a large number of Democratic senators, that almost goes without saying.

The real questions are what was Al-Jazeera, Mossad, and the NKVD's role in this? We know that they all played an important part, but how much did they know and when did they know it? Open question here.

[boloboffin]

I think Obama lied about all this change nonsense. All he has done is given us a Clinton restoration. But I wouldn't want Obama to have to make big foreign policy decisions with out holding Hillary Clintons hand because he doesn't have enough experience. All Obama is good for is giving speeches. There was no substance behind his candidacy.

There is one difference in this "Clinton restoration." All of these people work for Obama now.

Okay, Ken Starr and Snopes are in on the conspiracy to keep this silent, as well as every member of every investigative team and every judge that found there was no criminal activity. Who else? We need to start a list.

The military guy who authorized the Citgo station to be built south of the plane's flight pattern. Oh, wait, wrong meticulously-hashed-out reworking of a historical event. My bad.

[BeAChooser]

Okay, Ken Starr and Snopes are in on the conspiracy to keep this silent

No, I think Snopes is just lazy in the research it often does ... and perhaps their motivation for doing research is a bit influenced by their politics. As for Ken Starr, I can't help but notice that you still haven't addressed the specific problems I identified with his work. Are you ever going to get around to doing that, Tricky? :)

[BeAChooser]

What's unfortunate is there are shreds of damning facts about Hillary that are buried by the morass of CT nonsense you've posted.

You haven't demonstrated that anything I posted is CT nonsense. To do that you actually have to address the specific facts I noted. Either challenge me on them or show what I claimed is false. Are you EVER going to get around to doing that? :D

[Lonewulf]

You haven't demonstrated that anything I posted is CT nonsense. To do that you actually have to address the specific facts I noted. Either challenge me on them or show what I claimed is false. Are you EVER going to get around to doing that? :D

As you're on a skeptic's forum, perhaps you should teach yourself a bit about the burden of proof. Notably, it's up to you to demonstrate that your claims are true.

[BeAChooser]

I'm pretty sure that others in this thread have done a good enough job of demolishing what you've said.

ROTFLOL! You want to know how many times I've heard that statement during discussions about the Clintons? Let just say this ... you aren't along in waving you hands and then claiming "I'm sure others did a good job of demolishing your claims." Your remark only proves you can't and that you haven't even read the thread. :)

By the way, I'm an independent voter.

Yes, I keep hearing that. It's almost like all democrats nowadays consider themselves independents. Is democrat a bad word? :D

I'm all for rule of law.

Yeah. Sure you are. Your statements on this thread are very convincing evidence of that. :rolleyes:

I'm only "so sensitive" because of the way you used that word.

"that word"? ROTFLOL!

I mean, I'm willing to bet that most likely you're a Caucasian male.

Being a democrat might be important in this discussion. But why is my ethnicity important (and I'm not saying what it is one way or another)?

Well, enjoy your life, you Caucasian male. I just added a hint of insult to it.

You did? I guess I missed that. Do you have something against Caucasian males? :D (Note that I say that with a twinkle in my eye. I'm not trying to extend another derail and expect no response.)

By the way, generalizing to the degree you've been doing

Generalizing? I'm the ONLY ONE on this thread posting specifics facts. It's the naysayers who are tossing out the vague generality, lonewulf.

and the prejudice you've shown

Can you specifically identify where it is that I've shown prejudice? Because I don't think that term applies to me. Here are some definitions:

1) An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. Well, clearly that doesn't apply because I've supplied post after post showing that my opinions and judgement are based on specific verifiable knowledge and examination of the facts. It seems to me that it is your side in this discussion that has been forming opinion without considering the facts.

2) a baseless and usually negative attitude toward members of a group. But as one can see from reading the above thread (which apparently you didn't), my attitude towards democrats are hardly baseless. By the way, I also have some negative attitudes about republicans but that's for another thread. :D

demonstrates that political bigotry

ROTFLOL! Let's see. A bigot is usually defined as "one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." So you think I'm a bigot where democrats are concerned? But I have plenty of liberal and democrat friends. I'm quite tolerant with respect to them. We have dinner at each other's houses regularly. We just steer clear of issues and facts that ... well ... make THEM uncomfortable. I think if one were going to claim I'm intolerant, it's only with regards to those who trash the rule of law and Constitution for political gain. And I don't see that as a bad thing. And that intolerance led me to getting thrown off Free Republic. So it isn't just democrats who I criticize. :D

humorous

Well I'm certainly being entertained by this thread and the PREDICTABLE response of the naysayers.

There are over 72 million registered Democratic voters.

Yes, and surprisingly about half of them voted for Hillary despite all that is known about her and her husbands actions the last several decades. What surprises me even more (hence this thread) is that Obama supporters would approve of putting a Clinton in a key position in Obama's administration knowing all we learned about the Clintons the last several decades. Fool you once, shame on Clinton, but fool you twice, shame on you. :D

[BeAChooser]

And doesn't the "show up to defend the Clintons" thing get old for you? Fact check: I did not even live in the United States before mid 98. Therefore I was not even here for most of the Clinton years.

And yet, here you are. ;)

I have no dog in this fight.

And yet, here you are. ;)


Quote:
That fact that I can prove Williams, Fiske, Starr and many others in the Clinton administration lied about the facts?

Yes, much like troofers can "prove" that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon.

"troofers" can't "prove" that. In fact, I've argued against them on those threads repeatedly and effectively. And in those cases, just like here, I was the one posting actual, verifiable facts and clear logic. They were waving hands. Like you. You are doing exactly what they do ... making assertions you won't defend with sources and ignoring the source facts that prove you wrong.

Conjecture is not proof.

True. But there is no conjecture involved in asserting Williams lied to the Senate when she told them she removed nothing from Foster's office. The Secret Service saw her do it. There is no conjecture involved in asserting that Williams lied about not talking to Susan Thomases. The phone records prove it. There is no conjecture involved in asserting that Hillary and Williams talked on the phone immediately prior to and after the search of Foster's office. Again, phone records prove it. There is no conjecture involved in knowing that Starr lied when he claimed the FBI files had all been returned to the FBI. Ray said they weren't ... and he should know. There is no conjecture involved in asserting that Fiske lied. I showed that his claims that witnesses said Foster was depressed are nothing but lies by quoting the actual FBI and Park Police witness interview notes and testimony. But of course, like a troofer, you don't want to discuss those facts. :D

[BeAChooser]

Secret Service are obviously in on it as well. I think we can count the FBI as a given at this point. Then a large number of Democratic senators, that almost goes without saying.

Now Ausmerican ... here's an example of conjecture. :D

[BeAChooser]

The military guy who authorized the Citgo station to be built south of the plane's flight pattern. Oh, wait, wrong meticulously-hashed-out reworking of a historical event. My bad.

So BB, given the facts I've noted, would you care to explain why you don't think Hillary ordered Williams to remove items from Vince Foster's office the night of his death? Or perhaps you could explain how Lisa Foster's statement on a handwritten FBI interview note that her husband was "fighting" a "prescription" turned into a statement on the typed FD-302 interview report that he was "fighting depression". Don't believe me? Look at this: http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/prescription_For_Depression/prescription_for_depression.htm

:D

[BeAChooser]

As you're on a skeptic's forum, perhaps you should teach yourself a bit about the burden of proof. Notably, it's up to you to demonstrate that your claims are true.

I have. Repeatedly on threads just like this. And every time ... just like now ... the folks on your side of the fence simply ignore every fact and source provided and try the same tactics as seen on this thread. Let's test you. Let's see if you will address even one small fact in this case.

Please explain how Lisa Foster's statement on a handwritten FBI interview note from the night her husband died that her husband was "fighting prescription" magically turned into a statement on the typed FD-302 interview report in the IOC final report that he was "fighting depression". Look at this: http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/prescription_For_Depression/prescription_for_depression.htm and I await your response.

[Tricky]

Please explain how Lisa Foster's statement on a handwritten FBI interview note from the night her husband died that her husband was "fighting prescription" magically turned into a statement on the typed FD-302 interview report in the IOC final report that he was "fighting depression". Look at this: http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/prescription_For_Depression/prescription_for_depression.htm and I await your response.
It is pretty obvious that in her hastily scribbled note, she meant to say "Dr. said he was fighthing depression" or perhaps "fighting depression and given a prescription", which the doctor confirms. Nobody "fights a prescription". That is simply stupid. No one is obligated to fill or take a prescription they don't want. There is no "fight".

Trying to turn this into a suggestion that he was not depressed and hadn't been give a prescription for antidepressants is simply ludicrous.

That site full of "facts" is a conspiracy theory site. Your "facts" are wild assumptions that are constructed and shoehorned in to fit a scenario that only CT people seem to believe.

This is just one tiny example of why we don't bother to dispute your "wall of words" kind of argument. It is not worth our time to debunk every CT book and article you've read. I'm impressed by your devotion to this cause in reading and citing every little scrap of anti-Clinton woo, but certainly not by your skepticism.

[Lonewulf]

Yes, I keep hearing that. It's almost like all democrats nowadays consider themselves independents. Is democrat a bad word? :D


You really are unaware that there's a way to be an independent voter? That pretty much makes you COMPLETELY ignorant of American politics...

I'm not registered as Democrat or Republican. I'm registered Independent. It's the truth. Get over it, and yourself.

Either that, or actually prove your claim that I'm lying. If you can't, then please shut the hell up.

[Ausmerican]

BAC, I think it is quite clear I do not hold you in high regard. I think you are blindly partisan, completely unwilling to look at any evidence about any liberal or Democrat objectlively, and have little regard for the truth or critical thinking if either get in the way of advancing your own agenda and petty obsession with the Clintons. In short I feel pretty much the same way about you as you do about me and most other posters here.

Having said that, my comment in post #103 was uncalled for, out of line and worst of all, personal. For that I do honestly and sincerely apologise.

[boloboffin]

So BB, given the facts I've noted, would you care to explain why you don't think Hillary ordered Williams to remove items from Vince Foster's office the night of his death? Or perhaps you could explain how Lisa Foster's statement on a handwritten FBI interview note that her husband was "fighting" a "prescription" turned into a statement on the typed FD-302 interview report that he was "fighting depression". Don't believe me? Look at this: http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/prescription_For_Depression/prescription_for_depression.htm

:D

No, for the same reason I don't provide a detailed forensic analysis of the flaming bag of poo some silly kids might leave at my front door. Douse, sweep, trash.

[gdnp]

I have. Repeatedly on threads just like this. And every time ... just like now ... the folks on your side of the fence simply ignore every fact and source provided and try the same tactics as seen on this thread. Let's test you. Let's see if you will address even one small fact in this case.


No, BAC, we are not going to play that game. These charges have been investigated by the justice department, by Senate committees, and by Kenneth Starr, and although there may be some discrepancies in various accounts none found any behavior worthy of indictment or censure. We do not wish to attempt to reproduce their investigations over the internet.

You claim that each of these investigators was either biased, bought off, or otherwise compromised by the Clinton conspiracy. I suggest you read up on the No True Scotsman fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

[GreyICE]

It is pretty obvious that in her hastily scribbled note, she meant to say "Dr. said he was fighthing depression" or perhaps "fighting depression and given a prescription", which the doctor confirms. Nobody "fights a prescription". That is simply stupid. No one is obligated to fill or take a prescription they don't want. There is no "fight".

Trying to turn this into a suggestion that he was not depressed and hadn't been give a prescription for antidepressants is simply ludicrous.

That site full of "facts" is a conspiracy theory site. Your "facts" are wild assumptions that are constructed and shoehorned in to fit a scenario that only CT people seem to believe.

This is just one tiny example of why we don't bother to dispute your "wall of words" kind of argument. It is not worth our time to debunk every CT book and article you've read. I'm impressed by your devotion to this cause in reading and citing every little scrap of anti-Clinton woo, but certainly not by your skepticism. Pull it! PULL IT! He said pull it, not pull out! Who uses the phrase pull out? Obviously a demolition term!

[Darth Rotor]

BAC, you have failed to tell us what the pathologists had to say about Foster's suicide. Or, I lost that detail in your wall of text.

Got anything?

DR

[ANTPogo]

What is interesting is that you don't see that *I'm* the one acting like the anti-truthers. I'm the one linking facts that prove things. You folks are the ones avoiding them. You folks are the ones using the *truther* method of debate. For example, what characteristics do we associate with 911 *Truthers*?

1) They ignore any fact that proves them wrong. But I've addressed every single point made by my opponents on this thread. It has been YOUR side that has had to ignore factual points over and over.

2) They ignore or dismiss what real experts on the subject say. I'm the one quoting the experts as far as hand writing analysis is concerned. I'm the one quoting the witness statements gathered by Park Police and the FBI in this matter. It is YOUR side that is been ignoring or dismissing out of hand what they say.

3) They throw out red herrings and employ countless strawmen. Again, that's not a tactic I've used here. That's a tactic YOUR side in this debate seems to be employing. Whether Hillary was indicted or convicted of a crime is irrelevant to whether she actually obstructed justice by sending Williams to Fosters office to remove items. Whether or not Williams was convicted of perjury, she clearly did in her testimony before Congress.

Now I can see what you hope to do at this point. Finding yourself unable to effectively challenge the many facts I've presented, you hope to have the thread removed to the CT forum. A tactic of last resort in this case. But hopefully, the administration of this forum will see that these allegations clearly have substance and should be discussed before a Clinton again represents the US as a member of the Executive Branch.

You extensively quote what conspiracy websites have to say rather than going to primary sources or official reports ("fbicover-up.com"? Yes, they sound totally unbiased), you make speculations then treat your speculations as proven evidence for yet further speculations (pretty much the entirety of your post #53 in this thread), you claim that any investigative analysis or official report that disagrees with any of your "evidence" has been produced by someone who's in on the conspiracy and/or paid off by the "true culprits" (Kenn Starr was really working for the Clintons! Snopes is a bunch of Clinton-lovers), you twist the actual evidence to suit your argument even if that interpretation makes no sense ("fighting a prescription"? Really?), you keep repeating the same things over and over despite the evidence and arguments presented to you (I've read your Ron Brown threads...yikes), and you keep hijacking barely-related threads to rant about your pet conspiracies (turning a thread about Obama's selection of Clinton-era staffers for his cabinet into "ZOMG Hilalry killded Vince Foster!").

[JoeTheJuggler]

Slight derail:

Can anyone point to a site with a concise and up-to-date list of who Obama has named for what positions?

[Cleon]

Slight derail:

Can anyone point to a site with a concise and up-to-date list of who Obama has named for what positions?

Here you go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_transition).

[RandFan]

BAC, I've looked at your arguments and I don't think you've got a case. Look, I'm not a Hillary fan and I would be happy to join you in your condemnation I just don't think the evidence is there.

[Tricky]

BAC, I've looked at your arguments and I don't think you've got a case. Look, I'm not a Hillary fan and I would be happy to join you in your condemnation I just don't think the evidence is there.
Oh yes you are!! See how BAC debunked the last person to make this claim?

I am no great fan of the Clintons...

Yeah. Sure you are. We believe you. :rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

Well, Tricky, you seem to be the only one willing to take the challenge where my one question was concerned. I think that says something interesting about the others.

Now, regarding your response ...

It is pretty obvious that in her hastily scribbled note, she meant to say "Dr. said he was fighthing depression" or perhaps "fighting depression and given a prescription", which the doctor confirms.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

First of all, that wasn't *her* (Mrs Foster's) writing. That was what an FBI agent wrote to a specific question that he asked Lisa.

Did you actually look at that link I provided? Here is both the question (typed ahead of time by the agent) and the response to that question written by the agent based on Lisa's answer.

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/prescription_For_Depression/d_1.gif

It says "he was fighting prescription". You have provided absolutely no evidence (remember, conjecture is not proof, or so I've been informed on this thread) that the agent misstated Lisa's response. I see no logical reason to believe that had Lisa said "he was fighting depression", the highly trained agent wouldn't have written "he was fighting depression". Instead of wrote "he was fighting prescription".

Nobody "fights a prescription".

You are wrong. As noted at the link you apparently didn't read, elsewhere in the interview with Lisa the agent recorded that


"FOSTER complained to LISA FOSTER that he was suffering from insomnia, but he did not want to take sleeping pills because he was afraid that he would become addicted to them."


He said he was suffering from insomnia ... not depression. He said he was afraid of addiction to sleeping pills. People do indeed "fight prescriptions" because they "fight addiction" to prescriptions. Look it up.

Furthermore, you are COMPLETELY wrong in claiming that the doctor confirmed Foster had clinical depression and was given a prescription to fight it. That is not the case at all and the written record proves it.

Here is what the report of the FBI interview with Foster's doctor, Dr. Watkins, shortly after Foster's death, stated (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_/ai_17817574 ):


"[Watkins recalled that] Foster sounded a little tired . . . Watkins prescribed desyrel, 50 milligram tablets. . . . Watkins knew that it took 10 days to two weeks to take effect [as an antidepressant] but helps with insomnia, sometimes the very first day. . . . He felt it was important for Foster to start sleeping better and thought if he got some rest he would feel a lot better. He did not think that Foster was significantly depressed nor had Foster given the impression that he was 'in crisis.' From what Foster told him, Foster's condition sounded mild and situational. . . . Foster was not one to come to Watkins with stress-related problems. . . . Lisa [Foster's widow] told him that they had gone away and had a nice weekend on July 17-18. . . . He had the distinct impression . . . that Lisa was taken completely by surprise by this."


So Foster's doctor told the FBI that he did NOT think Foster was significantly depressed. That stands in direct contradiction to the claim by Fiske and Starr that Foster was "clinically depressed". "Clinical depression" refers to MAJOR depression, not mild depression. Look it up. http://www.answers.com/topic/clinical-depression-1

The doctor also told the FBI the prescription was to help him sleep better. Not to treat depression as you/Fiske/Starr claimed. Plus the doctor told them that Lisa was completely surprised by his death, again contradicting later claims that she had been worried. And the desyrel dose was NOT what a doctor would prescribe had depression been the concern. I'll prove that in a moment.

Beyond that, the doctor made no further statements ... until, that is, Ken Starr (in his investigation) claimed that the doctor provided him with a note he'd typed after the death. Maybe he did type that note but it only confirms the above facts. Here's what that note said according to Starr's report:


"I talked to Vince on 7/19/93, at which time he complained of anorexia and insomnia. He had no GI (gastrointestinal) symptoms. We discussed the possibility of taking Axid or Zantac to help with any ulcer symptoms as he was under a lot of stress. He was concerned about the criticism they were getting and the long hours he was working at the White House. He did feel that he had some mild depression. I started him on Desyrel, 50 mg. He was to start with one at bedtime and move up to three....I receive word at 10:20 p.m. on 7/20/93 that he had committed suicide."


Again, it says Foster complained about insomnia, not depression. Any depression he did have was described as only "mild". Not "clinical". And the medication and dosage was again one used for insomnia ... not depression.

Now I know you are thinking, how do you know the prescribed dosage was for insomnia and not depression? Simple. The FBI interviewed of the owner of the prescribing pharmacy and his statement contradicts Starr's contention that this medication was for depression. According to the pharmacy, Foster was to take 1-3 pills prior to bedtime, rather than spaced out over the day, as would be the case if depression was the concern. Here, just check the on-line medical references:

http://mental-health.emedtv.com/desyrel/desyrel-dosage.html


Desyrel Dosage for Depression

The recommended starting Desyrel dose when treating depression is 150 mg per day (divided into two or three doses per day). Your healthcare provider may choose to increase the dosage if symptoms continue, or decrease the dose if side effects occur. The maximum recommended dose of Desyrel is 400 mg total per day, although people who have been hospitalized due to their depression may take up to 600 mg per day.

Desyrel Dosage for Insomnia

Even though Desyrel is not approved to treat insomnia, it is frequently prescribed in an off-label fashion for this use. Usually, the dose of Desyrel for insomnia is lower, starting with Desyrel 25 mg or 50 mg at bedtime.


Based on all the above, one can ONLY logically conclude that your (and Fiske's and Starr's) claim that Foster's doctor confirmed clinical depression and that Foster was prescribed anti-depressants to treat depression ... is false. I hope you are now better informed, Tricky. And more skeptical of Fiske and Starr.

Ah, but now you are probably saying ... what about Starr's so-called suicide *expert*, Dr Berman? He was able to conclude from the above facts that "to a 100% degree of medical certainty, the death of Vincent Foster was a suicide." My response is yeah, right. But here's what another expert in suicide thought of Berman's conclusion in the Foster case (http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-critiquing-bermans-report-on-foster/ ):


"Dr. Berman opines Mr. Foster committed suicide. He seems to have based this on direct and circumstantial physical evidence more than on the state of mind of the decedent. Dr. Berman relied on physical evidence (BAC - false or incomplete evidence provided by Starr) after Mr. Foster's death as much as state-of-the-mind findings before his death. In this sense, Dr. Berman fell victim to the petitio principii fallacy [begging the question] in that he assumed suicide and then fit all of his state-of-the-mind conclusions into this assumption. ... snip ...

"Dr. Berman did not seem to rely on empirical predictive criteria but based a great deal of his effort on recreating a psychodynamic formulation consistent with a presumption of suicide. In the past, Dr. Berman did excellent psychological autopsies grounded on empirical predictive criteria. Dr. Berman opined a 100% certainty that Mr. Foster committed suicide. The empirical findings do not support Dr. Berman's opinion of 100% certainty. Dr. Berman neglected to mention that 80% of all suicides have either threatened or discussed suicide before the event. Dr. Berman neglected to take into account the great number of future-oriented statements Mr. Foster made, including the night before his death (Brugh boat comment) and his last words to Linda Tripp — 'I'll be back.' Dr. Berman did not discuss the many protective factors in Mr. Foster's life. By not accounting for these matters he overstated the possibility of suicide."


Finally, let me remind you, in case you forgot (or simply didn't read what I posted earlier), of one more thing. The Park Police notes of interviews conducted with about a dozen family and friends the night of Foster's death (including Lisa Foster, his daughter, both sisters) clearly ruled out depression. As already noted, one police officer reported "One of the last things I got from Mrs. Foster -- I asked her was he -- did you see this coming? ... Everyone said, no, no, no, no, he was fine. ... Nobody would say anything about depression or that they noticed some signs". Another officer said "[We] asked, was there anything, did you see this forthcoming, was there anything different about him, has he been depressed, and all the answers were no.".

This was again confirmed by an officer who answered a question posed by a Senate attorney in later hearings:


Q: Did anyone at the notification [the death notification and initial interviews at the Foster home, 9:00 - 10:10 PM EDT on July 20] mention depression or anti depressant medication that Foster might have been taking?

A: I mentioned depression, did you see this coming, were there any signs, has he been taking any medication? No. All negative answers.


It is impossible to reconcile these statements by the investigators who where there with the claim in the IOC report that witnesses said Foster was depressed immediately after the event. They did not say that. Fiske and Starr LIED. And the mainstream media just regurgitated that lie over and over. Until you bought it.

The truth is that claims about depression only appeared days later ... in many cases with witnesses directly contradicting their earlier statements. I noted some of those contradictions earlier in this thread. Did you read them? The first time Lisa Foster claimed Vince was taking anti-depressants was 9 days after his death (long after telling the Park Police that he was not taking them). I don't think it's just coincidence that the first time Mrs Foster claimed Vince was taking anti-depressants was also after her meeting with the Clinton inner circle where the torn note was discussed.

And even then, lab tests of Foster's blood, conducted immediately after the death, came up negative for the presence of the specific anti-depressants mentioned. It was only later ... before Fiske's report was to be issued ... that *new* lab tests revealed the presence of those medications. Again, that's a little too convenient given that the tests were conducted by an FBI that had already altered witness statements to make it appear like Foster was clinically depressed. An FBI that was already under attack for routinely tampering with evidence by an insider ... a whistleblower ... who eventually won a big settlement from the FBI.

Trying to turn this into a suggestion that he was not depressed and hadn't been give a prescription for antidepressants is simply ludicrous.

No, Tricky, what's ludicrous is your side believing you've won this debate. :D

[BeAChooser]

petty obsession with the Clintons

You think that concerns about treason, corruption of our election process, blackmail, and murder are petty? :rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

This reminds me of racists that say "Hey! I have black friends. I just think that blacks are..." or "Hey! I have gay friends. I'm not a bigot! I just think that they're abominations in the eyes of God and are going to hell after they die, and don't deserve to get married!"

Of course, I've not said either of those things so once again you throw out a red herring and strawman rather than deal with the actual facts in the Foster case. Did you see my last post to Tricky? :D

[BeAChooser]

No, BAC, we are not going to play that game.

Of course not, gdnp. You're going to do exactly what I predicted you'd do.

But did you see my response to Tricky regarding his attempt to answer the question that you would not? :D

[gdnp]

Of course not, gdnp. You're going to do exactly what I predicted you'd do.

But did you see my response to Tricky regarding his attempt to answer the question that you would not? :D

Yep. Same old junk. As a physician, I can tell you that your medical analysis is fatally flawed. But as I stated, I have no interest in playing this game. I could spend an hour or two debunking this claim, and you would simply post another one.

The only way to win is not to play.

ETA: If you would like a hint at the absurdity of your claim, try this little exercise. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands.

List all of the people complicit in the conspiracy to cover up Vince Foster's murder. Here is my preliminary, based on your last post:

Starr
Fiske
The Clintons
Other Clinton administration officials *
FBI agents *
Policemen *
Pathologists *
Foster's wife
Foster's friends *
Physicians *

You can fill in the specific names for the entries with the asterisks. Have I left anyone out? What total do you get?

[Tricky]

It says "he was fighting prescription". You have provided absolutely no evidence (remember, conjecture is not proof, or so I've been informed on this thread) that the agent misstated Lisa's response. I see no logical reason to believe that had Lisa said "he was fighting depression", the highly trained agent wouldn't have written "he was fighting depression". Instead of wrote "he was fighting prescription".
Yes, I can see what is written. It is obviously scribbled quickly. Sometimes when people write, their minds get ahead of themselves (I've actually seen people do it here on these boards:D) . But nobody "fights a prescription". They may "fight addiction" or "fight depression" but they don't fight prescriptions. And of course, if he was "fighting addiction" that would mean that he was already addicted to "sleeping pills" as you call them.

And then there's this
Furthermore, you are COMPLETELY wrong in claiming that the doctor confirmed Foster had clinical depression and was given a prescription to fight it. That is not the case at all and the written record proves it. Watkins knew that it took 10 days to two weeks to take effect [as an antidepressant] but helps with insomnia, sometimes the very first day.

Foster's doctor had indeed prescribed him an antidepressant. Perhaps it was only for "mild depression". Perhaps it was to help him sleep, (loss of sleep is one of the classic signs of depression) but he was given a prescription. Foster, of course, was not required to fill it or take it once it was filled. He did not have to "fight the prescription". Foster obviously never fought addiction, because he committed suicide the same day as he was given the prescription. It seems quite possible the doctor did not realize the depth of Foster's depression.

Your interpretation makes zero sense, as every official authority who has ruled on the matter seems to agree. Are they all in on it? How many more?

But I could see that this would be a waste of time. I just wanted you to know that we are not ignoring your "wall of words" because we think they are correct. Those who have the patience to deal with conspiracy theorists are few and far between.

[ANTPogo]

It says "he was fighting prescription". You have provided absolutely no evidence (remember, conjecture is not proof, or so I've been informed on this thread) that the agent misstated Lisa's response. I see no logical reason to believe that had Lisa said "he was fighting depression", the highly trained agent wouldn't have written "he was fighting depression". Instead of wrote "he was fighting prescription".

Who uses that terminology? I was unable to turn up any instance of that phrase being used in that context by anyone else.

Is this, perhaps, another "'pull it' is a common term used in building demolition" thing?




Here is what the report of the FBI interview with Foster's doctor, Dr. Watkins, shortly after Foster's death, stated (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_/ai_17817574 ):

Actually that's what Insight Magazine reports about the FBI interview (despite your attempts to disguise the source by using a Findarticles link). This is the same Insight Magazine that essentially made up that story about Obama attending a Wahhabist madrassa in Indonesia, and that (according to Findarticles when you click on the magazine name) features such other unbaised and undoubtedly meticulously-researched articles as "The Smear Campaign; Left-wingers have poured money into Bush-hating "527" groups" and "Saddam's WMD Have Been Found; The United States has already located many of Iraq's weapons, but the public wouldn't know it based on the silence with which Bush critics are greeting this success."

I was unable to find any discussion of this FBI interview on any non-conspiracy website. It doesn't seem to be in the actual Fiske Report (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/docs/foster.htm) on Foster's death. Is there some legitimate website that posts this interview report that you can link us to, please?

Ken Starr (in his investigation) claimed that the doctor provided him with a note he'd typed after the death. Maybe he did type that note but it only confirms the above facts. Here's what that note said according to Starr's report:

Quote:
"I talked to Vince on 7/19/93, at which time he complained of anorexia and insomnia. He had no GI (gastrointestinal) symptoms. We discussed the possibility of taking Axid or Zantac to help with any ulcer symptoms as he was under a lot of stress. He was concerned about the criticism they were getting and the long hours he was working at the White House. He did feel that he had some mild depression. I started him on Desyrel, 50 mg. He was to start with one at bedtime and move up to three....I receive word at 10:20 p.m. on 7/20/93 that he had committed suicide."

Again, it says Foster complained about insomnia, not depression. Any depression he did have was described as only "mild". Not "clinical". And the medication and dosage was again one used for insomnia ... not depression.

So, this conspiracy to hide the Clintons' involvement in Vince Foster's murder by making it falsely appear to be a depression-driven suicide issued a whitewashed report written by a liar...in which you find evidence that Vince Foster was not, in fact, depressed, thus breaking open the whole sordid cover-up..

Maybe the Clintons should have hired better conspirators, if their faked report allowed evidence ofsuch a giant glaring hole to slip through and be published! Again, I'm reminded of Truthers who point to "inconsistencies" in things like the 9/11 Commission report and the NIST report to "prove" that there was a conspiracy.


Ah, but now you are probably saying ... what about Starr's so-called suicide *expert*, Dr Berman? He was able to conclude from the above facts that "to a 100% degree of medical certainty, the death of Vincent Foster was a suicide." My response is yeah, right. But here's what another expert in suicide thought of Berman's conclusion in the Foster case (http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-critiquing-bermans-report-on-foster/ ):





That amused me the most (even aside from AIM being your main source for this...are you ever going to quote from an unbiased source?). This guy's argument is essentially "How come Dr. Berman spent so much time looking at physical and forensic evidence when making his judgment, when everyone knows that there's only a twenty percent chance that someone will commit suicide without having attempted it before (never mind the fact that even those who repeatedly attempt suicide have to have tried it at least once without ever having tried it before)."

Yet again, typical truther. "My theory is obviously the only one that fits the facts...as long as you totally ignore the actual physical evidence involved, that is!"

[Cleon]

Actually that's what Insight Magazine reports about the FBI interview (despite your attempts to disguise the source by using a Findarticles link). This is the same Insight Magazine that essentially made up that story about Obama attending a Wahhabist madrassa in Indonesia,


This is why, whenever BAC uses the phrase "credible sources," I instantly get a mental image of the guy from Raiders of the Lost Ark saying "top people."

"We have our Top People working on this."
"Who?"
"Top. People."

[gdnp]

Yes, I can see what is written. It is obviously scribbled quickly. Sometimes when people write, their minds get ahead of themselves (I've actually seen people do it here on these boards:D) . But nobody "fights a prescription". They may "fight addiction" or "fight depression" but they don't fight prescriptions. And of course, if he was "fighting addiction" that would mean that he was already addicted to "sleeping pills" as you call them.

I agree with your analysis, except for one point. The person who wrote this note did not write "fighting prescription", he wrote "fighting ---> prescription". Which is what I might have written if I wanted to write "fighting depression and was given a prescription." Which remarkably enough also seems to be the interpretation of the person who took the note. Of course, this persons opinion disagrees with BACS obvious, unambiguous, irrefutably correct interpretation, thus proving that he is part of the conspiracy.

Damn. Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in...

[Tricky]

I agree with your analysis, except for one point. The person who wrote this note did not write "fighting prescription", he wrote "fighting ---> prescription". Which is what I might have written if I wanted to write "fighting depression and was given a prescription."
That's what I meant when I said people "get ahead of themselves". People do it when they make notes especially. They put down a few key words. Such mental jumps might be especially true for a woman who had recently discovered her husband was dead. In any case, there is no indication that Foster was "fighting a prescription" and no idiom in the language with that wording.

[BeAChooser]

BAC, you have failed to tell us what the pathologists had to say about Foster's suicide. Or, I lost that detail in your wall of text. Got anything?


Sure. And you didn't loose anything, I just hadn't discussed it because I was trying to keep this simple. But since the naysayers on this thread apparently won't even address a single specific question regarding the case, I might as well up the complexity and tell more of the story.

Foster's autopsy was conducted by the deputy medical examiner for Northern Virginia, Dr. James Beyer. Beyer was 77 at the time. In 1996, Dr Cyril Wecht, one of the preeminent pathologists in the US, had this to say about Beyer. He was surprised that the elderly Virginia deputy medical examiner, Dr. James Beyer, is still conducting autopsies. And Wecht said this about the autopsy report: ""incomplete and insufficiently detailed." Wecht called for a second autopsy but of course the government had no interest in that.

Now let's look at the specifics of Beyer's work in the Foster case.

First there is the issue of the missing x-rays. Beyer's autopsy report indicates x-rays were taken of Foster. The X-ray box on the autopsy report was checked "yes." Furthermore, a U.S. Park Police incident record says "Dr. Beyer stated that X-rays indicated there was no evidence of bullet fragments in the head."

But in testimony before the Senate, Dr. Beyer said that he had been planning to take X-rays but never did ... or if he did, then they were totally black and unreadable. He claimed the equipment was broken and had been for weeks. However, the Knowlton Portion of the official report on the Foster death contains information which shows that there are maintenance records which indicate the X-Ray machine was, in fact, fully operable at the time the Foster autopsy was conducted. Starr knew this information but failed to investigate. Guess he liked Beyer's revised version. ;)

Then there is the issue of the exit wound.

Beyer's autopsy report states the bullet exited the top of the back of the head. Here's a drawing from the autopsy: http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/cmn_img/a5.gif . It shows a very large exit wound. Beyer also stated that he found no additional wounds on the body. Fiske and Starr promoted this version of the wound in their reports which officially indicated the wound was 1 by 1 ¼ inch in size.

Now here is what suggests Beyer, Fiske and Starr are liars.

I mentioned in an earlier post that Fiske and Starr failed to tell the three judge panel and the public about an FBI memo to the Director of the FBI written two days after the death stating that the shot was fired into Foster's mouth without leaving an exit wound. Just a mistake?

The lead police investigator on the scene described the exit wound as a small hole. The medical examiner on the scene, Dr Donald Haut, in his original report, listed the cause of death as a "self-inflicted gunshot wound mouth to neck." And what a surprise. Dr. Haut’s report was not included in the documents released by the government. It was only discovered in June 1997 at the National Archives by Patrick Knowlton. Dr Haut also told the FBI the wound was consistent with a low-velocity weapon. (Note that according to Fiske and Star, Foster was found with a high-velocity .38-caliber revolver.)

The government claims the official 35 mm photos of Foster at the scene of the crime were "underexposed" and deemed useless. What a coincidence. In addition, a lot of polaroids were taken at the scene (based on statements to the FBI and other investigators). Apparently most of these polaroid photos just disappeared. What a coincidence. The rest have been tightly controlled by the government, with the government fighting every single attempt to get them released, even internally within the investigations.

One of the surviving polaroid photos shows Foster's head (or at least the neck). As I noted earlier, when Miquel Rodriguez (Starr's top investigator who resigned saying there was a coverup) finally got hold of the original of this polaroid, he had the Smithsonian institution blow it up. The blowups show a dime-sized wound on the right side of Foster’s neck about half way between the chin and the ear. A wound never mentioned by Fiske or Starr. A wound consistent with the report by Dr. Donald Haut, the only doctor to visit the crime scene. A wound inconsistent with the official autopsy report.

A friend of Foster's, Joe Purvis, claimed that he was told by a staff member of Ruebel's Funeral Home in Little Rock that Foster had an entry wound deep at the back of the mouth, and an exit wound "the size of a dime" close to the neck at the hairline. That claim was made before Foster's autopsy was released. Purvis' entry wound description seems to be accurate. But the exit wound description is nothing at all like Beyer/Fiske/Starr claimed. It agrees with the other evidence.

Fairfax County emergency medical technician Kory Ashford told the FBI that when he placed Foster's body in a body bag by grasping his shoulders and cradling his head, he did not see any exit wound. Now you'd think if there was a 1 by 1 ¼ inch exit wound in the back of Foster's head, he would have seen it and there would have been brain matter and blood all over the scene. But Ashford said he saw little or no blood, didn't need gloves, didn't get any blood on his white uniform, and didn't have to wash his hands after the task. He also said there was no blood on the ground underneath the body.

Roger Harrison, who helped Cory, didn’t see any blood either. No blood on the ground. No blood on the body. No blood on anybody who had touched it. As Tricky would say, it seems "obvious" that there would have been blood everywhere if what Beyer and Starr claimed about the size of the hole were true ... especially if Foster had been shot at Marcy Park and the body not moved ... as was claimed by Fiske and Starr.

Starting to experience a little doubt yet, DR?

But there's more.

There's a statement made by emergency medical technician Richard Arthur who told the FBI he noted "what appeared to be a small-caliber bullet hole in Foster's neck on the right side, just under the jaw line about halfway between the ear and the tip of the chin." In fact, four of the rescue workers testified in secret before the Whitewater grand jury that they saw trauma to the side of Foster’s head or neck. Trauma that Beyer, Fiske and Starr never mentioned even though this information was even submitted to Kenneth Starr in a memorandum from Miquel Rodriguez summing up the proceedings of the Whitewater grand jury.

At the FairFax County Morgue, the doctor on duty was Julian Orenstein. In his FBI statement it says he lifted the body in order "to locate and observe the exit wound on the decedent's head." Notice that it doesn't actually say he saw the exit wound ... but you might think he did reading that. But he didn't. Contacted later, he admitted "I never saw one directly." And a copy of the handwritten notes of the FBI interviews, which Christopher Ruddy obtained via a FOIA lawsuit against the Office of the Independent Counsel, does not mention Orenstein trying to locate an exit wound. Apparently, that was added to his statement after the fact ... more tampering by the FBI.

Given all of the above, you'd think the government would want the photos released to stop all these allegations of foul play that are circulating. Clear autopsy photos showing only a wound where the official report claims is a wound would likely do that. But in a recent FOIA ruling, the court has refused to release them, saying the privacy rights of the Foster family outweigh the public's interest in seeing them. Do you know that was the first time that the Supreme Court has ruled that a public figure's privacy rights under the FOIA can be extended after his death to members of his family? Do you know that the US government joined with the Foster family to prevent the release? It seems, they'd rather have these allegations floating about, discrediting the whole government, then clear the matter up by simply releasing a few photos? Any reason to be suspicious, DR?

Next we have the blood work. The drugs and alcohol analysis attached to Beyer's report indicated no drugs or alcohol were detected in Foster's blood. And that specifically included the anti-depressant that Fiske later claimed the FBI found in the blood in later tests. Fiske never released the blood work report detailing the screens employed in the analysis. Starr's office also refused to release the report. A homicide expert, Vernon Geberth, is quoted saying that "In a case like this I would want to test for all sorts of exotic drugs, ones not normally looked for." But did they? Certainly the blood work done by Beyer doesn't match the depression claim by Fiske/Starr. Are we simply to ignore the parts of Beyer's autopsy that don't, DR?

And what about the bullet? Well it was never found. In fact, there was no effort during Beyer's *autopsy* to recover fragments that experts say might identify the type of bullet that was fired to see if it is consistent with the alleged suicide weapon. There were also no bone fragments found at the location where the body was recovered, even though they reportedly sifted the soil. Yet, bone fragments would have to be there if the exit wound were at the top of the skull and 1 by 1 ¼ inch in diameter. Wouldn't you think, DR?

[BeAChooser]

And speaking of bullets ... where must a bullet come from? A gun. Now this goes beyond the pathologist's report but there are lots of serious questions regarding that gun. Let me just list some since you indicated a desire for a more concise format (I took items from here: http://www.prorev.com/foster.htm ):


1. The man who discovered the body in Ft. Marcy Park says he ... snip ... looked closely for a gun. He emphatically says there was no gun in either hand.

2. The powder-burn patterns found on both Foster's hands apparently came from powder discharged from the front of a gun cylinder. If he had been gripping the handle, his hands would have had stain patterns consistent with powder discharged from the rear of the cylinder.

3. The gun was still in Foster's hand. It is unusual for a .38 caliber weapon to remain in a person's hand after discharge. Propelled by its powerful recoil, a .38 normally is thrown a considerable distance, sometimes as much as 15 feet. ... snip ...

4. There was no blood or tissue on the gun. Normally, the force of such a powerful explosion within the mouth blows back a large amount of blood and tissue.

5. No fingerprints were found on the exterior of the gun. The FBI claims this was due to a lack of sweat on Foster's hands. Consider that the temperature that afternoon passed 95 degrees, and the temperature-humidity index reached 103 (this estimates the effect of temperature and moisture on humans, with 65 considered the highest comfortable level). Furthermore, a man about to fire a gun in his mouth is likely to be sweating excessively. If the FBI explanation is scientifically true, one has to conclude it is exceedingly rare to find prints on any weapon.

6. The FBI lab found two fingerprints underneath the removable hand grips. These prints did not belong to Foster. No effort was made to identify these prints through the FBI's computerized data bank. ... snip ...

7. The gun was made up of parts from at least two guns. Consider that professional killers often use guns made from several guns to make them untraceable. These are known as "drop guns."

8. There is no evidence this gun belonged to Foster. Nor is there any evidence this gun fired the fatal shot.

9. When Lisa Foster went to look for her husband's silver gun in its normal place, she found a strange gun. No member of the Foster family recognized this gun. ... snip ...

10. The gun in Foster's hand, as shown in an ABC color photo, is clearly black. Members of Foster's family all agree Foster's gun was silver. The FBI showed Foster's widow a silver gun and told her it was the gun found at the scene. Why did the FBI make this substitution?

... snip ...

12. No matching bullets for the crime-scene gun were found on Foster or at his home. The only bullets found in his home were .22 caliber. This suggests Foster's silver gun was a .22, not a .38. FBI reports do not identify the caliber of the silver handgun in their possession. ... snip ...

13. The gun contained two cartridges, one spent and one unspent. They were stamped with a code indicating they were high velocity (extra powerful) rounds. This is inconsistent with the fact there was no pool of blood or large exit wound.

14. The rush to deliver a suicide verdict repeatedly corrupted normal police procedures. The gun was an 80-year-old Army Colt Special. Despite the age of the gun, the Park Police did not test it to see if it would actually fire. Six days after the investigation was closed, they asked the BATF to test the gun. The test results were announced five days later, or a total of 11 days after the case had already been closed.

... snip ...

16. Gun powder residue on Foster's glasses and clothing did not come from the gun found in his hand.

... snip ...

18. Five homes are located an average of 490 feet from the crime scene, yet nobody in the neighborhood heard a shot.

... snip ...

26. The Army Colt .38 Special has a high sight and a bulky ejector-rod head. These items normally do significant damage to the teeth and mouth when the gun barrel is explosively expelled from the mouth. Foster's teeth were not chipped, nor was his mouth damaged.

... snip ...

27. No blow-back of blood or tissue was found on the gun, on Foster's hand, or on his sleeve. Most homicide experts believe this is physically impossible given the power of the Colt .38. ... snip ...

28. No skull fragments were found at the scene, even though a .38 fired into the mouth normally inflicts severe damage as the slug blows out the back of the brain case. Park Police officer John Rolla observed, "There was no blowout. There weren't brains running all over the place. . . I initially thought the bullet might still be in his head." ... snip ...

... snip ...

34. According to Hugh Sprunt, a highly respected Foster researcher, "White House sources... did indicate to the media very shortly after the death that two different guns were involved in the shooting a .22 and one a .38." Park Police notes of 7/26/93 also mention this, adding that the information came from the FBI.


You might want to check out the rest of that list, too. There are more than a few suspicious items that I haven't even mentioned so far in this thread. And here's another list: http://www.internet-grocer.net/vfoster.htm . How anyone, given all of that, could believe nothing criminal happened in the Vince Foster case is beyond me. Especially given the demonstrated inability of the doubters on this thread to successfully challenge even ONE of the facts I've listed so far. In my view, this case puts the lie to the claim that this forum is about skepticism and truth.

[BeAChooser]

You extensively quote what conspiracy websites have to say rather than going to primary sources or official reports ("fbicover-up.com"? Yes, they sound totally unbiased)

ROTFLOL!

Well first of all, its easy to claim something is a *conspiracy* website, but it would be far more effective for you to actually show that anything they state about the Foster case (certainly anything I've repeated) is false. I can't help but notice that you WON'T do that ... even when repeatedly challenged to do so. :D

Second, you obviously don't know ANYTHING about fbicover-up.com. Because if you did, you'd know the author of that website was an eyewitness at Marcy Park. You'd know that for the first time in history, a panel of three judges FORCED a special prosecutor to attach an addendum to his report, written by the author of that website, specifically accusing the OIC of witness intimidation and tampering with evidence. I bet you didn't even bother to glance at the site before making your comment. And I now challenge you to show that ANY claim made by Patrick Knowlton or his attorney on that website is false. Bet you run instead.

Kenn Starr was really working for the Clintons!

I invite you to try and show that the specific facts I stated regarding Starr are false. Bet you run instead.

Snopes is a bunch of Clinton-lovers)

I stated specifically why the Snopes article on Fosters death is flawed.

You are welcome to show what I said wrong. Bet you run instead.

you twist the actual evidence to suit your argument

I invite you to tell us specifically which evidence I've twisted. Bet you run instead.

I've read your Ron Brown threads

If you did, you offered no specific criticism of the facts I brought out in that case either. Running?

and you keep hijacking barely-related threads to rant about your pet conspiracies

That's your interpretation, but for the record I clearly didn't do that here.

(turning a thread about Obama's selection of Clinton-era staffers for his cabinet into "ZOMG Hilalry killded Vince Foster!").

This thread was specifically started by me to discuss whether the criminality of Hillary on three specific named scandals should be a factor in Obama making her Secretary of State. You could have accepted my statements of fact in the OP regarding those scandals. Statements I'm perfectly willing to defend and have on this thread with not one successful challenge to those facts. But you don't. If any expansion of the discussion has occurred, it's because with broad strokes the naysayers dismissed all allegations against the Clintons. Now I have tried my best to keep this thread focused on the three scandals named in the OP and provide verifiable facts to support my concerns. I've remained on topic. You are the one now waving hands and trying to derail the thread.

SO ... do you have anything SPECIFIC to challenge the facts I've laid out?

If not, I really question your reason for being on this thread.

[Tricky]

This is sounding more and more like it ought to be moved to Conspiracy Theories.

What are they going to find on Vince Foster next? Traces of thermite?:D

[BeAChooser]

BAC, I've looked at your arguments and I don't think you've got a case. Look, I'm not a Hillary fan and I would be happy to join you in your condemnation I just don't think the evidence is there.

So I gather you think that Hillary's conversations late at night with her Chief of Staff, Margaret Williams, immediately before and after Williams went to and searched Foster's office were innocent and unrelated to any criminal activity?

Care to explain why Williams then lied about what she did that night while under oath? Or do you believe her when she denied taking anything from Foster's office? In which case, are you accusing the Secret Service agent of lying? And your proof of that? And you believe her when she said that she didn't call Susan Thomases? Even though a senate committee proved otherwise?

Are you accepting the story put out years and years later that the Whitewater records that prosecutors were seeking at the time and which magically showed up in Hillary residence just after the statute of limitations on that case expired were removed from Foster's office several days after he died by Williams and taken to the residence? And even if that were true, do you really think that was done innocently and unconnected to criminal activity? Prosecutors were seeking those documents. Wasn't that obstruction of justice regardless of whether it occurred the night Foster died or several days later? And do you really think that Williams did that without orders from Hillary?

Or how about the memo that shows several of the Clinton staff lied when they claimed Hillary had no role in the handling of the torn *suicide* note? If it's true as suggested by the memo that Hillary's concern was the reason the note wasn't immediately turned over to the FBI, isn't that obstruction of an ongoing investigation?

And regarding Filegate, are you claiming that the witnesses who testified (under oath) that Hillary was the mastermind behind that illegal activity were lying? Any proof of that? Can you tell us why Hillary lied about hiring Livingstone? Because apparently she did since even Livingstone now admits this. Or do you think that Filegate was not a criminal activity, despite the fact that most of the files were republican and the information was being loaded onto Whitehouse and DNC computers?

And let's not forget Chinagate. Why was Maggie Williams, Hillary's Chief of Staff, accepting illegal campaign contributions in the Whitehouse? Or don't you think that was illegal ... even though Johnny Chung was prosecuted and convicted for doing it? And do you claim that Nolanda Hill was lying when she testified under oath that Ron Brown told her Hillary conceived of the illegal scheme to sell trade mission seats? Do you have any proof of that? Can you cite any instance where Hill was found to be lying in any of her other testimony?

It's time to show you are a skeptic, RandFan

[BeAChooser]

Oh yes you are!! See how BAC debunked the last person to make this claim?

Now Tricky, you know full well that is not how I debunked the last person to make that claim. My posts have contained considerably more details. I know you are unhappy that I took your challenge regarding the depression claim apart, but must you misrepresent my statements on this forum?

Ed: Oh wait. I see you posted that before I debunked your challenge so I guess that makes your misrepresentation of the fact and source filled way I have dealt with naysayers ok. :rolleyes:

[Grizzly Bear]

What are they going to find on Vince Foster next? Traces of thermite?:D
Meteorites!!!!!! Gigantic balls of STEEEEEEEL!!!!!!!!

random moment aside... *Ahem* :D

I'm not happy with the Clintonesque administration though, you can talk about policy for better or for worse but my position is if you promise to bring about change I don't see much change if the cabinet looking a lot like the Clinton era. It's starting to sound to me like same policies, different president. And it goes against that checklist Obama sat out as the criteria for applying for one of the cabinet spots... NY times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/politics/13apply.html). (and for the record I don't expect anyone to be squeaky clean in politics, but some of his choices come across to me as relatively weak enforcement of those standards)

That's my take... include some people that have "must-haves" to work with policy, but the net change from Clinton to Bush and back to clintonesque seems at the surface anyway to be very little change

[BeAChooser]

As a physician, I can tell you that your medical analysis is fatally flawed.

Oh ... so now you are claiming to be an expert? This should be fun. Since I have already posted a link to on-line medical resources that state the anti-depressant Foster was given is for insomnia at the dosage it was prescribed and in the manner it was to be taken, why don't you provide one that proves that wrong. :D

But as I stated, I have no interest in playing this game.

Oh, I see, you are going to run.

I could spend an hour or two debunking this claim

Surely it wouldn't take an hour. I found my link in about 30 seconds. :D

ETA: If you would like a hint at the absurdity of your claim, try this little exercise. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands.

Having trouble actually dealing with the facts? Having to "conjecture"? Haven't you heard that conjecture isn't proof of anything? :D

[LibraryLady]

I've pulled out the discussion of bigotry and sent it ot AAH. If you want to start another discussion in a separate thread, please do so in a civil manner. This applies to all. Thank you.

[Tricky]

I'm not happy with the Clintonesque administration though, you can talk about policy for better or for worse but my position is if you promise to bring about change I don't see much change if the cabinet looking a lot like the Clinton era. It's starting to sound to me like same policies, different president.
I am a little unsure about it too. Obama seems to be borrowing a lot from past administrations (including Bush's), but as I detailed earlier, just because you have the same people doesn't mean they do the same thing. It is important not to waste experienced people because they are "tainted" with having been part of another administration. It isn't like people in politics work for eight years then disappear. They have careers too. Sometimes they change jobs. But I'm not giving Obama a free pass on this. I'm waiting to see how he uses people. I fully expect to disagree with some of it.

And it goes against that checklist Obama sat out as the criteria for applying for one of the cabinet spots... NY times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/politics/13apply.html). (and for the record I don't expect anyone to be squeaky clean in politics, but some of his choices come across to me as relatively weak enforcement of those standards).
Interestingly, one of the main complaint of would-be-advisors is that the vetting process is too strict (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/22/obama.vetting/). They appear to be digging through closets with shovels looking for any trace of skeletons. Admittedly, this is not the same as making sure they are qualified, but it is clear that Obama doesn't want any Palin-like surprises. I'm frankly shocked by some of his choices. I really didn't think there was any chance of Hillary being S of S, and keeping Gates on as secretary of Defense is nearly mind-boggling for a man who ran on "get rid of this administration".

In general, I am impressed that Obama can put politics aside and truly look at what a candidate can offer, but it makes me nervous too. At this point, all we can say is "we'll see".

That's my take... include some people that have "must-haves" to work with policy, but the net change from Clinton to Bush and back to clintonesque seems at the surface anyway to be very little change
I don't think it's a change "back to clintonesque", but certainly it will be a lot more like the Clinton days than the last eight years. Let's face it. There are a lot of experienced people who worked with the Clintons, and Obama is, in fact, a Democrat. I sure don't want him pushing a lot of unexperienced cronies (the name Michael Brown comes to mind) into positions because they are "fresh voices".

The real question is will it be "Hillary Unleashed" or will she be forced to toe the line and mold her agenda to fit with Obama's. It's going to be very interesting.

[Tricky]

But since the naysayers on this thread apparently won't even address a single specific question regarding the case.
You mean except for the ones that did?

You see, BAC. This is why we don't bother. It makes so little impression on you that it is not worth doing. You don't even remember it.

Why don't you address that growing list of people who had to be "in on it". Doesn't that bother you at all?
Starr
Fiske
The Clintons
Other Clinton administration officials *
FBI agents *
Policemen *
Pathologists *
Foster's wife
Foster's friends *
Physicians *
And, oh yeah, Snopes.

This is where conspiracy theories always fall down. There had to be so many people who hate America and want to protect the Clintons. From my experience, only about 50% of people, maybe as many as 55%, really like the Clintons. Couple that with the fact that the Republicans held all the Presidency, both houses, and had a ideological majority in the Supreme Court for six of the last eight years, and you almost every single Republican refusing to give the Clintons what they deserved. They could have acted on this "evidence" if it had been worth their time. They could have launched an investigation, especially considering Hillary Clinton was a sitting Senator. When did they become protective of the Clintons?

The paranoia required to keep this belief up must be a tremendous strain on you. I wonder if you can get a prescription for that. And if you did, would you fight it?

[ANTPogo]

Well first of all, its easy to claim something is a *conspiracy* website,

"The federal investigative records on this web site prove the existence of an FBI / Independent Counsel / Media cover-up of the murder of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster."

That's not a conspiracy website?


but it would be far more effective for you to actually show that anything they state about the Foster case (certainly anything I've repeated) is false. I can't help but notice that you WON'T do that ... even when repeatedly challenged to do so. :D

Second, you obviously don't know ANYTHING about fbicover-up.com. Because if you did, you'd know the author of that website was an eyewitness at Marcy Park. You'd know that for the first time in history, a panel of three judges FORCED a special prosecutor to attach an addendum to his report, written by the author of that website, specifically accusing the OIC of witness intimidation and tampering with evidence. I bet you didn't even bother to glance at the site before making your comment. And I now challenge you to show that ANY claim made by Patrick Knowlton or his attorney on that website is false. Bet you run instead.

He basically proves himself wrong (or, at the least, is guilty of cherry-picking evidence from his "witnesses" when it suits his theory, and ignoring them when it would prove detrimental to his "case").

In his giant-ass court filing (which bears, in its pedantic minutiae, no small resemblance to Groden and Livingston's Kennedy assassination conspiracy book), Knowlton goes to some great pains to try and establish the fact that Vince Foster had been dead for a while (per Knowlton's own claimed witness statement). Lots of dried congealed blood, no flows or pools when the body is moved, and so on.

And yet, in the transcription of his audio CD interview with former US attorney Miguel Rodriguez (who Knowlton says blows the murder cover-up wide open because Rodriguez refused to go along with the cover-up and was removed from Starr's investigation), Knowlton (as "narrator"), says very plainly that the Fiske and Starr report "falsely" said that a large quantity of blood was found with the body.

Rodriguez corrects Knowlton, saying "By the way, you know why there was blood,", and says there was lots of blood gushing out because the body was moved onto a slope:

"They lifted the body and pulled it to the top of the ridge, top of the berm, and once they did that blood started flowing fast. And then when they took the body and put it into the body bag, which was right – in other words they – it was on a slope – they pull it up onto the slope. When the body is horizontal or even at the top of the berm it's not quite horizontal it's a little bit of a back-slope – and all of a sudden the blood starts gushing out, there's a lot of blood then under the body. "

In other words, the "barely any blood, and what was there was old and dried" evidence Knowlton relies on to support his claim that Vince Foster was murdered long before he was supposed to have committed suicide was shot down by his own star witness!


I invite you to try and show that the specific facts I stated regarding Starr are false. Bet you run instead.

Your ridiculous insinuations that Starr faked a typewritten note from Foster's doctor (especially when the contents of that note are the very thing you use to "prove" Starr a liar), for one.

I stated specifically why the Snopes article on Fosters death is flawed.

You are welcome to show what I said wrong. Bet you run instead.

What you said: "Note that Snopes states "Vince Foster committed suicide on the night of 20 July 1993 by shooting himself once in the head, a day after he contacted his doctor about his depression." But that claim is untrue. The doctor said Foster contacted him about INSOMNIA and he proscribed medication that was 1/6th the dose normally used to treat depression."

What his doctor said, as quoted by you: "I talked to Vince on 7/19/93, at which time he complained of anorexia and insomnia. He had no GI (gastrointestinal) symptoms. We discussed the possibility of taking Axid or Zantac to help with any ulcer symptoms as he was under a lot of stress. He was concerned about the criticism they were getting and the long hours he was working at the White House. He did feel that he had some mild depression."

The relevant portions are highlighted for you. Vince Foster contacted his doctor, and did talk about his depression then. Just as, remarkably, Snopes said.


I invite you to tell us specifically which evidence I've twisted. Bet you run instead.

I told you what evidence you twisted in the very post you quoted. Very convenient of you to delete that part, then mockingly "bet run instead."



If you did, you offered no specific criticism of the facts I brought out in that case either. Running?

Other contributors got there first, that's all. No point in repeating the unnecessary.

But if you're feeling particularly masochistic, I'd be happy to contribute.


That's your interpretation, but for the record I clearly didn't do that here.

This thread was specifically started by me to discuss whether the criminality of Hillary on three specific named scandals should be a factor in Obama making her Secretary of State. You could have accepted my statements of fact in the OP regarding those scandals.

Given your past record, what possible incentive would I have to do [I]that?

But you're right; I stand corrected on that point. The Vince Foster thing was in your OP as a possible reason to be wary of Hillary Clinton's selection as Secretary of State, and so any discussion of that allegation is perfectly on topic.

I apologize for accusing you of hijacking this thread when you did not.

Statements I'm perfectly willing to defend and have on this thread with not one successful challenge to those facts. But you don't. If any expansion of the discussion has occurred, it's because with broad strokes the naysayers dismissed all allegations against the Clintons. Now I have tried my best to keep this thread focused on the three scandals named in the OP and provide verifiable facts to support my concerns. I've remained on topic. You are the one now waving hands and trying to derail the thread.

SO ... do you have anything SPECIFIC to challenge the facts I've laid out?

You mean other than this post?

If not, I really question your reason for being on this thread.

I have no doubt in my mind that you do.

[Grizzly Bear]

Interestingly, one of the main complaint of would-be-advisors is that the vetting process is too strict (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/22/obama.vetting/). They appear to be digging through closets with shovels looking for any trace of skeletons. Admittedly, this is not the same as making sure they are qualified, but it is clear that Obama doesn't want any Palin-like surprises. I'm frankly shocked by some of his choices. I really didn't think there was any chance of Hillary being S of S, and keeping Gates on as secretary of Defense is nearly mind-boggling for a man who ran on "get rid of this administration".

The resume issue seems to be somewhat of a double-edged sword, on one hand it's very personal... and on the other in so far as I can see the enforcement of those standards seems to be weak particularly with Clinton getting a position as secretary of state. I'm troubled by both, I just don't know which to be more troubled by :D


I don't think it's a change "back to clintonesque", but certainly it will be a lot more like the Clinton days than the last eight years. Let's face it. There are a lot of experienced people who worked with the Clintons, and Obama is, in fact, a Democrat. I sure don't want him pushing a lot of unexperienced cronies (the name Michael Brown comes to mind) into positions because they are "fresh voices".

The real question is will it be "Hillary Unleashed" or will she be forced to toe the line and mold her agenda to fit with Obama's. It's going to be very interesting.
Well obviously introducing new faces for the sake of new faces wouldn't be a very wise criteria, so in effect I don't disagree with keeping people from previous administrations for the experience value. What I'm more concerned about is essentially how he assembles his cabinet. I just hope his administration doesn't become too much like Clinton, one of the reasons why I was opposed to her in the first place is that royal families creep me out... and after a double whami of Bush I'm not sure I necessarily want the same with a Clinton-like administration...

I'd be interested as well in how things turn out with Clinton in the mix Xd
I don't think I have to say much else for you to know where I stand with her...

[BeAChooser]

It is obviously scribbled quickly.

How do you know the agent doesn't just have messy handwriting? How do you know the agent wasn't balancing the paper on his knee while recording Lisa's responses to the questions? And why should scribbling make the agent put a completely wrong word in the location YOU CLAIM was meant for depression? It's remarkable that you can't see how unskeptical you are acting.

Sometimes when people write, their minds get ahead of themselves

Can you provide ANY proof the highly trained agent did this? Or are you just conjecturing ... which we all know is proof of NOTHING.

But nobody "fights a prescription". They may "fight addiction" or "fight depression" but they don't fight prescriptions.

Well as you said, perhaps the agent's mind got ahead of himself. Perhaps the agent was thinking "he was fighting addiction to prescriptions" but in his haste to scribble it down he just left out the italicized words. See? I can conjecture too. Using your own logic. :D

And of course, if he was "fighting addiction" that would mean that he was already addicted to "sleeping pills" as you call them.

No. That would only mean he wanted a prescription that wasn't likely to be addictive ... like sleeping pills might be if he were to use those. Desyrel is not addictive. http://www.whatmeds.com/meds/desyrel.html "Desyrel is not addictive".

Foster's doctor had indeed prescribed him an antidepressant.

But at the dosage and in the manner it is used for insomnia ... according to on-line medical references. Perhaps you can help gdnp find one that disagrees. ;)

Perhaps it was only for "mild depression".

Why do you say perhaps? The doctor said he had mild depression. No one is contesting that ... except Fiske and Starr who claim he had "clinical" depression, which is much more severe.

Perhaps it was to help him sleep

Why do you say perhaps. The doctor told the FBI he prescribed the medicine so that he could "start sleeping better".

Your interpretation makes zero sense

Right Tricky. And yours does. :rolleyes:

[Tricky]

The resume issue seems to be somewhat of a double-edged sword, on one hand it's very personal... and on the other in so far as I can see the enforcement of those standards seems to be weak particularly with Clinton getting a position as secretary of state. I'm troubled by both, I just don't know which to be more troubled by :D
I think the thing is that Obama doesn't want surprises. With Clinton, there aren't very many surprises. Everybody knows she killed Vince Foster, so we can just move on.:D It's the ones who have never had much public scrutiny that he is working to make sure they are puncture-proof.

Well obviously introducing new faces for the sake of new faces wouldn't be a very wise criteria, so in effect I don't disagree with keeping people from previous administrations for the experience value. What I'm more concerned about is essentially how he assembles his cabinet. I just hope his administration doesn't become too much like Clinton, one of the reasons why I was opposed to her in the first place is that royal families creep me out... and after a double whami of Bush I'm not sure I necessarily want the same with a Clinton-like administration...
I understand and share your feelings to a certain extent. I think the Clintons made a lot of mistakes, but they were light years better than Shrub's folks. So Obama is cherry-picking the best of both, and adding a few new faces. I can't really argue with this process, but like you, I am waiting to see results.

I'd be interested as well in how things turn out with Clinton in the mix.
I don't think I have to say much else for you to know where I stand with her...
LOL. No, I hear where you're comin' from.;)

[RandFan]

It's time to show you are a skeptic, RandFanYou got me. I'm actually a Clinton shill. That's going to surprise an awful lot of JREFers. :)

FWIW: I don't necassarily believe that Hillary's behavior is innocent. That doesn't make your thesis true.

[Tricky]

How do you know the agent doesn't just have messy handwriting? How do you know the agent wasn't balancing the paper on his knee while recording Lisa's responses to the questions? And why should scribbling make the agent put a completely wrong word in the location YOU CLAIM was meant for depression? It's remarkable that you can't see how unskeptical you are acting.
I don't know any of that, but my explanation makes a lot more sense than the claim that he was "fighting prescription", a phrase that has no real meaning. You claim that this meant he was fighting addiction, but of course, there was no addiction. He had never taken the antidepressant. The phrase "fighting prescription" is not an idiom anyone has ever heard of. You have not proposed a scenario where your interpretation makes any sense.

So I don't know for sure I'm right, but at least it makes some sense. Much more than yours.
Can you provide ANY proof the highly trained agent did this? Or are you just conjecturing ... which we all know is proof of NOTHING. No. You have no proof of anything at all either. My explanation is no less conjecture than yours. But mine isn't nonsensical. That's the difference.

Well as you said, perhaps the agent's mind got ahead of himself. Perhaps the agent was thinking "he was fighting addiction to prescriptions" but in his haste to scribble it down he just left out the italicized words.If he had any addictions to prescriptions, that might make sense. But he didn't. So it doesn't.

No. That would only mean he wanted a prescription that wasn't likely to be addictive ... like sleeping pills might be if he were to use those. Desyrel is not addictive.
Which is another reason why "fighting prescriptions" makes no sense. He wouldn't be fighting addictions to a non addictive drug would he? If you are suggesting the doctor first suggested an addictive drug and Foster turned it down, well... that might require a little more evidence than you have been known to present. But even if this purely conjectural conversation took place, it is unlikely that the doctor would have included this in his report when they were specifically asking about what might have led to Foster's suicide.

Oh. I forgot. He's in on the conspiracy.

But at the dosage and in the manner it is used for insomnia ... according to on-line medical references. Perhaps you can help gdnp find one that disagrees.
Nevertheless, it is an antidepressant. The doctor certainly didn't know Foster was suicidal. Patients surprise doctors all the time in this regard. He recognized mild depression at least though. Doctors do this. They try small steps and move up if the small steps aren't working. (You can verify this with gdnp if you like.) They are also not perfect in their diagnosis of mental disorders. The brain is a funny, unpredictable thing.

Why do you say perhaps? The doctor said he had mild depression. No one is contesting that ... except Fiske and Starr who claim he had "clinical" depression, which is much more severe.

In retrospect, it is easier to diagnose clinical depression after the patient has committed suicide. The doctor should not be blamed for missing it. People can fool their doctors, especially as regards mental conditions. There isn't a urine test for clinical depression.

Right Tricky. And yours does. :rolleyes:
Much more so. I'd be willing to put that to a vote here if you like. But then, we're all in on the conspiracy too. Watch out for black helicopters around your house. Just sayin'.

[Grizzly Bear]

I think the thing is that Obama doesn't want surprises. With Clinton, there aren't very many surprises.
Clinton's also well known for her scandals and her adamant personality, she may not bring in too many surprises, but I'm really not sure I want to know what she could bring in if unleashed... heh... at this point I'll reserve my most adamant criticism for later.

I can't speak for the others, I'm not too big on politics as it is and I only know my stance with Clinton because I've heard about her much more... You have to figure I wasn't even a pre-teen when she and Bill were in power :blush:

[gdnp]

Having trouble actually dealing with the facts? Having to "conjecture"? Haven't you heard that conjecture isn't proof of anything? :D

My statement had nothing to do with conjecture. It was simply a list of the people you have implicated in the conspiracy: people who have lied, intentionally covered up, or otherwise falsified evidence. I have thus left out people like the press and Snopes, who could have been deluded.

So I'll give you another chance.

Please give us a list of all the people who have participated in the murder and coverup of Vince Foster.

Bet you run instead. :D

Now Tricky, you know full well that is not how I debunked the last person to make that claim. My posts have contained considerably more details. I know you are unhappy that I took your challenge regarding the depression claim apart, but must you misrepresent my statements on this forum?
I guess you haven't figured this out yet, but the winner isn't the one who posts the most words, or who posts last. It is the one who has the most convincing argument. Shall we post a poll of JREF members who have reviewed both points of view and see whether your or Tricky's analysis makes the most sense? :D

[BeAChooser]

Actually that's what Insight Magazine reports about the FBI interview (despite your attempts to disguise the source by using a Findarticles link).

First of all, I didn't disguise anything. Talk about CT. I simply posted the link where I found his FBI interview excerpts. Or are you suggesting he wasn't interviewed? That would be odd, wouldn't it. And the link I provided clearly states that "Insight On The News" is the source. So I wasn't disguising anything.

Second, you haven't actually proven that the quote by Dr Watkins in that article is false. The typed statement by Watkins in the Starr report tells exactly the same story. It says he complained of insomnia, had MILD depression and lists the same medication and dosage. So are claiming the Starr report is wrong about this? ;)

This is the same Insight Magazine that essentially made up that story about Obama attending a Wahhabist madrassa in Indonesia

So you claim.

I was unable to find any discussion of this FBI interview on any non-conspiracy website.]

Well I guess we should interpret that statement based on your definition of a "non-conspiracy" website. :D

It doesn't seem to be in the actual Fiske Report on Foster's death.

So are you claiming the FBI did no interview with Dr. Watkins? Wouldn't that be a huge oversight? :D

So, this conspiracy to hide the Clintons' involvement in Vince Foster's murder

Have I said ANYTHING on this thread about the Clinton's being involved in Vince Foster's murder? No, I have not. I've only pointed to what appears to be a coverup by the Clinton adminstration regarding a murder, regardless of who committed it. And it's not just me and "conspiracy" websites claiming this. It's people like Miquel Rodriguez, who was Starr's top investigator.

That amused me the most (even aside from AIM being your main source for this...are you ever going to quote from an unbiased source?).

Is there such a thing anywhere? I happen to think your sources are biased. I guess we can only reach a conclusion on the basis of facts ... and I have no problem with that. :D

And you didn't like that article about Berman? Well try this one:

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-dr-alan-bermans-loud-silence/

:D

Yet again, typical truther. "My theory is obviously the only one that fits the facts...as long as you totally ignore the actual physical evidence involved, that is!"

Only problem is that the physical evidence Berman used as the starting point for his analysis were the proven lies of Starr regarding what eyewitnesses said the night Foster died regarding his mental state and regarding Foster's "clinical" depression. :D

[BeAChooser]

The person who wrote this note did not write "fighting prescription", he wrote "fighting ---> prescription". Which is what I might have written if I wanted to write "fighting depression and was given a prescription."

Or if one wanted to conjecture differently, write something like "fighting addiction to prescription." That would be consistent with the known fact that Foster had been experiencing insomnia for some time and the fact that Lisa Foster told the FBI that Vince didn't want to take sleeping pills because "he was afraid that he would become addicted to them."

That certainly makes more sense than your conjecture since the dosage of anti-depressant was consistent with using the drug for insomnia, not depression.

But you go ahead and keep spinning, gdnp. :D

[Tricky]

So you claim.
No. So YOU claim. You make a preposterous claim that even many of Clinton's worst enemies don't support, and you support it with cherry-picked quotes and unsubstantiated innuendo from conspiracy theory websites.

Your claim has not convinced anyone here (except perhaps MaGZ) and you have continued to implicate more and more people in the "conspiracy" to cover this up.

Your claim has been rejected. Not just by us, but by the world, exclusive of Clinton-hating cells. If you had real evidence, there's plenty of fervent dislike for Clinton out there and there are plenty of legitimate legal firms who would gladly take it up. But you don't, and they won't. You want evidence? That's evidence.

[BeAChooser]

This is sounding more and more like it ought to be moved to Conspiracy Theories.

Well I hope that doesn't happen because that would only prove something about the forum that I certainly hope is not true. Also note that it was you who first led us down this path (see post #3). :D

[BeAChooser]

Interestingly, one of the main complaint of would-be-advisors is that the vetting process is too strict (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/22/obama.vetting/).

Yeah, they're required to provide a whole bunch of information that Obama didn't want to tell us about himself during the campaign. :D

Now back to the OP topic ... and it's not a general discussion of *change*.

[RandFan]

Well I hope that doesn't happen because that would only prove something about the forum that I certainly hope is not true. Also note that it was you who first led us down this path (see post #3). It does smack of CT. It meets all of the criteria. What would it prove?

[Tricky]

Well I hope that doesn't happen because that would only prove something about the forum that I certainly hope is not true. Also note that it was you who first led us down this path (see post #3). :D
Oh, it was me who led us down this path? Gee. You don't have a very good memory, do you. Let's have a look at a part of post #1.
(http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/clinton-to-accept-secretary-of-state-job/?hp)Hillary was directly implicated in a coverup involving the possible murder of Vince Foster.

You're not doing your credibility (such as it is) any favors here, BAC.

[BeAChooser]

You mean except for the ones that did?

The only one person I can think of that actually challenged a specific fact is you. And I shot you down right away. The doctor said insomnia was the concern. The doctor said "mild depression". And the dosage was for insomnia. Case closed. :D

Why don't you address that growing list of people who had to be "in on it".

Because you just want to derail the thread. You don't want to deal with the specific facts I listed (because you know I will shoot you down again just as I did the last time). So you throw out a red herring. Because if the evidence shows Foster was murdered then however many people were "in on it" is however many people who were "in on it". And as was pointed out previously, conjecture ... and that's all this latest argument is ... is not proof of ANYTHING.

And, oh yeah, Snopes.

I already pointed out that Snopes is just lazy and probably leans a little to the left so it's willing to swallow a Clinton protecting lie quite easily.

This is where conspiracy theories always fall down.

No Tricky. You are wrong. Where conspiracy theories fall down is that they don't fit the facts. You need only visit the CT forum to verify that. The most effective arguments against CT'ers are those that show the facts are not what they claim. And note that on this thread I have effectively shown that the facts are not what the Fiske/Starr theory claims. Making Fiske and Starr's theory the woo.

Couple that with the fact that the Republicans held all the Presidency, both houses, and had a ideological majority in the Supreme Court for six of the last eight years, and you almost every single Republican refusing to give the Clintons what they deserved. They could have acted on this "evidence" if it had been worth their time. They could have launched an investigation, especially considering Hillary Clinton was a sitting Senator. When did they become protective of the Clintons?

That argument was already addressed by me earlier. You didn't challenge the specific points I made then. So don't think that by simply repeating the claim you win the argument. What you do is display a classic behavior of CT proponents. Avoid responding to the other side's response. And besides, all this is again beside the point. Whatever the reason republicans did nothing does not change the facts. And it is the facts that point to Foster being murdered rather than committing suicide.

[BeAChooser]

Unfortunately, I have to go now and probably won't be visiting the forum for a few days.

I hope this thread is still here when I return ... probably on Sunday.

If it is, I'll take up where I left off in dealing with the posts on it.

Don't worry ANTpogo, you'll be next.

Have a nice Thanksgiving everyone. I know I will. :D

[Tricky]

The only one person I can think of that actually challenged a specific fact is you. And I shot you down right away.
You "shot me down"? Heh heh. You think? Would you be willing to put that to a vote? Yes, I know truth isn't determined by a vote, but believability is. Do you think your scenario is believable to a board of skeptics? I'm ready and willing to test that. I'll even work with you to agree on the wording of the poll. Are you ready to defend your marksmanship?
***
ETA
Just read your last post. Okay, we can put this off. Have a great Thanksgiving!

[ANTPogo]

Unfortunately, I have to go now and probably won't be visiting the forum for a few days.

I hope this thread is still here when I return ... probably on Sunday.

Same here.

Don't worry ANTpogo, you'll be next.

I'm aquiver with anticipation.

[gdnp]

Or if one wanted to conjecture differently, write something like "fighting addiction to prescription." That would be consistent with the known fact that Foster had been experiencing insomnia for some time and the fact that Lisa Foster told the FBI that Vince didn't want to take sleeping pills because "he was afraid that he would become addicted to them."
Well, I can't speak for the detective who wrote the note (who has already spoken, but according to your interpretation seems to have joined the conspiracy between the time he wrote it and when he was questioned) but when I am taking notes and use an ---> in the text it is shorthand for "which led to." For example, if I wrote "antibiotics ---> rash" I would be implying that the antibiotics led to the rash. Thus if I had written "fighting ---> prescription" it would mean "fighting led to prescription". Which as Tricky has pointed out makes no sense. Leading to the conjecture that Foster was fighting something that the detective left out...like depression.

But you go ahead and keep spinning, gdnp.
Spinning? I'm perfectly willing to accept the interpretation of the detective who took the note, he being the only one who knows, he having no reason to lie, and there being no other evidence that contradicts it. Unfortunately for you, it does not fit with your grand conspiracy, and thus you need to fabricate your own interpretation. I will leave it to others to decide who is trying to twist evidence.

:D

[boloboffin]

Of all the legitimate reasons one might choose to dislike Hillary Clinton, why someone has to go around making silly stuff up is beyond me.

And I speak as someone who admires her and thinks we would have been lucky to have her as our President. There is always something to dislike about a person, and if you disagree with her political positions, you have all the more reason to resist her charms.

But, come on!

[Ausmerican]

Of all the legitimate reasons one might choose to dislike Hillary Clinton, why someone has to go around making silly stuff up is beyond me.

And I speak as someone who admires her and thinks we would have been lucky to have her as our President. There is always something to dislike about a person, and if you disagree with her political positions, you have all the more reason to resist her charms.

But, come on!

Ah but Bolo, you are admittedly "in the tank" for the Clintons.

It takes far far less than saying you admire her for this to occur. I was originally accused of being in the tank for the Clintons when I suggested that the mojority of American do not think Bill is a rapist and they are both murderers. That was all I suggested and that made me an ardent supporter or some such thing so with your admitted admiration you are probably a sock puppet whose real name is Chelsea!!! :D

[RandFan]

Unfortunately, I have to go now and probably won't be visiting the forum for a few days.

I hope this thread is still here when I return ... probably on Sunday.

If it is, I'll take up where I left off in dealing with the posts on it.

Don't worry ANTpogo, you'll be next.

Have a nice Thanksgiving everyone. I know I will. :DThanks,

Could I ask you a favor? Would you please bullet your best arguments? You have posted so much that it's too much to wade through. If you don't want to bullet them then could you make a pithy statement why you think Clinton is guilty and I promise to respond in kind and carefully consider your points. BAC, I'm far from a liberal I can assure you. I've never liked Hillary and I was sweating bullets that she would win the primary. If you can convince anyone to change their mind it's me. I've looked at the evidence before and I've looked at a number of your posts and I've always been underwhelmed but I will objectively consider your argument. Fair enough?

[RandFan]

Ah but Bolo, you are admittedly "in the tank" for the Clintons.

It takes far far less than saying you admire her for this to occur. I was originally accused of being in the tank for the Clintons when I suggested that the mojority of American do not think Bill is a rapist and they are both murderers. That was all I suggested and that made me an ardent supporter or some such thing so with your admitted admiration you are probably a sock puppet whose real name is Chelsea!!! :D I was against the investigation and thought there was nothing to it. That said. I find Broderick's testimony very disturbing. She never tried to profit from her claim and she was fiercely private and did not run arround trying to gain noterioty. I also found Hitchen's No One Left To Lie To (http://www.amazon.com/No-One-Left-Lie-Values/dp/1859842844) very compelling.

I'm willing to admit that my life was very good during the Clinton years and I'm quite willing to give him credit for his accomplishments (I'm skeptical as to how much the economy was due to him but that's fine he didn't $#%& it up like Bush has). That said, I don't think he is a very moral person. I would gladly decline to be in the same room with either Bill or Hillary.

If anyone is willing to accept BAC's accusations it is me. I only ask that the accusations be backed by reason and evidence.

[Lonewulf]

You know, I just realized that BAC is right. Hillary Clinton is evil.

In the same light of several arguments made by BAC, here is my proof (http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/evilfinder/ef.cgi?said=Hillary+Clinton).

QED.

[BeAChooser]

That's not a conspiracy website?

Well if the definition is a site that seems to prove, using federal investigative records, a conspiracy to cover up a murder, then I suppose it is. But calling it that doesn't in and of itself make anything on the site untrue. So my challenge to you remains the same. Prove something is false.

In other words, the "barely any blood, and what was there was old and dried" evidence Knowlton relies on to support his claim that Vince Foster was murdered long before he was supposed to have committed suicide was shot down by his own star witness!


You completely mischaracterize what Knowlton and Assistant US Attorney Michael Rodriguez actually said and claimed on the matter of blood. They are not in disagreement.

Rodriguez confirms that the first rescue workers to arrive at the body saw very little blood. I quoted some of those EMTs previously in this thread saying exactly that. Why do you ignore their eyewitnesses accounts and the timeframe when they said they saw little blood, ANTPogo? Why do you ignore the fact that Rodriquez said Fiske and Starr lied when they claimed "that a quantity of blood was observed where the body was first discovered"?

Rodriguez says that only when the body was MOVED up the hill, head down, did blood begin to flow out the wound. That's not inconsistent with Knowlton's claim there was little blood AT THE CRIME SCENE. And after the body was moved, Rodriguez also says new photographs were taken as if it were the original crime scene. Why do you ignore that, too? Why do you ignore the fact that the crime scene photos of the body as it had originally been observed have vanished?

In fact, on almost every detail, not just the blood, Rodriguez actually confirms the deceptions and coverup that Knowlton's website claims occurred. Why do you ignore those many other instances? You seem to be ignoring a lot, ANTPogo.

Here's what Rodriquez concluded: "This whole notion of [Fiske and Starr] doing an honest investigation is laughable. … The FBI conducted the first investigation along with the Park Police. The FBI reinvestigated Foster's death under Independent Counsel Fiske, then, Kenneth Starr used the very same FBI agents in his investigation. … The American press misled the American public by reporting that there have been several independent investigations, when, in fact, all of the investigations were done by the FBI."

Why are you so quick to ignore that? Afterall, he was the man hired by Starr to lead his grand jury investigation. Shouldn't you be a little skeptical about the investigation when he says it was phony? Shouldn't you be a little skeptical when there are literally hundreds of facts pointing to a murder and coverup? Maybe you should reread Rodriquez testimony. Here:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0307/S00277.htm

And by the way, Rodriguez addresses another complaint voiced by naysayers on this thread. Rodriguez says "Everyone makes a very big mistake when they believe a lot of people are necessary to orchestrate some results ... snip ... All you need to do is just have a couple of people involved.…you control the central figures in the investigation. We don't need all these Park Police and all these FBI agents to know the overall crime.”

Your ridiculous insinuations that Starr faked a typewritten note from Foster's doctor

I insinuated no such thing. I said "Maybe he did type that note but it only confirms the above facts." I agreed with the possibllity that the doctor typed the note, not claimed he didn't. I do find it a little odd that the note only surfaces months after Fiske's investigation. Was the doctor hiding it the whole time? Unlikely. Was Fiske? Now I can understand why Fiske might hide it. Because observe ... the note corroborates the contents of the earlier FBI interview quotes that YOU insinuated were fake. Both the note and FBI interview statement show Fiske (and Starr) lied about the doctor saying Foster was clinically depressed. And I can't help but notice that you simply ignored that part. :D

Vince Foster contacted his doctor, and did talk about his depression then. Just as, remarkably, Snopes said.

FALSE. Snopes (and Starr and Fiske) all claimed that Foster "contacted his doctor about his depression" ... meaning that Foster called the doctor because he identified himself as being depressed. That's simply not true. The portion of the note that you didn't highlight said Foster "complained of anorexia and insomnia." Not depression. During the course of the doctor's interview with Foster apparently the doctor asked Foster if he was depressed but that was not the reason Foster contacted his doctor ... not because he identified himself as being depressed. Snopes is misleading to suggest he did. You are playing misleading word games.

And according to the FBI interview quotes that you insinuated are fake, Dr Watkins also indicated that Foster contacted him to complain about not being able to sleep. Not to complain of depression. And in both note and interview, the doctor indicated whatever depression Foster was experiencing was "mild" and that he was not "in crisis". He was NOT "clinically" depressed as Starr and Fiske both claimed. Starr and Fiske clearly lied about that in their reports. You can't deny that. So you ignore it.

And note that the FBI agent who took Lisa Foster's statement the night of Vince's death wrote in his notes that "FOSTER complained to LISA FOSTER that he was suffering from insomnia." She never even mentioned the word depression nor did she (on any other family and friends interviewed that night) see any behavior indicating depression. Fiske and Starr lied about that too. And you can't deny that. So you ignore it.


Quote:
I invite you to tell us specifically which evidence I've twisted. Bet you run instead.

I told you what evidence you twisted in the very post you quoted. Very convenient of you to delete that part, then mockingly "bet [i] run instead."


I didn't twist anything.

I was totally accurate in stating that 911 truthers ignore any fact that proves them wrong and that your side has done the same in the Foster case. In fact, you proved me right in your post.

I was totally accurate in stating that 911 truthers ignore or dismiss what real experts on the subject say. I'm the one quoting the experts as far as hand writing analysis is concerned. I'm the one quoting the witness statements gathered by Park Police and the FBI in this matter. And as we've seen in this case, I'm the one accurately quoting what Knowlton and Rodriguez said. And as I said, it is YOUR side that is been ignoring or dismissing out of hand what they say. And you proved me right in your post.

And finally, I was totally accurate in stating that 911 truthers throw out red herrings and employ countless strawmen. And you've done that in your post ... tossing out a red herring about the blood. Sorry, I did not twist anything in the very post I quoted. But you just did. :D

But if you're feeling particularly masochistic, I'd be happy to contribute.

By all means. Let's see what you can bring to the table in the Ron Brown debate. But please post on one of those Ron Brown threads you claimed you read. Not here. :D

[BeAChooser]

I think the thing is that Obama doesn't want surprises. With Clinton, there aren't very many surprises.

So you are saying that Obama must know the details I've mentioned here about Chinagate, Filegate and Fostergate?

[dudalb]

I think we can safely say that somebody here has a dislike of Bill and Hilary that borderlines on obsessive.

[BeAChooser]

my explanation makes a lot more sense than the claim that he was "fighting prescription" ... snip ... You claim that this meant he was fighting addiction, but of course, there was no addiction.

It is your explanation that makes no sense. Everyone involved ... Foster's wife, Foster's family, Foster's friends, Foster's workmates ... all said at the time of his death when questioned by Park Police and the FBI that Foster was NOT depressed or showing any indication of being depressed. His death came as a complete surprise. Even his doctor only indicated "mild" depression after the doctor said Foster came to him with complaints of insomnia. Furthermore, the doctor clearly treated insomnia rather than depression given that the dosage of drug that was prescribed was for insomnia, not depression. This I proved. Foster's wife told the FBI that he was afraid of a sleeping pill addiction. So it is not at all inconceivable that the FBI agent could have written "fighting prescription" to indicate that fact.

You can spin for all you are worth, Tricky, but the fact remains that Fiske and Starr LIED about Foster being clinically depressed. He was NOT. They lied that the anti-depressant given Foster by the doctor was for depression. It was not. Fiske and Starr could easily have determined this. So they deliberately LIED. And if your foolish enough to believe such lies I can understand why you'd be so supportive of the Clintons. They made lying an art.

You have no proof of anything at all either.

False. I provided statements by the doctor that Foster was given a prescription TO HELP HIM SLEEP BETTER. I have provided links that prove the dosage of that prescription was that recommended for insomnia ... not depression. I have provided statements from Foster's wife, family, friends and work associates indicating that Foster was not depressed. It is you who has not proven anything. All you have is speculation by Fiske and Starr ... proven liars.

If he had any addictions to prescriptions, that might make sense. But he didn't.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984262-1,00.html "IN MID-1993, ... snip ... He got a prescription for sleeping pills, but then refused to take them, saying he was afraid he'd become addicted."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940701.htm "He would not take sleeping pills because he feared becoming addicted."

Nevertheless, it is an antidepressant.

It was not prescribed for depression. It was prescribed for it's OTHER listed use. For insomnia. Spin all you want, Tricky ... you will not change the fact that Fiske and Starr LIED when they claimed the doctor prescribed medicine to treat clinical depression.

In retrospect, it is easier to diagnose clinical depression after the patient has committed suicide.

Listen to yourself. You are committing a basic error in logic ... assuming that which you wish to prove true. The actual facts seem to fit the possibility that Foster was murdered just as well or even better than a suicide. In which case, the diagnosis of clinical depression after the fact could just be part of the coverup of that murder. NO ONE amongst all his friends and associates at the time of the death indicated he showed any signs of depression. Fiske and Starr lied when they later claimed they did.

[BeAChooser]

It does smack of CT. It meets all of the criteria.

And what are those criteria? Please list them.

[BeAChooser]

Thus if I had written "fighting ---> prescription" it would mean "fighting led to prescription". Which as Tricky has pointed out makes no sense. Leading to the conjecture that Foster was fighting something that the detective left out...like depression.

Or insomnia? That conjecture works even better since the prescription that was issued was clearly for insomnia, not depression. Especially since Foster had indeed been "fighting" insomnia for some time. :D

By the way, did you ever come up with a website supporting your *expert* claim that the prescription Foster was given was for anything other than insomnia? Would you like me to post a few more supporting what I said keeping in mind that Foster was prescribed an initial dose of 50 mg increasing to 150 mg, that was to be given at bedtime?

http://www.rxlist.com/desyrel-drug.htm


DESYREL is indicated for the treatment of depression. ... snip ... An initial dose of 150 mg/day in divided doses is suggested.The dose may be increased by 50 mg/day every three to four days. The maximum dose for outpatients usually should not exceed 400 mg/day in divided doses.


http://www.psychatlanta.com/documents/trazadone.pdf


When prescribed for insomnia and sleep disturbance, the usual dose for trazodone is 50–100 mg at bedtime, but some patients may need doses as high as 150–200 mg. ... snip ... For treatment of depression, trazodone is gradually increased to the effective therapeutic dosage of 300–400 mg, although some individuals may require dosages up to 600 mg."


http://books.google.com/books?id=4gItF4QOIT8C&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=desyrel+insomnia+dosage&source=web&ots=Q4UXyn0pdt&sig=itZhyGcmho-jO1KS2YHk63K7ps8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result


Symptom-Focused Psychiatric Drug Therapy for Managed Care, By Sonny Joseph ... snip ... For treatment of insomnia and as an adjunctive medication, the dosage range is 50 to 150 mg, given at bedtime for insomnia, and in divided doses for other purposes.


http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:TISVvkxWsrEJ:www.collegeofwellness. com/images/pdf/ce/Summer04-RX-for-Insomnia.pdf+desyrel+insomnia+dosage+AD+Schmetzer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us


Two of the most commonly used medications for insomnia in the United States are ... snip ... and the antidepressant trazodone (Desyrel) used in the range of 25 to 150 mg, which is lower than its effective antidepressant dose.

[BeAChooser]

Could I ask you a favor? Would you please bullet your best arguments? You have posted so much that it's too much to wade through.

Before I go to that trouble, let's establish whether you are open to a few possibilities.

Are you open to the possibility that Vince Foster was murdered? And if he was murdered, would you agree there might be reason to question making Hillary Secretary of State given her actions following his death?

Will you agree that even if Foster wasn't murdered, efforts by her to obstruct justice in the Whitewater case, if evident, would be reason to question making Hillary Secretary of State?

Are you open to the possibility that Hillary was involved in Filegate? And if she was, would you agree there is then good reason to question making her Secretary of State?

Are you open to the possibility that Hillary was involved in ChinaGate and CampaignFinanceGate? And if she was, would you agree that would be a good reason not to make her Secretary of State?

And finally, are you open to the possibility that Kenneth Starr was controlled by the Clintons? And if he was, can you trust any outcome of any investigation he was involved in related to them?

[BeAChooser]

I think we can safely say that somebody here has a dislike of Bill and Hilary that borderlines on obsessive.

Why is it obsessive to be concerned that the person Obama picked for Secretary of State is a criminal who showed little regard for laws prohibiting foreigners from influencing our elections, for laws protecting the privacy of individuals, for laws prohibiting obstruction of justice and possible for laws prohibiting murder? You clearly don't want to argue the facts so you try this red herring instead. If there is any obsessiveness being displayed here, it's by the folks defending the Clintons via red herrings. Perhaps we should call it the Cult of Clinton. :D

[Tricky]

It is your explanation that makes no sense. Everyone involved ... Foster's wife, Foster's family, Foster's friends, Foster's workmates ... all said at the time of his death when questioned by Park Police and the FBI that Foster was NOT depressed or showing any indication of being depressed. His death came as a complete surprise. Even his doctor only indicated "mild" depression after the doctor said Foster came to him with complaints of insomnia. Furthermore, the doctor clearly treated insomnia rather than depression given that the dosage of drug that was prescribed was for insomnia, not depression. This I proved. Foster's wife told the FBI that he was afraid of a sleeping pill addiction. So it is not at all inconceivable that the FBI agent could have written "fighting prescription" to indicate that fact.

Are you suggesting that no doctor has ever failed to diagnose clinical depression? As was mentioned before, doctors tend to start treatment at low levels and move up if needed.

You can spin for all you are worth, Tricky, but the fact remains that Fiske and Starr LIED about Foster being clinically depressed. He was NOT.
No, it sounds like Starr interpreted clinical depression from one of the most diagnostic characteristics, namely suicide. That's not a lie.

They lied that the anti-depressant given Foster by the doctor was for depression. It was not. Fiske and Starr could easily have determined this. So they deliberately LIED. And if your foolish enough to believe such lies I can understand why you'd be so supportive of the Clintons. They made lying an art.
Yeah. I'm foolish. As are all all the members of all three investigations and every judge that ruled on them.

As for the Clintons, yes, they did lie about some things, yet apparently not enough so to ever be convicted of a crime. More judges in on the conspiracy?

This I proved. Foster's wife told the FBI that he was afraid of a sleeping pill addiction. So it is not at all inconceivable that the FBI agent could have written "fighting prescription" to indicate that fact.

You haven't proved anything. You have asserted. You still give absolutely no plausible reason for why a person would "fight a prescription", while ignoring quite plausible reasons why someone might scribble "fighting (depression). (Given) prescription." You would rather invent a hitherto unheard of idiom.

I have provided statements from Foster's wife, family, friends and work associates indicating that Foster was not depressed. It is you who has not proven anything. All you have is speculation by Fiske and Starr ... proven liars.
Yet the doctor, a professional, asserts he was mildly depressed. Do you have any reason to assume that all of these non-professionals should be trusted with a diagnosis? Depression isn't always evident. It fools doctors too. It is an extremely unpredictable illness. How many times have you heard somebody say of a suicide victim, "I never would have expected this of him"?


It was not prescribed for depression. It was prescribed for it's OTHER listed use. For insomnia. Spin all you want, Tricky ... you will not change the fact that Fiske and Starr LIED when they claimed the doctor prescribed medicine to treat clinical depression.

Yes, it was for insomnia, though it is still an anti-depressant. But he never took a single one. I don't know that he ever even filled the prescription. And even if he was worried that he might become addicted, that leads even more to the liklihood that he was very worried. Tell me, BAC. What might lead one to commit suicide? Could it possibly be that he was very worried? Oh, I know you won't call it "clinical depression" but let's face it, not all suicides have been diagnosed as clinically depressed.

Listen to yourself. You are committing a basic error in logic ... assuming that which you wish to prove true.
I have no wishes in this, other than to evaluate the evidence. You, on the other hand, have often demonstrated a hatred for anything that relates to the Clintons. Which of us is the more biased?

Three investigations, including at least one hostile one have said it was a suicide. The amount of cover-up that would be necessary to hide a murder would be incredible. It would require hundreds of people, from Ken Starr to the cops that investigated to the CIA... Really BAC. Look at yourself. You sound desperate.

NO ONE amongst all his friends and associates at the time of the death indicated he showed any signs of depression. Fiske and Starr lied when they later claimed they did.
And which of those have come out and said it wasn't a suicide? How many? All of them? Does his family want more investigation? No they don't. They filed suit to prevent it (http://ads.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21620).

Also, lawyers for the family said Favish "has produced no evidence of government wrongdoing, or shown that access to the photos is necessary to confirm or refute that evidence, as various courts have required.

If they can let go, why can't you? Let me guess. His family is in on the conspiracy too.

[BeAChooser]

Are you suggesting that no doctor has ever failed to diagnose clinical depression?

I'm saying the facts at hand ... the statements made by Foster's wife, family, friends and coworkers at the time of his death ... do not fit the description of clinical depression. I'm saying the doctor who actually saw Foster did not describe clinical depression. I'm saying that Fiske and Starr clearly lied when they said those folks said Foster was depressed immediately after he died. I'm saying that Fiske and Starr clearly lied when they claimed the anti-depressant was prescribed for depression. I'm saying that the doctor Starr cited to support the post-facto claim of clinical depression based his opinion on bogus facts told to him by Starr and did not use the procedure he'd successfully used in other cases when estimating the likelihood that Foster was suicidal. How can that be unclear to you at this point, Tricky?

As was mentioned before, doctors tend to start treatment at low levels and move up if needed.

As the numerous medical sources I supplied indicate, the dosage at which treatment for insomnia and depression starts is quite different. The sources seem to indicate that the dosage for treatment of depression would start at 3 times the dosage the doctor actually prescribed. The dosage that was prescribed is the recommended starting dosage for insomnia. You're spinning, Tricky. And everyone can see it.

No, it sounds like Starr interpreted clinical depression from one of the most diagnostic characteristics, namely suicide. That's not a lie.

Again, you are assuming that Foster committed suicide in order to defend Starr from charges of covering up a murder. Don't you see the logical fallacy in that?

Yeah. I'm foolish. As are all all the members of all three investigations and every judge that ruled on them.

As pointed out, there weren't three independent investigations. And the judges that ruled on Starr's investigation forced him to include an addendum that charged him with a coverup and intimidation of witnesses. The first time such a thing has happened to a special prosecutor in history.

As for the Clintons, yes, they did lie about some things, yet apparently not enough so to ever be convicted of a crime.

I guess you forgot that Bill Clinton lost his license to practice law for lying? And in fact, the reason they weren't convicted is that they weren't prosecuted. That's easy to prevent when you own the DOJ and you have a Senate that wouldn't have voted to convict even if a Clinton had raped a woman in the Rotunda of Capital building.

You haven't proved anything. You have asserted.

False. I linked you to the FBI interview notes that stated Foster's wife told the the FBI that Foster was afraid of a sleeping pill addition. And above I've supplied sources from such left wing sources as Time Magazine that corroborate this fear.

You still give absolutely no plausible reason for why a person would "fight a prescription", while ignoring quite plausible reasons why someone might scribble "fighting (depression). (Given) prescription."

I suggest you read my response to gdnp about that. Given all the other facts that are known, it's more plausible the agent was abbreviating the expression "fighting (insomnia). (Given) prescription." :D

You would rather invent a hitherto unheard of idiom.

You would rather invent facts not in evidence and ignore what the facts in evidence actually say.

Yet the doctor, a professional, asserts he was mildly depressed.

It must have been mild enough that no one else who knew Foster detected ANY depression. That's pretty mild. And mild is NOT clinical ... which is what Fiske and Starr claimed.

Do you have any reason to assume that all of these non-professionals should be trusted with a diagnosis?

Do you have any reason to assume that people close to Foster wouldn't be able to detect if he was depressed?

Depression isn't always evident. It fools doctors too. It is an extremely unpredictable illness.

See how desperate the Clinton supporters are, folks? They are simply conjecturing ... making up things ... in order to justify Fiske and Starr's clear lies. If they'll do that here ... will they do it for Obama when the time comes that's necessary?

Yes, it was for insomnia, though it is still an anti-depressant.

Irrelevant. As prescribed, it is for insomnia and nothing else. If Foster had significant depression, he would have been prescribed the drug at the dosage needed to treat depression. The fact remains that Starr LIED when he claimed the drug was prescribed for depression. Why'd he lie? That proves Starr was corrupt. He was not an honest investigator in this matter. The fact remains that the ONLY doctor to actually see Foster described is depression as MILD, not clinical. The fact remains that EVERYONE around Foster at the time of his death said he was NOT depressed. And no amount of spin on your part changes that, Tricky.

I have no wishes in this, other than to evaluate the evidence.

Yeah. Sure. You certainly are proving that on this thread. :rolleyes:

You, on the other hand, have often demonstrated a hatred for anything that relates to the Clintons.

Hatred is not a factor here, Tricky. I don't *hate* the Clintons. I just think they are criminals who should no longer be in government for all the harm they did a decade ago.

Which of us is the more biased?

The one throwing out red herrings and ignoring the actual facts? The one belonging to the Cult of Clinton?

Three investigations, including at least one hostile one have said it was a suicide.

You can repeat that all you want. That doesn't change the facts. As Rodriguez pointed out, three investigations were not independent. They were all controlled by an FBI that Clinton controlled. They all ignored the same evidence. They all tampered with evidence.

The amount of cover-up that would be necessary to hide a murder would be incredible.

No, as Rodriguez pointed out, all one has to do is control a few key people. And regardless of however many it took, the facts suggest there was a coverup. You can't explain those facts (you don't even try to explain them) so you just ignore them and throw out this red herring. Sorry, it doesn't wash.

Really BAC. Look at yourself. You sound desperate

The desperate person is the one ignoring longs lists of facts they can't begin to explain. That would be you, Tricky.

If they can let go, why can't you?

Maybe they are just too close to the problem? :D

[varwoche]

You're spinning, Tricky. And everyone can see it. Ah, a segue from inanity to meta-inanity. I'll bet that not only is it false that "everyone can see it", but it may even be the case that you're the only member following this thread who can see it. Such is the way of zealotry.

[BeAChooser]

varwoche, I didn't say "will see it". I said "can see it".

Even though I can parse like a Clinton, I can't overcome the blinders worn by members of the Cult of Clinton. :D

[Tricky]

The desperate person is the one ignoring longs lists of facts they can't begin to explain. That would be you, Tricky.
Somehow, I don't think that would be the way the average skeptic here would evaluate this. You rant and rave and you convince... who? Has your Wall Of Text convinced anyone? You call it a long list of facts. The Vikings called a frozen island of ice "Greenland". Advertisement only works until people look at the goods.

Maybe they are just too close to the problem?
Do you think Vince Foster's family is too close to the problem too? Of all the people who would want justice it should be the ones whose husband/brother/father was murdered. Wouldn't that make sense? Yet they are not the ones pursuing this conspiracy theory of yours, or rather, the conspiracy theory you've borrowed from others. What does that suggest to you, BAC? Either they're in on the conspiracy, or they're willing to let their beloved family member's murderer go free.

Or perhaps, unlike you, they realize there is no rational reason to pursue this.

Your BS can't even convince the audience who should want truth more than anyone else. How the heck do you think it can convince a bunch of skeptics?

Hating the Clintons doesn't seem to be working out for you. Have you considered a new hobby, like stamp collecting?

[Lonewulf]

You call it a long list of facts. The Vikings called a frozen island of ice "Greenland". Advertisement only works until people look at the goods.

:D

[gdnp]

NO ONE amongst all his friends and associates at the time of the death indicated he showed any signs of depression. Fiske and Starr lied when they later claimed they did.

You are wrong. You have repeatedly said that Foster showed no signs of depression. From WebMD (http://www.webmd.com/depression/guide/detecting-depression):

What are symptoms of depression?

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, symptoms of depression may include the following:

* difficulty concentrating, remembering details, and making decisions
* fatigue and decreased energy
* feelings of guilt, worthlessness, and/or helplessness
* feelings of hopelessness and/or pessimism
* insomnia, early-morning wakefulness, or excessive sleeping
* irritability, restlessness
* loss of interest in activities or hobbies once pleasurable, including sex
* overeating or appetite loss
* persistent aches or pains, headaches, cramps, or digestive problems that do not ease even with treatment
* persistent sad, anxious, or "empty" feelings
* thoughts of suicide, suicide attempts

[ANTPogo]

Well if the definition is a site that seems to prove, using federal investigative records, a conspiracy to cover up a murder, then I suppose it is.

No, it's a conspiracy site because it alleges a massive conspiracy between the FBI and the media (the whole media?) and others to conceal the murder of Vince Foster.

But calling it that doesn't in and of itself make anything on the site untrue.

No, but it makes it a lot less likely.


You completely mischaracterize what Knowlton and Assistant US Attorney Michael Rodriguez actually said and claimed on the matter of blood. They are not in disagreement.

Not in the least. Knowlton claims that Foster was murdered long before he was supposed to have committed suicide, and probably at another location. Therefore, he says, the lack of fresh liquid blood in quantity at the location his body was found is proof that his claims are true.

Except that according to Rodriguez, there was lots of fresh liquid blood at the scene, discovered when Foster's body was moved. If Rodriguez is right, Knowlton's claims cannot be true.

Why do you ignore their eyewitnesses accounts and the timeframe when they said they saw little blood, ANTPogo?

Because, as Rodriguez explains in the passage Knowlton himself quotes, the lack of blood was due to the way the body fell after Foster shot himself, and not because he was killed elsewhere at a much earlier time.

Why do you ignore the fact that Rodriquez said Fiske and Starr lied when they claimed "that a quantity of blood was observed where the body was first discovered"?

I like how Rodriguez is now a big fat liar as soon as he says something that contradicts the conspiracy theory. And yet, he's somehow simultaneously trustworthy enough to be Knowlton's primary "witness" in blowing the cover-up wide open.

To quote you from later in this post, "I was totally accurate in stating that 911 truthers ignore any fact that proves them wrong."

And so, apparently, do "Vince Foster truthers".


In fact, on almost every detail, not just the blood, Rodriguez actually confirms the deceptions and coverup that Knowlton's website claims occurred. Why do you ignore those many other instances? You seem to be ignoring a lot, ANTPogo.

He claims there are deceptions and a coverup, true, but he pretty much puts paid to the notion that Knowlton's pet theory about all that is correct.



I insinuated no such thing. I said "Maybe he did type that note but it only confirms the above facts." I agreed with the possibllity that the doctor typed the note, not claimed he didn't.

Then why the "maybe"?

I do find it a little odd that the note only surfaces months after Fiske's investigation. Was the doctor hiding it the whole time? Unlikely. Was Fiske? Now I can understand why Fiske might hide it. Because observe ... the note corroborates the contents of the earlier FBI interview quotes that YOU insinuated were fake. Both the note and FBI interview statement show Fiske (and Starr) lied about the doctor saying Foster was clinically depressed. And I can't help but notice that you simply ignored that part. :D

Why did Fiske and Starr, after "maybe" forging and/or hiding this damning note that proves them to be liars, publish this note in their official report?

Either this is the most boneheaded conspiracy ever, or, just perhaps, there was no conspiracy.



FALSE. Snopes (and Starr and Fiske) all claimed that Foster "contacted his doctor about his depression" ... meaning that Foster called the doctor because he identified himself as being depressed. That's simply not true. The portion of the note that you didn't highlight said Foster "complained of anorexia and insomnia." Not depression. During the course of the doctor's interview with Foster apparently the doctor asked Foster if he was depressed but that was not the reason Foster contacted his doctor ... not because he identified himself as being depressed. Snopes is misleading to suggest he did. You are playing misleading word games.

Why would the doctor ask, unprompted, if Foster was depressed, do you think? Assuming things happened that way in the first place, of course.

And according to the FBI interview quotes that you insinuated are fake,

If they're not, it should be a simple matter for you to find them on a site that doesn't allege a massive government conspiracy.

She never even mentioned the word depression nor did she (on any other family and friends interviewed that night) see any behavior indicating depression.

Again, why would the doctor ask, unprompted, if Foster was depressed, if this is all true?

I didn't twist anything.

I was totally accurate in stating that 911 truthers ignore any fact that proves them wrong and that your side has done the same in the Foster case. In fact, you proved me right in your post.

So far, the only twisting and ignoring of any inconvenient facts has come from those that allege Foster was murdered.

I was totally accurate in stating that 911 truthers ignore or dismiss what real experts on the subject say.

You're right. Instead, they quote extensively from practitioners of unproven and crackpot "analytic techniques", quotemine early witness reports for statements that show "inconsistencies" with the "official account", and rely on what "conspiracy researchers" and website operators say about the events in question.

I'm the one quoting the experts as far as hand writing analysis is concerned. I'm the one quoting the witness statements gathered by Park Police and the FBI in this matter.

And as we've seen in this case, I'm the one accurately quoting what Knowlton and Rodriguez said.

Hmm...

[Ladewig]

I'm tired of reading this merry-go-round thread, so I'll hop off with a final sentiment. I'm glad Hillary is a murderer. It gives her street cred. I want a secretary of state that can tell world leaders, "Don't f*** with me. I kill people who f*** with me." If she can acquire blackmail material on dozens of senators, two presidents, and an independent investigator, I'm sure she can acquire blackmail material on foreign heads of state.

Speaking of blackmail, that would be a plausible explanation for Mr. Foster's death: maybe he wasn't depressed but rather was being blackmailed by somebody and decided to kill himself rather than face the shame.

[varwoche]

varwoche, I didn't say "will see it". I said "can see it".

Even though I can parse like a Clinton, I can't overcome the blinders worn by members of the Cult of Clinton. :D And then some. :D indeed!

[BeAChooser]

Do you think Vince Foster's family is too close to the problem too? Of all the people who would want justice it should be the ones whose husband/brother/father was murdered.

Foster's family could have lots of reasons for choosing not to investigate further ... for choosing to even hinder investigations. Just like the Brown family. :D

For starters, maybe they just trust authority or trusted Starr? He looks trustworthy. But does that change any of the facts I noted? No. It does not. You just continue to ignore those facts. Maybe they did too? And those facts suggest Starr (and Fiske) weren't worthy of trust at all ... that they LIED. So that would make the family gullible. Like you.

Maybe they really would be emotionally hurt seeing photos of their husband's/father's/brother's crime scene or autopsy photos placed in the public domain? So they resist efforts to have those photos released. That doesn't mean the photos wouldn't prove Starr's story a lie. It just means they are emotionally sensitive people. I feel for them but I don't think their emotional needs transcend the needs of the nation. Certainly this was the first time that they have in a case like this. Curious.

Maybe they just wanted this nightmare over so they could move on with their lives. That's actually a common reaction. People don't want to dredge up even worse nightmares ... or facts that might perhaps even sully the name of the dead loved one (Foster was involved in some of the scandals). Note that Lisa apparently suffered a breakdown after the death. She considered suicide. She underwent therapy and took rather heavy medications. Maybe the doctors advised her to "move on" for health reasons. Since then she has remarried ... interestingly enough to a Clinton associate ... Arkansas Judge James Maxwell Moody, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton shortly before they were married. I hope she's happy. But that doesn't alter the facts I've noted which indicate Fiske and Starr lied.

Maybe they feared for their own lives? Afterall, if Starr and the FBI could threaten and intimidate a Deputy US Attorney (that's what Rodriguez said happened to him) and other witnesses ... like Patrick Knowlton (who got the facts about his intimidation attached to Starr's report through a court order) ... who knows what pressure might be brought to bear on an ordinary family member? David Schippers (you remember who he is?) said in his book on Clinton's impeachment, that the intimidation by the Clinton machine against Broaddrick and others was worse than what the mob did (and he was a lawyer who specialized in putting mobsters in jail). And we know how the Clinton administration intimidated people in the Ron Brown case. So maybe Foster's wife and family feared for their lives or livelihood?

Remember, Lisa and Foster's sister (Sheila Foster Anthony) were part of the Clinton inner circle. Sheila Anthony was an Assistant Attorney General in Clinton's adminstration. She might know the lengths to which the Clintons would go to protect themselves, having had to deal with previous scandals. Who knows what Vince told Lisa about all his work for the Clintons. And valid or not, the Clinton death list was out there being discussed. That might be a reason for them to fear their own safety. (Remember Linda Tripp describing how that list was left on her desk at work during Filegate?) And this was after the Ron Brown allegations surfaced. If that allegation was true, no one could be considered safe.

And here's something interesting. Do you know the son of Judge Moody, Neil Moody, died under curious circumstances in 1996, eight months after Lisa and the Judge married? He reportedly found a document in Lisa's private papers at Lisa's house where the Judge and Neil were then residing. He reportedly told a friend it would change history. He was reportedly in contact with a columnist about it. On the eve of the Democrat Convention where Clinton was nominated for a second term, Neil died in a car crash. The car went out of control (for an unknown reason) and ran into a brick wall at very high speed. Neil was seen sitting in his car, arguing with another person, just prior to that crash. Here is what was posted at FreeRepublic about that incident:


From NEXIS:

Copyright 1996 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
August 26, 1996, Monday

HEADLINE: POLICE BEAT

BYLINE: Democrat-Gazette Staff

Man dies as truck crashes into wall

A Little Rock man died Sunday after his truck left University Avenue and struck a retaining wall.

Neal C. Moody, 30, of 1413 Pine Valley Road was driving south in the 100 block of University Avenue in his 1995 Isuzu Trooper at 4 a.m. Sunday.

Moody's truck left the road, crossed the driveway of Bennigan's, struck a curb and became airborne for 22 feet. The vehicle came down and traveled 108 feet until it struck a wall. Moody was pronounced dead at 4:24 a.m. at St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center.

The police report said the investigation was turned over to the detective's office because of witness statements and a "suspicious document" found on Moody.


Just food for thought. :)

Or maybe family members were part of the conspiracy or coverup ... bought off in some manner. Afterall, Lisa Foster and Vince's sister both changed their stories about Foster being depressed after attending a meeting in the Whitehouse where the *suicide* note was discussed. What else was discussed at that meeting? Lisa and Sheila didn't say. But they did change their stories right after that. That's a fact. It's also a fact that Sheila Anthony transferred $286,000 from a DNC account to Lisa, four days before Foster's death. Why? Was it just a coincidence? Or could money and appointments have bought silence for something? Could Vince have been fretting over that? Could Lisa's breakdown have been partly due to guilt about that?

Note that four days before Foster died, Sheila reportedly did something else. She supposedly called a psychiatrist, Dr, Robert Hedaya, who later told the FBI that she said Foster (who she did not name) was working on "Top Secret" matters at the White House and "that his depression was directly related to highly sensitive and confidential matters". Yet, on the night of his death, Sheila was specifically asked by investigators if she saw any signs of this (Vince's death) coming and she said "no". She never mentioned depression to the investigators. Not once. How odd. Also odd is that Park Police lead investigator, John Rolla, filed a report only a couple of days after the death in which he said he called each of the 3 psychiatrists names that was found on the note in Foster's wallet (that was curiously in the car and not on him), and Hedaya made no mention of Sheila's call, saying only that he had not talked to Foster. Odd. You’d think he would have responded to the inquiring policeman, “No, Mr. Foster didn’t call me about an appointment, but his sister did just this past Friday.”

And the story of Sheila's husband, Beryl Anthony, changed too. In an interview on July 22, when asked if Foster had been depressed during the two weeks prior to death, he said: "There is not a damn thing to it. That's a bunch of crap." But of course, on July 27th, after the torn note meeting which Sheila attended, he changed his story and told Park police that "that he and his wife had noticed a gradual decline in Mr. Foster's general disposition to the point of depression."

How about the lawyer that Webb Hubbell (now there's an honest guy ... :rolleyes: ... and one who facts show followed orders from Hillary) arranged to represent the Foster family the very night he was killed? His name was James Hamilton. He was general counsel of the Clinton transition team. He was the lawyer who was advising the Clintons at the time to stonewall (i.e., obstruct justice) in the Whitewater matter. Note that it was Whitewater documents that were probably taken from Foster's office the night he died. Note that after representing the Foster family, Hamilton was appointed to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

Is there finally something here to make you suspicious? :D

By the way Tricky, why did Foster make repeated trips to Geneva Switzerland? He bought a ticket for such a trip on July 1st, the month he died. But he never went and 12 days after he was refunded the cost of the trip by Swiss Air he was dead. In all the investigations by Fiske and Starr, those trips to Switzerland have never been mentioned. Odd.

[Lonewulf]

Just food for thought. :)

I smell mold.

[BeAChooser]

You have repeatedly said that Foster showed no signs of depression.

No, I said that when asked by investigators at the time of his death, his family, friends and work associates all said he showed no signs of depression.


What are symptoms of depression?

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, symptoms of depression may include the following:

* difficulty concentrating, remembering details, and making decisions
* fatigue and decreased energy
* feelings of guilt, worthlessness, and/or helplessness
* feelings of hopelessness and/or pessimism
* insomnia, early-morning wakefulness, or excessive sleeping
* irritability, restlessness
* loss of interest in activities or hobbies once pleasurable, including sex
* overeating or appetite loss
* persistent aches or pains, headaches, cramps, or digestive problems that do not ease even with treatment
* persistent sad, anxious, or "empty" feelings
* thoughts of suicide, suicide attempts


Good lord. According to that, almost all of us must be depressed. :D

Sorry gdnp, you are still avoiding the facts. Foster's family, friends and work associates, when interviewed immediatedly after his death, said he was not depressed ... that they saw no signs of depression. Starr lied when he later claimed they did.

Now maybe Foster was depressed but it must have been very mild. Because noone said they saw signs of it. Even Foster's doctor said he came in with complaints of insomnia ... which is clearly what he treated given the dosage of the drug he prescribed ... and only said he had MILD depression.

Now would you like to tell us why there was so little blood at the crime scene ... meaning the location where the body was originally at Marcy Park before it was moved to another location and investigators took a new batch crime scene photos (perhaps knowing that the original crime scene photos were going to *disappear*)? Or do you want to continue claiming (without proof) that you're an expert where Desyrel is concerned. :D

[Tricky]

Gosh BAC, all the innuendo you have provided suggests more and more evidene that Foster was indeed worried. Worried about the CIA investigating him, worried about "Top Secret" matters etc. You also suggest that his wife Lisa knew something about this and was herself considering suicide. Suggestions that he was setting up a little hidey hole in Switzerland... None of this paints the picture of a man who is cheerful and carefree.

Considering that your main point has been, for so long, that he couldn't have possibly been depressed, your Boschian painting of his world cuts at the very foundations of that argument. Your argument fights against itself like two pit bulls in an imaginary ring. You suggest Foster was simultaneously:

neck-deep in a pit of slime and intrigue
perfectly happy about it
Your argument simply does not sell. You can't give it away. You would have to pay somebody to haul it away.

[Lonewulf]

Your argument simply does not sell. You can't give it away. You would have to pay somebody to haul it away.

I assure you that I offer perfectly reasonable rates!

[BeAChooser]

it's a conspiracy site because it alleges a massive conspiracy between the FBI and the media (the whole media?) and others to conceal the murder of Vince Foster.

Well obviously not the whole media or we wouldn't know any of these facts. :D And apparently you didn't bother to listen to Rodriguez saying that only a few people in the FBI would have to know about the coverup because the rest would just do what they were ordered to do. It's much the same thing that went on in the Ron Brown case, for the record. (By the way, are you going to post on one of those Brown threads like you intimated you would? I'm eager to hear what you claim in that case. :D)


Knowlton claims that Foster was murdered long before he was supposed to have committed suicide, and probably at another location. Therefore, he says, the lack of fresh liquid blood in quantity at the location his body was found is proof that his claims are true.

Except that according to Rodriguez, there was lots of fresh liquid blood at the scene, discovered when Foster's body was moved.

False. You are indeed misrepresenting what Rodriguez said. He clearly states that there was little blood at the ORIGINAL location of the body at Marcy Park. He notes that there wasn't blood found under the body when it was moved from that location. He notes that all the EMT's at the scene observed these facts. (For example, I noted earlier ... which you just ignored like a good 9/11 truther ... that Fairfax County emergency medical workers Cory Ashford and Roger Harrison told the FBI that they saw little or no blood, didn't need gloves, didn't get blood on their white uniforms, and didn't see blood on the ground underneath the body after it was moved. It is perfectly obvious to any rational person that had there been an 1 in plus diameter hole in Foster's head having shot himself at the scene, none of those things would have been true.) Rodriguez also stated that blood ONLY came out of Foster's body when it was moved up the hill with the head positioned down slope. Why do you find it necessary to completely mischaracterize what Rodriguez said and ignore what the EMTs said? Are you that desperate to defend the Clintons, ANTPogo?

Because, as Rodriguez explains in the passage Knowlton himself quotes, the lack of blood was due to the way the body fell after Foster shot himself, and not because he was killed elsewhere at a much earlier time.

False. This is an outright LIE. Here is what Rodriquez said about the blood from a link I provided earlier (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0307/S00277.htm ):


By the way, you know why there was blood by the way. What happened is that by the time they got there when the body was in the position that it was in, there was no virtually no blood anywhere. Um, then there's, there are some conflicting reports about there being blood later on. Later the EMT sees blood, then Haut sees blood. Well the reason is very clear. They lifted the body and pulled it to the top of the ridge, top of the berm, and once they did that blood started flowing fast.

... snip ...

You see so Haut actually sees the body in two positions and people are conveniently using different phrases of Haut to justify whatever result they want. Sure Haut says on one hand there is no blood, then, he says, on the other hand, there is blood. The fact is, a number of people have said there was a small amount where the body was originally found. Later on it's moved to a horizontal position at the top of the berm where it does have some seepage under the body. And then when they put it in the body bag they see, faced in that horizontal position, there's a ten-inch or so bloodstain under the body.


Rodriguez clearly states that (1) the paramedics who first arrived reported seeing little blood, (2) personnel who came later saw a considerable amount, and (3) that blood came from lifting the body, pulling it to the top of the berm, where blood flowed out. He clearly states the body was moved from it's original location before blood in large amounts was observed.

Why would the doctor ask, unprompted, if Foster was depressed, do you think?

Because Foster wasn't sleeping? :)


Quote:
And according to the FBI interview quotes that you insinuated are fake,

If they're not, it should be a simple matter for you to find them on a site that doesn't allege a massive government conspiracy.

Here's a challenge for you. Find an article published in the mainstream media (print or TV) that mentions the fact that several military pathologists and a military photographer blew the whistle about a possible bullet wound in Ron Brown's head.

Or just try to find mention in the mainstream media of the allegations made by Miquel Rodriguez. As he himself stated (on one of those conspiracy sites you so demean), "I have talked to a number of people from Time Magazine, Newsweek, you know, Nightline, there have been well over a hundred. And this matter is so sealed tight the editors won’t allow it to go to press."


Quote:
She never even mentioned the word depression nor did she (on any other family and friends interviewed that night) see any behavior indicating depression.

Again, why would the doctor ask, unprompted, if Foster was depressed, if this is all true?


Oh. So now you insinuating that what I quoted earlier regarding the response of family and friends to investigators the night of Foster's death is fake too? :rolleyes:

Tell you what. Since you apparently won't believe anything but the original senate investigation report ... show me how to acquire that report via the internet? Can you do that? Because if you can't, what are we to think? :D

[BeAChooser]

I smell mold.

I smell someone who isn't really a skeptic. Or interested in the truth. Maybe I smell a member of the Cult of Clinton. :D

[Cleon]

I smell someone who isn't really a skeptic.

A piece of advice: If everyone who disagrees with you isn't a "real skeptic," you're using the word incorrectly.

[BeAChooser]

Gosh BAC, all the innuendo you have provided suggests more and more evidene that Foster was indeed worried. Worried about the CIA investigating him, worried about "Top Secret" matters etc.

Gosh, Tricky, all you are doing is proving how gullible you are. Aren't you the least suspicious that the psychiatrist who mentioned Sheila's Foster Anthony's "top secret" comment forgot to mention it to the lead investigator just a few days after Foster's death when he interviewed him? Aren't you the least suspicious that he only remembered it after Sheila changed her story about Foster's depression after that meeting in the Whitehouse where the *suicide* note was discussed? Aren't you a skeptic?

You also suggest that his wife Lisa knew something about this and was herself considering suicide.

I wasn't suggesting. It's public knowledge.

Suggestions that he was setting up a little hidey hole in Switzerland.

I wasn't suggesting. It's a fact that Foster made brief unexplained trips to Geneva.

None of this paints the picture of a man who is cheerful and carefree.

That says nothing about whether Vince Foster was clinically depressed, one way or the other.

But it does suggest that Foster was engaged in something that still hasn't come out.

Considering that your main point has been, for so long, that he couldn't have possibly been depressed,

FALSE. I didn't say that. I said the facts don't support the assertion that he was CLINICALLY depressed. The facts don't support the assertion that he was being medicated FOR DEPRESSION. The facts don't support the assertion that friends and family said he was depressed immediately after his death. Why do you find it necessary to mischaracterize my main point? Is it that you are finding it hard to defend the indefensible? It must be challenging being a member of the Cult of Clinton and having to defend lies and liars.

[BeAChooser]

A piece of advice: If everyone who disagrees with you isn't a "real skeptic," you're using the word incorrectly.

A real skeptic doesn't ignore facts that implicate the Clinton administration in misdeeds.

But doing so does suggest one is a member of the Cult of Clinton.

[Tricky]

A real skeptic doesn't ignore facts that implicate the Clinton administration in misdeeds.

But doing so does suggest one is a member of the Cult of Clinton.
LOL. Right, BAC. Most of the people here are in the Cult of Clinton. We all are in on the cover-up, along with his wife, Ken Starr, the FBI, his doctor, three investigative teams... and the list goes on.

Ask yourself, BAC. Why is your so-called "evidence" not convincing anyone here? Is it because everyone is in on the conspiracy? Or perhaps consider another, more parsimonious explanation. Perhaps your evidence is not good. Perhaps it sounds like a troofer trying to convince people that the CIA flew the planes into the WTC. Just like you, they can cite reams and reams of "evidence" but each bit requires a larger and larger cabal of people who are "in on it".

These are skeptics here, BAC, not Cult of Clinton. Skeptics don't believe things that make no sense, things that require byzantine, convoluted, highly populated conspiracies. That is why you are not convincing anyone. Not because we are "in on it".

Now I've done what you asked and addressed some of your "evidence". I knew from the beginning that it would do nothing to change your deflagrating hatred for the Clintons, but I thought you deserved at least one direct response to your "evidence". I believe I have made a convincing case that this particular piece of "evidence" is crap. If you doubt me, start a poll. I don't care. I think I'll do something else now. This was real fun.

[ANTPogo]

Well obviously not the whole media or we wouldn't know any of these facts. :D

Nevertheless, it's a site that alleges a widespread conspiracy among a variety of disparate organizations (despite the lack of incentive to participate in said conspiracy, or to maintain said conspiracy to the present day).

Therefore, it's a conspiracy site.

And apparently you didn't bother to listen to Rodriguez saying that only a few people in the FBI would have to know about the coverup because the rest would just do what they were ordered to do.

Because that's not the issue at hand. And in any case, it's demonstrably false, as seen in the 9/11 case (where Truthers make the same sort of claim).

It's much the same thing that went on in the Ron Brown case, for the record. (By the way, are you going to post on one of those Brown threads like you intimated you would? I'm eager to hear what you claim in that case. :D)

I'm trying to find a way to contribute to one of your threads in a way that doesn't involve me simply posting "Yeah, pretty much what everyone else said." It isn't easy; your theories were pretty seriously eviscerated there.

But one thing at a time, all right?


False. You are indeed misrepresenting what Rodriguez said. He clearly states that there was little blood at the ORIGINAL location of the body at Marcy Park. He notes that there wasn't blood found under the body when it was moved from that location. He notes that all the EMT's at the scene observed these facts. (For example, I noted earlier ... which you just ignored like a good 9/11 truther ... that Fairfax County emergency medical workers Cory Ashford and Roger Harrison told the FBI that they saw little or no blood, didn't need gloves, didn't get blood on their white uniforms, and didn't see blood on the ground underneath the body after it was moved.

Let's take a look at what Rodriguez said again, using your very own quote from the post I'm responding to, and highlight a few different sentences.

By the way, you know why there was blood by the way. What happened is that by the time they got there when the body was in the position that it was in, there was no virtually no blood anywhere. Um, then there's, there are some conflicting reports about there being blood later on. Later the EMT sees blood, then Haut sees blood. Well the reason is very clear. They lifted the body and pulled it to the top of the ridge, top of the berm, and once they did that blood started flowing fast.

... snip ...

You see so Haut actually sees the body in two positions and people are conveniently using different phrases of Haut to justify whatever result they want. Sure Haut says on one hand there is no blood, then, he says, on the other hand, there is blood. The fact is, a number of people have said there was a small amount where the body was originally found. Later on it's moved to a horizontal position at the top of the berm where it does have some seepage under the body. And then when they put it in the body bag they see, faced in that horizontal position, there's a ten-inch or so bloodstain under the body.

You say "He notes that there wasn't blood found under the body when it was moved from that location." Rodriguez says "The fact is, a number of people have said there was a small amount where the body was originally found."

You say "He notes that all the EMT's at the scene observed these facts." Rodriguez says "Later the EMT sees blood, then Haut sees blood."

It is perfectly obvious to any rational person that had there been an 1 in plus diameter hole in Foster's head having shot himself at the scene, none of those things would have been true.)

So, let me get this clear. Foster was found with very little blood around him and none on him, but according to Rodriguez blood poured from his wound when he was moved and got on Foster's clothes when he was put in a body bag. If he was shot elsewhere, wouldn't the blood have poured out of his wound and smeared on his clothes then (or while he was being transported to the park)? Doesn't the fact that the blood only came out when he was moved after the "official" discovery of the body indicate it hadn't been otherwise moved since the time he was shot?

Rodriguez also stated that blood ONLY came out of Foster's body when it was moved up the hill with the head positioned down slope. Why do you find it necessary to completely mischaracterize what Rodriguez said and ignore what the EMTs said?

I'm not the one mischaracterizing what Rodriguez said. Especially when Rodriguez himself explains what (some of) the EMTs saw and what the later witnesses (including at least one EMT) saw, and how that makes perfect sense in a way that demolishes Knowlton's "no blood therefore Foster was murdered" idiocy.

Are you that desperate to defend the Clintons, ANTPogo?

You got me. I'm really Bill Clinton posting here under an assumed name.

False. This is an outright LIE. Here is what Rodriquez said about the blood from a link I provided earlier (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0307/S00277.htm ):

A New Zealand website reproducing a press release from AIM?

Rodriguez clearly states that (1) the paramedics who first arrived reported seeing little blood, (2) personnel who came later saw a considerable amount, and (3) that blood came from lifting the body, pulling it to the top of the berm, where blood flowed out. He clearly states the body was moved from it's original location before blood in large amounts was observed.

Very good. That is indeed an accurate, if choppy, summation of what Rodriguez said.

Now, as I asked above, please explain something: if Foster was shot at a location different from the one he was found at, what happened to the blood that would have poured out when he was moved from that initial location (like it did when he was moved after he was found), and why did none of it get on Foster at that time (like it did when he was moved after he was found)?



Because Foster wasn't sleeping? :)

You're getting warmer. Now, what does insomnia and anorexia have to do with depression? In other words, what about insomnia and anorexia might have prompted Foster's doctor to ask him about depression?



Here's a challenge for you. Find an article published in the mainstream media (print or TV) that mentions the fact that several military pathologists and a military photographer blew the whistle about a possible bullet wound in Ron Brown's head.

I thought you weren't going to address the Ron Brown thing here?

But in any case, here you go:

"Controversial investigative journalist Chris Ruddy produced photographs last months purportedly showing a .45 caliber bullet hole in the top of Brown's head. Ruddy quoted a medical examiner at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, as saying, "The whole thing stinks," and claiming he was overruled in calling for a post-mortem investigation."

(from http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/08/justice.brown/)

Or just try to find mention in the mainstream media of the allegations made by Miquel Rodriguez.

Given your love for sources like Free Republic and AIM, surely a transcript of John Gibson on the Fox News Channel is good enough for you:

"One of these photos may show that neck wound, according to two books published in 1997...

They tell a story of Miguel Rodriguez, who worked for Kenneth Starr in '94 and '95, and he quit after six months. Publicly, we don't know why he quit. Part of the reason why he quit, according to these two books, which I don't know if it's true or not, is because he was denied access to a neck wound photo that he finally got a hold of and had trouble getting the FBI to enlarge it for him, and he had to do it himself. I don't know if that's true or not."


(from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104857,00.html)


Oh. So now you insinuating that what I quoted earlier regarding the response of family and friends to investigators the night of Foster's death is fake too? :rolleyes:

I take it that's a "no, I can't find it on a non-conspiracy website", then?

Tell you what. Since you apparently won't believe anything but the original senate investigation report ... show me how to acquire that report via the internet? Can you do that? Because if you can't, what are we to think? :D

What do you want, the Fiske Report (http://nick.assumption.edu/WebVAX/Foster/FR/contents.html), or Starr's later report (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/docs/foster.htm)?

Take your pick.

[BeAChooser]

Why is your so-called "evidence" not convincing anyone here?

Perhaps because most are Obama supporters who would find it inconvenient to acknowledge that Obama has made a really poor choice for Secretary of State?

Perhaps because many are past Clinton supporters ... who really don't want to know the truth about the Clintons because they idolized them.

Regardless of the reason, it won't change any of the facts that I've noted ... and that you are now clearly ignoring ... because facing them would raise questions that would be difficult for a member of the Cult to reconcile.

Starr clearly lied. Why did he lie, Tricky? Why did his top investigator quit charging a coverup? Why do you find it necessary to mischaracterize my position and spin conjecture rather than deal with the facts as they are?

And what in the world did Hillary and Williams discuss both before and after Foster's office was searched the night that Foster died? ;)

[ANTPogo]

Perhaps because most are Obama supporters who would find it inconvenient to acknowledge that Obama has made a really poor choice for Secretary of State?

I am an Obama supporter. I think he made a really poor choice for Secretary of State. I didn't like Hillary Clinton as a senator (as a video game journalist, I was extremely irked by her "video games are EVIL" stance), I didn't like her as a presidential candidate (I thought she prized loyalty over competence, to the detriment of her campaign and the detriment of the nation if she were elected), and I don't like her as Secretary of State (I don't think she will be able to subsume her own policy desires and political ambitions to drive Obama's presidential agenda forward).

However, I don't think she ordered Vince Foster bumped off.

Did I make your head explode, BAC? "I love teh Clintons!" and "ZOMG mass murderess!" aren't the only two opinions one can have about Hillary, you know.

And what in the world did Hillary and Williams discuss both before and after Foster's office was searched the night that Foster died? ;)

"Dammit, where DID he hide my "ABBA's Greatest Hits" album?"

[gdnp]

Foster's family could have lots of reasons for choosing not to investigate further ... for choosing to even hinder investigations. Just like the Brown family. :D

For starters, maybe they just trust authority or trusted Starr? He looks trustworthy. But does that change any of the facts I noted? No. It does not. You just continue to ignore those facts. Maybe they did too? And those facts suggest Starr (and Fiske) weren't worthy of trust at all ... that they LIED. So that would make the family gullible. Like you.

Maybe they really would be emotionally hurt seeing photos of their husband's/father's/brother's crime scene or autopsy photos placed in the public domain? So they resist efforts to have those photos released. That doesn't mean the photos wouldn't prove Starr's story a lie. It just means they are emotionally sensitive people. I feel for them but I don't think their emotional needs transcend the needs of the nation. Certainly this was the first time that they have in a case like this. Curious.

Maybe they just wanted this nightmare over so they could move on with their lives. That's actually a common reaction. People don't want to dredge up even worse nightmares ... or facts that might perhaps even sully the name of the dead loved one (Foster was involved in some of the scandals). Note that Lisa apparently suffered a breakdown after the death. She considered suicide. She underwent therapy and took rather heavy medications. Maybe the doctors advised her to "move on" for health reasons. Since then she has remarried ... interestingly enough to a Clinton associate ... Arkansas Judge James Maxwell Moody, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton shortly before they were married. I hope she's happy. But that doesn't alter the facts I've noted which indicate Fiske and Starr lied.

Maybe they feared for their own lives? Afterall, if Starr and the FBI could threaten and intimidate a Deputy US Attorney (that's what Rodriguez said happened to him) and other witnesses ... like Patrick Knowlton (who got the facts about his intimidation attached to Starr's report through a court order) ... who knows what pressure might be brought to bear on an ordinary family member? David Schippers (you remember who he is?) said in his book on Clinton's impeachment, that the intimidation by the Clinton machine against Broaddrick and others was worse than what the mob did (and he was a lawyer who specialized in putting mobsters in jail). And we know how the Clinton administration intimidated people in the Ron Brown case. So maybe Foster's wife and family feared for their lives or livelihood?

Remember, Lisa and Foster's sister (Sheila Foster Anthony) were part of the Clinton inner circle. Sheila Anthony was an Assistant Attorney General in Clinton's adminstration. She might know the lengths to which the Clintons would go to protect themselves, having had to deal with previous scandals. Who knows what Vince told Lisa about all his work for the Clintons. And valid or not, the Clinton death list was out there being discussed. That might be a reason for them to fear their own safety. (Remember Linda Tripp describing how that list was left on her desk at work during Filegate?) And this was after the Ron Brown allegations surfaced. If that allegation was true, no one could be considered safe.

And here's something interesting. Do you know the son of Judge Moody, Neil Moody, died under curious circumstances in 1996, eight months after Lisa and the Judge married? He reportedly found a document in Lisa's private papers at Lisa's house where the Judge and Neil were then residing. He reportedly told a friend it would change history. He was reportedly in contact with a columnist about it. On the eve of the Democrat Convention where Clinton was nominated for a second term, Neil died in a car crash. The car went out of control (for an unknown reason) and ran into a brick wall at very high speed. Neil was seen sitting in his car, arguing with another person, just prior to that crash. Here is what was posted at FreeRepublic about that incident:



Just food for thought. :)

Or maybe family members were part of the conspiracy or coverup ... bought off in some manner. Afterall, Lisa Foster and Vince's sister both changed their stories about Foster being depressed after attending a meeting in the Whitehouse where the *suicide* note was discussed. What else was discussed at that meeting? Lisa and Sheila didn't say. But they did change their stories right after that. That's a fact. It's also a fact that Sheila Anthony transferred $286,000 from a DNC account to Lisa, four days before Foster's death. Why? Was it just a coincidence? Or could money and appointments have bought silence for something? Could Vince have been fretting over that? Could Lisa's breakdown have been partly due to guilt about that?

Note that four days before Foster died, Sheila reportedly did something else. She supposedly called a psychiatrist, Dr, Robert Hedaya, who later told the FBI that she said Foster (who she did not name) was working on "Top Secret" matters at the White House and "that his depression was directly related to highly sensitive and confidential matters". Yet, on the night of his death, Sheila was specifically asked by investigators if she saw any signs of this (Vince's death) coming and she said "no". She never mentioned depression to the investigators. Not once. How odd. Also odd is that Park Police lead investigator, John Rolla, filed a report only a couple of days after the death in which he said he called each of the 3 psychiatrists names that was found on the note in Foster's wallet (that was curiously in the car and not on him), and Hedaya made no mention of Sheila's call, saying only that he had not talked to Foster. Odd. You’d think he would have responded to the inquiring policeman, “No, Mr. Foster didn’t call me about an appointment, but his sister did just this past Friday.”

And the story of Sheila's husband, Beryl Anthony, changed too. In an interview on July 22, when asked if Foster had been depressed during the two weeks prior to death, he said: "There is not a damn thing to it. That's a bunch of crap." But of course, on July 27th, after the torn note meeting which Sheila attended, he changed his story and told Park police that "that he and his wife had noticed a gradual decline in Mr. Foster's general disposition to the point of depression."

How about the lawyer that Webb Hubbell (now there's an honest guy ... :rolleyes: ... and one who facts show followed orders from Hillary) arranged to represent the Foster family the very night he was killed? His name was James Hamilton. He was general counsel of the Clinton transition team. He was the lawyer who was advising the Clintons at the time to stonewall (i.e., obstruct justice) in the Whitewater matter. Note that it was Whitewater documents that were probably taken from Foster's office the night he died. Note that after representing the Foster family, Hamilton was appointed to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

Is there finally something here to make you suspicious? :D

By the way Tricky, why did Foster make repeated trips to Geneva Switzerland? He bought a ticket for such a trip on July 1st, the month he died. But he never went and 12 days after he was refunded the cost of the trip by Swiss Air he was dead. In all the investigations by Fiske and Starr, those trips to Switzerland have never been mentioned. Odd.

Sure are a lot of "whys," "coulds," "Ifs," and "maybes" for someone who claims to deal in facts.

[gdnp]

BAC, could you reconcile these two quotes for me:


Everyone involved ... Foster's wife, Foster's family, Foster's friends, Foster's workmates ... all said at the time of his death when questioned by Park Police and the FBI that Foster was NOT depressed or showing any indication of being depressed. His death came as a complete surprise. Even his doctor only indicated "mild" depression after the doctor said Foster came to him with complaints of insomnia.

Note that four days before Foster died, Sheila reportedly did something else. She supposedly called a psychiatrist, Dr, Robert Hedaya, who later told the FBI that she said Foster (who she did not name) was working on "Top Secret" matters at the White House and "that his depression was directly related to highly sensitive and confidential matters". Yet, on the night of his death, Sheila was specifically asked by investigators if she saw any signs of this (Vince's death) coming and she said "no". She never mentioned depression to the investigators.

You see, it seems you are using the statements of family members at the time of his death in an attempt to prove that Foster was not really depressed, and that all these people were either threatened or bribed into changing there story. Yet Foster's sister discussed Foster's depression with a psychiatrist 4 days before he died. Why did she do this, BAC? Do people usually call psychiatrists to discuss the depression of people who are not depressed? Curious. Doesn't that that make you a bit suspicious, BAC? :D

As Tricky pointed out more eloquently than I could, your story is self-contradictory. You cherry pick "facts" to support one portion of your conspiracy theory and conveniently ignore them when they disprove another portion. You accept as gospel the statements of a person when they support your theory, yet when they say something that you cannot reconcile you dismiss them as liars.

[BeAChooser]

(despite the lack of incentive to participate in said conspiracy, or to maintain said conspiracy to the present day).


An unsupported claim. Just as I could think of many reasons members of Foster's family wouldn't want to investigate, I can think of many reasons various organizations would follow the direction of a few individuals in the Whitehouse, FBI, DOJ and media. And maintain said conspiracy to the present day. Regardless of the incentive, the facts remain. Starr lied. Why'd he lie? This is the question that you and Tricky continue to avoid.


Quote:
And apparently you didn't bother to listen to Rodriguez saying that only a few people in the FBI would have to know about the coverup because the rest would just do what they were ordered to do.

Because that's not the issue at hand.

Sure it is. You allege that vast numbers had to be in on the conspiracy. As Rodriguez says, only a few have to be in on the details. The rest just went along with the flow as ordered. As they did in the Ron Brown case.

And in any case, it's demonstrably false, as seen in the 9/11 case

That's nothing more than a red herring. The two are not comparable.

We aren't talking about an event that was witnessed by millions and experienced by tens of thousands. Foster's death happened in the dead of night with no known witnesses. To someone, if we are to believe the official story, who left the Whitehouse without logging out or being videotaped leaving. To someone, who unlike the 9/11 victims, was involved in handling scandals (and their finances) that might have brought the Clintons ruin had the details come out.

And unlike 9/11, there were no cameras recording the death of Foster. 9/11 truthers are arguing against what those cameras clearly show. And the government was willing to release images from the 9/11 event ... even quite gruesome ones. But in the Foster case, even though there are photos of the body after the event that the government could use to conclusively prove the allegation false, it has prevented the release of those photos.

And, unlike 9/11, it has claimed the film/cameras that were supposed to record the crime scene and body were faulty. It has claimed that other images (like those of the body in the location it was originally found) have simply disappeared. And does the 9/11 case have insiders in the investigation blowing the whistle ... alleging coverup? I don't believe that's the case. But that's exactly the case in the Vince Foster (and Ron Brown) situations.

I'm trying to find a way to contribute to one of your threads in a way that doesn't involve me simply posting "Yeah, pretty much what everyone else said." It isn't easy; your theories were pretty seriously eviscerated there.

Yeah. Sure. I've heard that one before. :rolleyes:

I tell you what. Just search for my list of 50 incriminating items in the Brown case and see if you can disprove any of them. Just like here, its the facts that count. The facts that lead to truth.

Let's take a look at what Rodriguez said again, using your very own quote from the post I'm responding to, and highlight a few different sentences.

You mean highlight the sentences that say there was blood, yet ignore those that say there was little or no blood before the body was MOVED TO A NEW LOCATION (which, by the way, would no longer be the crime scene)? :rolleyes:

You say "He notes that there wasn't blood found under the body when it was moved from that location." Rodriguez says "The fact is, a number of people have said there was a small amount where the body was originally found."

He also said that in the original location "there was no virtually no blood anywhere." Do you know the difference between a small amount of blood and a large amount of blood ... which is what you and Starr have alleged? Apparently that's lost on you.


You say "He notes that all the EMT's at the scene observed these facts." Rodriguez says "Later the EMT sees blood, then Haut sees blood."


"These facts" referred to the body in the ORIGINAL location, before it was moved. There the EMTS said they saw little or no blood. Once the body was moved, they (and Haut) saw lots of blood. After it drained out of the body because it was positioned head down on a slope ... not the crime scene. Do you not understand the distinction here? You might if you take off your Cult blinders.

If he was shot elsewhere, wouldn't the blood have poured out of his wound and smeared on his clothes then

Well that might depend on how he was transported to the site. Maybe they kept the wound up rather than down. You are just speculating, ANTPogo. Anybody can speculate. The EMT's weren't, however. They were recording what they saw and they saw no blood when they arrived and moved the body from the original location. So were the other witnesses. Like Knowlton, who said Foster's car wasn't at Marcy Park even after the claimed time of his death. Like the civilian who discovered Foster's body and who adamantly says he did NOT have a gun in his hand. Like Rolla and Haut, who said the body was moved (even though Starr claimed it wasn't). Like the FBI agents who interviewed the family and friends and recorded that Foster did not seem depressed, even though later on Starr claimed they did say that.

Doesn't the fact that the blood only came out when he was moved after the "official" discovery of the body indicate it hadn't been otherwise moved since the time he was shot?

Apparently a trained investigator like Rodriguez doesn't agree with your *expertise*. But since you claim to be an expert, perhaps you can help us out.

How do you explain the FBI testing Foster's shoes right after the death and finding no trace of the soil from the Park even though he would have had to walk a long distance in that soil and independent tests showed the soil would have adhered? (Note that later the FBI did *new* tests of Foster's shoes and claimed they did find soil ... much like the drug evidence that first wasn't there then miraculously was after *new* tests ... much like the car keys that weren't in his pocket then were after Livingstone visited the morgue ... much like the suicide note that wasn't in the briefcase then mysteriously was a few days later.)

How do you explain the failure to find any bullet at the crime scene? Or the fragment of his skull that was missing from that claimed 1 inch diameter hole? Missing even though though they sifted the soil at the supposed crime scene? Or fingerprint from Foster on the gun even though we wasn't wearing gloves?

How do you explain Haut and the EMTs describing wounds that differed from what the official report claimed ... most importantly an exit wound in the neck? In fact, over 20 people saw the body at the park and nobody reported the large exit wound at the back of the head as claimed in the autopsy.

How do you explain initial reports that there were two wounds ... one from a .38 caliber and one a .22 caliber? How do you explain Haut saying the wound was created by a low velocity weapon when a .38 is a high velocity weapon and the shells found for the gun in the car were high velocity rounds?

And maybe you can tell us about the mysterious Sergeant Edwards? Who was he? At 6:26 pm he arrived at the scene and took charge -- only to disappear about 20 minutes later. The original 7 polaroids of the body that were taken by Officer Ferstl were given to Edwards. Those polaroids disappeared. For over 15 minutes Edwards was alone with Foster's body. Investigator Christine Hodakievic saw the body before and after Edwards was alone with it. When she saw photos of the body later, she said its appearance had been changed. For one thing, the head was moved. One more thing. Lead investigator Rolla said he didn't know who Edwards was and had never seen him before. And for all his involvement at the scene, there is no public record of Edwards being interviewed by the FBI or Fiske investigators. So perhaps you can help us out by explaining why not?

That will do for starters ... :D

I'm not the one mischaracterizing what Rodriguez said.

Yes you are. Which is why you and Rodriguez are on entirely different sides in this controversy. I'll stand by what Rodriquez said ... which I quoted above. You simply wave your hands and CLAIM to be telling folks what Rodriguez *really* said. ;)


Quote:
False. This is an outright LIE. Here is what Rodriquez said about the blood from a link I provided earlier (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0307/S00277.htm ):

A New Zealand website reproducing a press release from AIM?


Did you actually read Rodriquez's interview at Knowlton's site like you claimed you did? It shows Rodriguez making exactly the same statements that are quoted at the New Zealand website? Or did you not notice before you insinuated it was fake? :rolleyes: As anyone can see, this (http://www.fbicover-up.com/Miquel/Miquel.htm#audio ) has the same statements by Rodriguez as quoted in the New Zealand/AIM link. Apparently you can even link to the recording to prove that's accurate ... if you must.


Very good. That is indeed an accurate, if choppy, summation of what Rodriguez said.

Oh. Is that why earlier you claimed that


as Rodriguez explains in the passage Knowlton himself quotes, the lack of blood was due to the way the body fell after Foster shot himself


For your information, that was a LIE. Because that is NOT what Rodriguez said. That's you making up things. For one, Rodriguez doesn't buy the "shot himself" claim AT ALL. Nor is Rodriguez convinced that Foster was killed at Marcy Park.


Now, what does insomnia and anorexia have to do with depression? In other words, what about insomnia and anorexia might have prompted Foster's doctor to ask him about depression?

That's you conjecturing ... while ignoring the documented fact that the doctor prescribed the drug for insomnia, not because of depression. That's you conjecturing while ignoring that Starr LIED about that. That's you conjecturing, while ignoring that all the family, friends and workmates said, when interviewed in the immediate aftermath, that they saw nothing to indicate depression. That you conjecturing ,while ignoring that Starr LIED about that. Conjecture all you want. You don't prove anything. You don't change the facts. But you do show your desperation.

Quote:
"Controversial investigative journalist Chris Ruddy produced photographs last months purportedly showing a .45 caliber bullet hole in the top of Brown's head. Ruddy quoted a medical examiner at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, as saying, "The whole thing stinks," and claiming he was overruled in calling for a post-mortem investigation."

(from http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/...justice.brown/)


Can you prove that report appeared on CNN news (you know, the TV?)? Because the website is not mainstream news. The website is seen by very few people overall ... especially back in 1998.

Furthermore, why are there no details in that CNN report? Why does it describe Ruddy as "controversial"? Why is there no mention that Cogswell was not the only pathologist concerned about a bullet wound? Why is there no mention that the government was caught lying about the wound? That doesn't sound like very good journalism. Especially when it leads off with "Justice Concludes No Evidence Of Crime In Ron Brown Death" but fails to mention that the DOJ didn't even interview the pathologists who blew the whistle. Now is the fact that CNN failed to mention this proof that didn't occur? Or is it further proof the mainstream was biased ... part of the Cult of Clinton? :D

Given your love for sources like Free Republic and AIM, surely a transcript of John Gibson on the Fox News Channel is good enough for you:

Must I point out to you that Fox News was not around back in 1995 when Rodriguez resigned? Here's the challenge. Find a mainstream source from when he resigned that reported what he said. Not what FOX News (and by the way, Fox News is not considered mainstream by most folks on your side at JREF) reported in 2003 when interviewing someone you call a CTer.


Quote:
Oh. So now you insinuating that what I quoted earlier regarding the response of family and friends to investigators the night of Foster's death is fake too?

I take it that's a "no, I can't find it on a non-conspiracy website", then?

I take it you couldn't locate the Senate investigation report on Foster? Even though Newsweek mentioned it? Even though the Washington Post mentioned it? Just because you can't find it on the web, does that mean it didn't happen? Just because you can't find transcripts of the FBI interviews on "non-conspiracy websites", is that proof no one was interviewed? Apparently, you think so. And apparently you think this (http://www.fbicover-up.com/dreyfus/dreyfus1.htm ) is just the vidid imagination of one person. Well I don't. Perhaps because unlike you, I'm a skeptic where the Clinton's are concerned.


What do you want, the Fiske Report, or Starr's later report?


Apparently you don't even know what I was talking about. :rolleyes:

By the way, why didn't you link Knowlton's attachment that the three judge panel ordered Starr to attach to his final report? :D

Or Knowlton's report on the deficiencies in Starr's report? Maybe that would be more useful to real skeptics. Here:

http://www.fbicover-up.com/proof/index.htm

[BeAChooser]

I didn't like Hillary Clinton as a senator (as a video game journalist, I was extremely irked by her "video games are EVIL" stance)

:rolleyes:

(I don't think she will be able to subsume her own policy desires and political ambitions to drive Obama's presidential agenda forward).

Well if that's true and I'm right, what does that portend?

However, I don't think she ordered Vince Foster bumped off.

I never said or suggested that she did. Nice strawman.


Quote:
And what in the world did Hillary and Williams discuss both before and after Foster's office was searched the night that Foster died?

"Dammit, where DID he hide my "ABBA's Greatest Hits" album?"


Is that why both called Susan Thomases late at night and Williams later denied calling Thomases ... under oath? You make light of this but that says more about you than me.

[BeAChooser]

Sure are a lot of "whys," "coulds," "Ifs," and "maybes" for someone who claims to deal in facts.

I was asked to speculate. The fact remains that I'm the only one citing the actual facts on this thread. Your side's arguments are mostly composed of nothing but speculation couched in certainties which they don't deserve.

[BeAChooser]

You see, it seems you are using the statements of family members at the time of his death in an attempt to prove that Foster was not really depressed, and that all these people were either threatened or bribed into changing there story. Yet Foster's sister discussed Foster's depression with a psychiatrist 4 days before he died.

No, it's only CLAIMED that Foster's sister discussed depression with a psychiatrist 4 days before he died. Curiously enough, at the time of Foster's death, and even days after, neither that sister or the doctor mentioned this supposed conversation or depression. It didn't get mentioned until much later ... after that meeting to discuss the suicide note in the Whitehouse. So perhaps this was just more of the orchestrated coverup.

Why do you ignore the fact that Lisa, the sister and her husband all changed their stories 180 degrees after that meeting in the Whitehouse a week or so after Foster's death? A meeting where an apparently bogus suicide note was discussed. :D

[ANTPogo]

An unsupported claim. Just as I could think of many reasons members of Foster's family wouldn't want to investigate, I can think of many reasons various organizations would follow the direction of a few individuals in the Whitehouse, FBI, DOJ and media.

And the Republicans, who hated Clinton and even impeached him, had what incentive to maintain this "conspiracy" once they dominated the Executive Branch (and thus the Department of Justice and the FBI) once they came to power in January 2001?


And maintain said conspiracy to the present day. Regardless of the incentive, the facts remain. Starr lied. Why'd he lie? This is the question that you and Tricky continue to avoid.

Because you haven't offered any proof that Starr "lied"? So far, you have a note from Foster's doctor that Starr himself reproduced in his report, and the claim that Starr didn't tell the truth when he said lots of blood was found with Starr's body supported by Rodriguez's statement that...lots of blood was found with Starr's body.

Hardly compelling evidence that Starr was engaged in a cover-up of the Truth.



Sure it is. You allege that vast numbers had to be in on the conspiracy. As Rodriguez says, only a few have to be in on the details. The rest just went along with the flow as ordered. As they did in the Ron Brown case.

Those damn FBI sheep, going along with the conspirators, just as they did during 9/11!




I tell you what. Just search for my list of 50 incriminating items in the Brown case and see if you can disprove any of them. Just like here, its the facts that count. The facts that lead to truth.

You seem awfully intent on diverting me to your Ron Brown idiocy.

All in good time.



You mean highlight the sentences that say there was blood, yet ignore those that say there was little or no blood before the body was MOVED TO A NEW LOCATION

Yes, the blood that Knowlton insists was not present at all because its presence completely dismantles his theory that Foster was murdered long before the "official account" has him committing suicide and at a site other than the one the "official account" has Foster committing suicide at. The blood that Rodriguez goes to some pain to explain the actual presence of.

(which, by the way, would no longer be the crime scene)? :rolleyes:

You and Knowlton seem to have this odd conception of a "crime scene", thinking it's the state of the location of a crime at the exact and permanent snapshot in time where it was first discovered by an outside witness.

It's not.

It's the physical location where a crime is presumed to have been committed, and everything present at that location at the time the crime is presumed to have happened.

An example: a body with a gunshot wound in the head is located sitting in a car that's embedded in muck underwater. Divers examine the body and car, but are unable to glean much information from it in its location and position. The police call in a crane to pull the car from the underwater muck. As the car is suspended from the crane over the shore, the muck and water that had seeped into the car drain out of the car and form a muddy puddle on the shore underneath the suspended car. Investigators searching through that muck pile under the suspended car find a pistol that is eventually matched to the bullet found in the victim's head.

I, as an investigator on the case, write in my report "The presumed murder weapon was found at the scene of the crime." Have I lied?



He also said that in the original location "there was no virtually no blood anywhere." Do you know the difference between a small amount of blood and a large amount of blood ... which is what you and Starr have alleged?

Yes. Do you know the difference between no blood in a body killed long before and at a different location, and a large amount of blood flowing from a body that's been moved at a crime scene?



"These facts" referred to the body in the ORIGINAL location, before it was moved. There the EMTS said they saw little or no blood.

SOME EMTs saw.

Once the body was moved, they (and Haut) saw lots of blood. After it drained out of the body because it was positioned head down on a slope ...

Blood that, despite Knowlton's (and your) desperate claims, was in the body before it was found.


not the crime scene.

Yes, the crime scene.


Well that might depend on how he was transported to the site. Maybe they kept the wound up rather than down.

Conspirators clever enough to keep the hole in Foster (and this is ignoring the claimed "neck wound", which makes this task even more difficult) from leaking blood all over the place as the body was planted in the park, conspirators clever enough to keep blood from a long-dead body from congealing so it flowed freely when moved after it was discovered at the park, and yet conspirators dumb enough to keep a doctor's note that shot holes in their "Foster was depressed" official story concealed (if not forged) just long enough to publish it in the official report that lied about the circumstances of Foster's death.

It's apparently really hard to find good help these days.

You are just speculating, ANTPogo. Anybody can speculate. The EMT's weren't, however. They were recording what they saw and they saw no blood when they arrived and moved the body from the original location.

Not all EMTs, as Rodriguez himself points out.

Like the FBI agents who interviewed the family and friends and recorded that Foster did not seem depressed, even though later on Starr claimed they did say that.

Or Foster's doctor, who said Foster reported feeling depressed?



Apparently a trained investigator like Rodriguez doesn't agree with your *expertise*.

And here I thought he was a US Attorney. Now he's a trained investigator?


That will do for starters ... :D

Again, one thing at a time. You're still trying to address why Rodriguez saying the body was full of blood that didn't leak out until the body was moved doesn't sink Knowlton's claim that the body wasn't full of blood that didn't leak out at all.

Then we can get to your 9/11 Truther-esque claims that every witness is telling the complete objective truth, and not what they saw and recalled later, so you can point out "inconsistencies in the official account."


Yes you are. Which is why you and Rodriguez are on entirely different sides in this controversy. I'll stand by what Rodriquez said ... which I quoted above. You simply wave your hands and CLAIM to be telling folks what Rodriguez *really* said. ;)

I quoted what Rodriguez said in post 145 of this thread, made on November 26th.

You didn't quote him (using the exact same quote I did) until post 193, made today, December 3rd.

If you're going to pretend I'm dismissing Rodriguez's actual words and substituting my own paraphrases, you might want to double check things like that.

Did you actually read Rodriquez's interview at Knowlton's site like you claimed you did?

No, I simply cut and pasted his words with my eyes closed. Pretty cool how I managed to do that, isn't it?

It shows Rodriguez making exactly the same statements that are quoted at the New Zealand website? Or did you not notice before you insinuated it was fake? :rolleyes:

Actually, I was mocking your constant use of websites that quote other websites that quote other websites that uncritically reproduce claims made by biased conspiracy sites run by crackpots with bizarre agendas.


As anyone can see, this (http://www.fbicover-up.com/Miquel/Miquel.htm#audio ) has the same statements by Rodriguez as quoted in the New Zealand/AIM link. Apparently you can even link to the recording to prove that's accurate ... if you must.

I don't doubt that Rodriguez said such things. In fact, I rely on it, since it proves what a selectively-quote-mining crackpot Knowlton is.



For your information, that was a LIE. Because that is NOT what Rodriguez said. That's you making up things. For one, Rodriguez doesn't buy the "shot himself" claim AT ALL. Nor is Rodriguez convinced that Foster was killed at Marcy Park.

It was not my intention to say that the words in question were a direct quote by Rodriguez, but merely to separate the logical conclusion of his statement from my own words via the punctuation chosen.

I had thought that was obvious, but rest assured I shall be sure to avoid that in future responses to you.



That's you conjecturing ... while ignoring the documented fact that the doctor prescribed the drug for insomnia, not because of depression. That's you conjecturing while ignoring that Starr LIED about that. That's you conjecturing, while ignoring that all the family, friends and workmates said, when interviewed in the immediate aftermath, that they saw nothing to indicate depression. That you conjecturing ,while ignoring that Starr LIED about that. Conjecture all you want. You don't prove anything. You don't change the facts. But you do show your desperation.

I'm not conjecturing anything. I'm asking you why YOU posted what you did, and what YOU think Foster's doctor was thinking when he (presumably) asked Foster about depression.

A question you still haven't answered.


Can you prove that report appeared on CNN news (you know, the TV?)? Because the website is not mainstream news. The website is seen by very few people overall ... especially back in 1998.

Furthermore, why are there no details in that CNN report? Why does it describe Ruddy as "controversial"? Why is there no mention that Cogswell was not the only pathologist concerned about a bullet wound? Why is there no mention that the government was caught lying about the wound? That doesn't sound like very good journalism. Especially when it leads off with "Justice Concludes No Evidence Of Crime In Ron Brown Death" but fails to mention that the DOJ didn't even interview the pathologists who blew the whistle. Now is the fact that CNN failed to mention this proof that didn't occur? Or is it further proof the mainstream was biased ... part of the Cult of Clinton? :D



Your challenge to me said nothing about any of that. You asked me for a
"mainstream" media mention of the Army pathologist that thought Brown had a bullet hole in his head. I did exactly that.

Must I point out to you that Fox News was not around back in 1995 when Rodriguez resigned? Here's the challenge. Find a mainstream source from when he resigned that reported what he said. Not what FOX News (and by the way, Fox News is not considered mainstream by most folks on your side at JREF) reported in 2003 when interviewing someone you call a CTer.



Again, you wanted me to find a mainstream "mention" of Rodriguez's claims, with no other requirements attached. I did exactly that.

I hope you aren't tiring yourself out, moving those goalposts.

I take it you couldn't locate the Senate investigation report on Foster? Even though Newsweek mentioned it? Even though the Washington Post mentioned it?

Perhaps if you were a bit more specific about the "Senate investigation report" you're seeking, if it's not the Fiske or Starr reports?

By the way, why didn't you link Knowlton's attachment that the three judge panel ordered Starr to attach to his final report? :D

Because the panel made no judgment whatsoever on the truth or accuracy of Knowlton's statement, and merely ruled on whether Knowlton, as a witness named in the initial report, had the right to have his full witness statement included as an appendix to that report, which apparently the relevant statute provided for.

Still, it's interesting how the same conspiracy that managed to keep the blood inside Foster's perforated body for quite a long time while it was carted from place to place and put the muscle on the FBI to keep things quiet completely failed to exclude Knowlton's damning witness statement from the official report which opened them up to that three-judge panel forcing the full statement to be appended to that report.

Must have been the same incompetents that let Foster's doctor's note get published in that report, too.

Or Knowlton's report on the deficiencies in Starr's report? Maybe that would be more useful to real skeptics. Here:

http://www.fbicover-up.com/proof/index.htm

That's because Knowlton is an untrustworthy fact-ignoring quote-mining fool.

[Darth Rotor]

I

Speaking of blackmail, that would be a plausible explanation for Mr. Foster's death: maybe he wasn't depressed but rather was being blackmailed by somebody and decided to kill himself rather than face the shame.
And thus the care taken by Hillary and her people to get as much, record wise, from that local squirreled away before the site of the suicide became inaccessible as a crime scene the cops were investigating.

A much more plausible scenario than Hillary having him killed.

[Darth Rotor]

LOL. Right, BAC. Most of the people here are in the Cult of Clinton.
I was accused of being a Clintoninte by BAC when I called BS on his Ron Brown dead by deliberate murder in Dubrovnik rubbish, which beachnut kindly put to bed with a multi page series of posts.

That is so funny it's hard to laugh. Me, a Clinton lover. *Snort*

What is funny is that since then, I found out my work associate Gary was actually on scene at the crash site when he was in the Air Force. Part of the investigation team. It came up in conversation, I showed him the silliness, and he did a face palm.

DR

[Tricky]

That is so funny it's hard to laugh. Me, a Clinton lover. *Snort*

What is funny is that since then, I found out my work associate Gary was actually on scene at the crash site when he was in the Air Force. Part of the investigation team. It came up in conversation, I showed him the silliness, and he did a face palm.
Then Gary is obviously in on the conspiracy. Now that he realizes that you know about the conspiracy, you are history. The Clinton Mob is on their way right now to rub you out. Got any last words?

[Darth Rotor]

Then Gary is obviously in on the conspiracy. Now that he realizes that you know about the conspiracy, you are history. The Clinton Mob is on their way right now to rub you out. Got any last words?

I'll be happy to teach that load of "rhymes with punts" about sight alignment and trigger control from a target's perspective.

[ANTPogo]

Then Gary is obviously in on the conspiracy. Now that he realizes that you know about the conspiracy, you are history. The Clinton Mob is on their way right now to rub you out. Got any last words?

Don't worry, though. When you're bumped off under mysterious circumstances, the conspirators' official report of your death will undoubtedly and conveniently include the one piece of evidence needed to break the cover-up wide open, just waiting for some intrepid website investigator to find it.

[gdnp]

Don't worry, though. When you're bumped off under mysterious circumstances, the conspirators' official report of your death will undoubtedly and conveniently include the one piece of evidence needed to break the cover-up wide open, just waiting for some intrepid website investigator to find it.

I would suggest avoiding any locations Angela Lansbury is known to frequent.

[Tricky]

Don't worry, though. When you're bumped off under mysterious circumstances, the conspirators' official report of your death will undoubtedly and conveniently include the one piece of evidence needed to break the cover-up wide open, just waiting for some intrepid website investigator to find it.
No doubt.
The officials coronor report says "Death by drinking too much beer", yet it has been shown that the only alcohol in the vicinity is Guinness, and it it is a proven fact that Guinness is not beer!

[gdnp]

No, it's only CLAIMED that Foster's sister discussed depression with a psychiatrist 4 days before he died. Curiously enough, at the time of Foster's death, and even days after, neither that sister or the doctor mentioned this supposed conversation or depression. It didn't get mentioned until much later ... after that meeting to discuss the suicide note in the Whitehouse. So perhaps this was just more of the orchestrated coverup.

So just to get this straight, you are now alleging that Foster's sister did not contact a psychiatrist 4 days before his death: that this story was fabricated with the complicity of the sister and the psychiatrist as part of a cover-up?

I am still waiting for that list of all of the people who must be involved in the cover-up. Is the psychiatrist that may or may not have been contacted by the sister the same as the psychiatrist that prescribed the antidepressants, or different? Are there any others that need to be added to the list?

[tomwaits]

Reading the title of this thread, I thought it might be an interesting discussion on the picking of Hillary as SecState and what that meant in relation to Obama's campaign promises. Much to my chagrin, it turned out to be a BAC rant about how the Clintons are murderers. Oh well.

[BeAChooser]

And the Republicans, who hated Clinton and even impeached him

It wasn't a matter of hate. It was a matter of what the facts showed. And by the way, David Schippers, who developed the case against Clinton, was not a republican. He was a democrat who voted for Clinton twice. And he wrote afterwords that the Senate sabotaged the impeachment and prevented him from investigating and presenting the real case against Clinton. Instead they limited him to the stupidity of Monica and the dress.

had what incentive to maintain this "conspiracy" once they dominated the Executive Branch

I've already answered that on this thread. Did you ignore that or did you not notice? I suggest you go back and find my response and then challenge the logic of what I wrote ... if you can. :D

Because you haven't offered any proof that Starr "lied"?

[shakes head] You haven't been paying attention at all, have you?

Starr's entire case for depression was based on claims by just a few people made well after the death ... in fact, only after a meeting with most of those so-called *witnesses* in attendance, which occurred at the Whitehouse about a week after Foster's death. Up until that time, depression had not been mentioned by those witnesses. And by the way, that meeting of Clinton insiders was reportedly to discussed what to do about the *suicide* note ... or I should say the now clearly bogus suicide note.

Starr cites Sheila Anthony, Foster's sister, saying that Vince told her 4 days before the death that he was depressed. Yet she denied he was depressed when specifically asked about depression the night of his death. Starr doesn't mention this. A lie by omission. She didn't tell the investigators the night Foster died her later claim that she gave Vince the names of 3 psychiatrists. Starr doesn't mention this. A lie by omission. Sheila didn't change her story until after the meeting in the Whitehouse. And neither did her husband who also vehemently denied that Foster was depressed just a couple days after the death. Starr doesn't mention this. A lie by omission. Starr also doesn't mention that Sheila was a high ranking member of Clinton's inner circle and her husband was a long time associate of Clintons from Arkansas.

Starr cites Lisa Foster saying Vince cried with her at dinner 4 days before his death. Yet Lisa specifically denied that Vince showed any signs of depression when she was questioned by investigators the night of his death. Starr doesn't mention this. A lie by omission. Lisa first mentioned depression after the meeting in the Whitehouse a week later. Starr doesn't mention this. A lie by omission. Starr doesn't explore why she changed her story all of a sudden. Starr doesn't investigate this meeting where apparently the bogus suicide note was discussed. Starr even ignores the evidence that clearly shows the note was bogus. A lie by omission.

Starr cites a contact with a physician the day before Foster's death, but what Starr doesn't mention is that the physician said Foster came in complaining of insomnia, was only mildly depressed, and that he prescribed medication to help Foster sleep better[/]b. A lie by omission. Instead, Starr compounds the lie when he states "He was prescribed antidepressant medication". He was not. He was prescribed medication (which just happened to also be used at certain dosages ... not the one prescribed ... for depression) to treat insomnia. Starr lies in his report when he states "Foster had called a family doctor for antidepressant medication the day before his death. " He did not. He contacted the doctor with concern about insomnia and the doctor's notes don't indicate that Foster ASKED for "antidepressant medication." The doctor prescribed the drug he did because it is known to be effective against INSOMNIA at the dosage the doctor prescribed. Starr didn't mention this. Starr committed a lie by omission.

The rest of Starr's so-called *evidence* pointing to "clinical depression" in his report is that Foster complained of being overworked in the days before he died. Well guess what? Who at the Whitehouse doesn't complain of being overworked. It is known for looooong hours. In fact, who anywhere doesn't complain about that. And again, Starr's claims in this regard are mostly based on testimony by people whose stories changed after a meeting in the Whitehouse. And Starr doesn't mention any of the many witnesses who indicated just the opposite of his conclusion ... that Foster was not depressed or in any state of crisis.

For example, in an interview with Federal agents in 1994, Web Hubbell described himself as ''best friends'' with Vince Foster. He recalled vacationing with Foster on the last weekend of his life. The agents wrote: ''Hubbell said that he was not aware that Foster was experiencing any type of stress." "Hubbell answered no to all questions concerning any noticeable changes in Foster's appearance, physical ailments, headaches, loss of appetite or any kind of stomach trouble.'' Starr completely ignored such testimony time and again ... because Starr was clearly intent on building, out of whole cloth, a case that Foster was "clinically" depressed ... regardless of the actual facts.

And at the end of his report, Starr cites an *analysis* by Dr Berman and his conclusion that with "100% degree of medical certainty" the death was a suicide. Red flags should go up when ANY expert in something so nebulous as the psychology of suicide claims "100%" certainty. Especially when his claim is clearly based on only some of the facts and in large part based on the statements of witnesses whose stories radically changed well after the death. Again, Berman simply started with the assumption of suicide and never explored the alternatives.

the claim that Starr didn't tell the truth when he said lots of blood was found with Starr's body supported by Rodriguez's statement that...lots of blood was found with Starr's body.

You misrepresent what Starr and Rodriguez said. Starr said lots of blood was found while implying that it was where Foster's body was originally found. But that's untrue. Even the medical examiner and lead investigator said the body was moved. As Rodriguez noted, little blood was found at that original location. The EMTs corroborate this fact. Lots of blood was only found at the location the body was moved to ... where the FBI took photos to replace those taken of the original location that curiously disappeared, thanks to the mysterious Sergeant Edwards ... who, by the way, Starr and Fiske never bothered to interview. That should raise a red flag in ANY real skeptic.

And someone else that Fiske never bothered to interview is Dr Haut, the only medical examiner to view Foster's body that night at Fort Marcy Park. He stated that the body was found 10 to 20 yards from the first cannon one encounters in the park. This location was corroborated by Fairfax County rescue worker, George Gonzales, and several others. Their statements directly contradict Fiske's claim (regurgitated by Starr) that the body was found deep inside the park at the base of the second cannon.

And here is something even more curious. A Secret Service memo from the night of Foster's death

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/MISC/2551.gif

that states "Park Police discovered the body of Vincent Foster in his car." It also states that "a .38 cal. revolver was in the car" Do you have any explanation why the Secret Service would have gotten these details soooooo wrong? Are they in the habit of misquoting Police who call them? Are the Park Police in the habit of getting the details so wrong? :D

Those damn FBI sheep, going along with the conspirators, just as they did during 9/11!

Instead of throwing out red herrings regarding 9/11, why don't you tell us why many months after the death, Lisa Foster was shown a silver gun by FBI agents and told that it was the gun found with her husband's body? You do know, don't you, that the gun seen in the so-called crime scene photo in Foster hand is black? You do know, don't you, that the gun is described as black in Starr's report? So why was the gun she was shown by the FBI a silver one? :D

You and Knowlton seem to have this odd conception of a "crime scene", thinking it's the state of the location of a crime at the exact and permanent snapshot in time where it was first discovered by an outside witness.

So you don't mind the apparent fact that the body was moved to a new location, photographed there, and that new location was then called "the crime scene" by Starr? Do you understand that one reason you might move a body is to hide a crime. Note that the bullet was never find. Despite sifting the soil at the location and using metal detectors. :rolleyes:

Do you know the difference between no blood in a body

Who claimed there was no blood "in" the body? Certainly Knowlton didn't. Why do you continue to mischaracterize what Knowlton and Rodriguez claimed? I think we know why. :D

(and this is ignoring the claimed "neck wound", which makes this task even more difficult)

Just so everyone knows, the only medical examiner to visit Fort Marcy Park, Dr Haut, stated in his official report there was a gunshot wound from mouth to neck. This is a fact that Starr never mentioned in his report ... yet another lie by omission. Furthermore, other eyewitnesses to the body said there was a neck wound. So this allegation is not merely "claimed" as ANTPogo would dishonestly like you to believe, folks. :D

conspirators clever enough to keep blood from a long-dead body from congealing so it flowed freely when moved after it was discovered at the park

So are you claiming that blood won't flow from a body that's been dead 2 to 3 hours (the official claim for how long Foster was dead before his body was discovered and investigated) if it's moved? Would you like to bet your continued presence on this forum on the validity of that claim? :D

It's apparently really hard to find good help these days.

It always has been true that small things trip up big conspiracies. And that criminals generally make mistakes. And it's also true that that this isn't the first time the Clintons used the organs of law enforcement to obstruct an investigation related to them.

They were recording what they saw and they saw no blood when they arrived and moved the body from the original location.

Not all EMTs, as Rodriguez himself points out.

Go ahead, name the EMT that said there was lots of blood at the location Foster's body was originally found. Name the EMT that said Foster had a huge wound in his head. Name the EMT who said it looked like a suicide and not a homicide (which is what several of them actually recorded). Go ahead.

Or Foster's doctor, who said Foster reported feeling depressed?

But reported it as mild depression and said Foster was not in crisis. Who prescribed medication that was clearly intended to treat Foster's insomnia. A fact that Starr lied about. A lie that you are continuing to promote.

Quote:
Apparently a trained investigator like Rodriguez doesn't agree with your *expertise*.

And here I thought he was a US Attorney. Now he's a trained investigator?

He was trained enough investigator that Starr hired him to lead the investigation into Foster's death. But ok, would you like to hear from some more trained investigators?

Do you know that in 1994 the Western Journalism Center hired Vincent Scalise, a former NYC detective, Fred Santucci, a former forensic photographer for NYC, and Richard Saferstein, the former head of the New Jersey State Crime Lab and asked them to investigate the Foster case? Here were some of their conclusions. Homicide cannot be ruled out. The position of the arms and legs of the corpse are inconsistent with suicide. The position of Fosters' hand on the gun is inconsistent with suicide. It is "inconceivable" that the gun's discharge knocked Foster's glasses as far as it was claimed. The lack of blood and brain tissue at the site suggests Foster was carried to the scene. The absence of soil on Foster's shoes is inconsistent with the scenario that he walked to a location deep in the park.


It was not my intention to say that the words in question were a direct quote by Rodriguez


Really? So you didn't really mean it when you stated:


[b]as Rodriguez explains in the passage Knowlton himself quotes, the lack of blood was due to the way the body fell after Foster shot himself


We'll keep your *intentions* in mind the next time you claim someone "explains" anything. :rolleyes:

I'm not conjecturing anything.

Oh, so now we are also to believe that in pointing out that Foster's doctor mentioned depression, you weren't conjecturing that Starr's claim of clinical depression was correct? :rolleyes:

Your challenge to me said nothing about any of that. You asked me for a "mainstream" media mention of the Army pathologist that thought Brown had a bullet hole in his head. I did exactly that.

But you didn't provide one. The internet is not mainstream ... not unless you can prove that article made it to TV. Obviously you can't, nor can you tell us why that CNN article left out so many very important details in the story. I think we can conclude you aren't confident enough to defend your mainstream, non-conspiracy, news sources as a reliable source of information. :D


Again, you wanted me to find a mainstream "mention" of Rodriguez's claims, with no other requirements attached. I did exactly that.

So in other words, you were just parsing the words and not looking at the intent ... much like Clinton did with "is". And by the way, I would again note that most people on your side of this debate would maintain that Fox News is not mainstream. I also note that you ignore the fact your mention occurred almost a decade after the event. Surely you could come up with a citation from about the time Rodriguez quit ... if the mainstream is as good a source of information as you claim. :D

Perhaps if you were a bit more specific about the "Senate investigation report" you're seeking, if it's not the Fiske or Starr reports?

See? You doesn't even know what I'm talking about. Even though the Senate investigation was mentioned in liberal "mainstream" sources. :rolleyes:


Quote:
By the way, why didn't you link Knowlton's attachment that the three judge panel ordered Starr to attach to his final report?

Because the panel made no judgment whatsoever on the truth or accuracy of Knowlton's statement

They didn't rule on the truth or accuracy of Starr's report either.

and merely ruled on whether Knowlton, as a witness named in the initial report, had the right to have his full witness statement included as an appendix to that report, which apparently the relevant statute provided for.


That's incorrect. There was no legal requirement that the judges attach Knowlton's addendum to Starr's report. The IOC law just allows persons named in the report to submit comments and factual information. It is left to the DISCRETION of the court to order them attached to the IOC report. And again note that this is the only time an Independent Counsel has been ordered to attach evidence of a cover-up by his own investigators to his own report. That is not something that a three judge panel would likely do lightly so I posit that they did see some merit (accuracy) in Knowlton's concerns. And did you notice that Knowlton's website states this event has not been reported to the public by a single newspaper. Even now. And you claim the mainstream media reports all? :rolleyes:

Quote:
Or Knowlton's report on the deficiencies in Starr's report? Maybe that would be more useful to real skeptics. Here:

http://www.fbicover-up.com/proof/index.htm
That's because Knowlton is an untrustworthy fact-ignoring quote-mining fool.

Who somehow managed to convince the three judge panel to order Starr to attach an addendum charging the OIC office with witness intimidation and evidence tampering.

Who somehow has Starr's top investigator supporting his assertions. :D

Apparently even former FBI Director William Sessions, who coincidentally (?) was fired by Clinton a day before Foster's death, said the investigation was "compromised from the beginning."

Sorry, ANTpogo, but you are the one proving yourself to be untrustworthy and fact-ignoring.

Now in closing, would you like one more example of Starr tampering with evidence in this case? Starr claimed in his investigation that the reason the gun did not have Foster's fingerprints on it is that it was carried to Fort Marcy Park inside an oven mitt that Starr claimed was found in the glove compartment of Foster's car. Now, never mind that Foster would have gotten fingerprints on the gun carrying it from the car to the location where he supposedly shot himself. The real problem here is that Starr provides as proof a photo which shows a big green oven mitt occupying most of the space in the glove compartment. And in that photo, the floor of the car below the glove compartment is clean ... sans debris. But other photos from that day show there was debris on the floor. But according to Park Police records, Detective Braun emptied the glove box of all items PRIOR to detective Smith removing the debris from the passenger seat floor. Records show Braun emptying the glove box at 6:35 AM July 21st. Detective Smith's paperwork indicates he cleaned off the passenger side floor after noon on July 21st. So a photograph showing the glove box with items in it over a clean passenger floor contradicts the Park Police records. Such an after the fact photo (this was never mentioned by Fiske) can only have been staged by Starr. Furthermore, Detective Braun's inventory of the glove compartment did NOT record an oven mitt ... something that would be very hard to miss and unusual enough to have surely been listed. Face it, ANTPogo ... Starr tampered with the evidence.

[BeAChooser]

I called BS on his Ron Brown dead by deliberate murder in Dubrovnik rubbish, which beachnut kindly put to bed with a multi page series of posts.

Not to get off-topic, but beachnut did no such thing. What beachnut did was plagerize text and photos from what I believe was www.flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_jul-aug96.pdf, "July-August 1996, Flight Safety Digest". Much of that material I showed was flawed. And then beachnut ran when I suggested that he was dishonoring his CLAIMED pilot "friend" by allowing him to be smeared as a bad pilot. When I asked him if as a CLAIMED "friend" of the family he had ever told the family that they were lied to in the AIB report. When I asked him whether as a CLAIMED "friend" he ever told the family that military pathologists and a military photographer suspected foul play. When I asked how his CLAIMED "friend's" family felt about being lied to by the acting Secretary of the Air Force, who sent a letter I proved was filled with lies. For those who'd like to verify this, just go here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119618 or here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2905050 .

The truth is that all beachnut (and YOU) ever did was regurgitate the "official story" ... which I showed in those threads is incomplete AT BEST. An official story that leaves out a host of very important and quite incriminating facts ... just like Fiske and Starr's reports on Foster. Lies by omission, if nothing else.

What is funny is that since then, I found out my work associate Gary was actually on scene at the crash site when he was in the Air Force. Part of the investigation team. It came up in conversation, I showed him the silliness, and he did a face palm.

Yeah. You've claimed that before. But like beachnut, when I asked for details of what G told you, you ran. But I'm still interested. If you want to post what G told you on one of the above Ron Brown threads, I'm all ears. I bet I can point out a number of omissions that would qualify as lies by him. Care to test me? But let's do it on a Ron Brown thread and get back on topic here. :D

[gdnp]

OK, I see, BAC...Starr leaves out details that you think are crucial, and thus has committed "lies of omission". You have, however, failed to demonstrate a single lie. At least any that I could find in your latest diatribe.

Starr cites a contact with a physician the day before Foster's death, but what Starr doesn't mention is that the physician said Foster came in complaining of insomnia, was only mildly depressed, and that he prescribed medication to help Foster [b]sleep better[/]b. A lie by omission. Instead, Starr compounds the lie when he states "He was prescribed antidepressant medication". He was not. He was prescribed medication (which just happened to also be used at certain dosages ... not the one prescribed ... for depression) to treat insomnia.

No matter how many times you repeat this, you are still wrong. Foster was prescribed an antidepressant that can also be used for insomnia. There are plenty of other insomnia drugs that are not antidepressants. Benzodiazapines like valium and barbiturates, for example, are useful as sleeping pills but are also depressants, and thus not a good choice for a patient who is already depressed. It would appear that the psychiatrist thought that Foster's anorexia and insomnia may have been related to depression, and thus decided to treat both the depression and the insomnia with a single drug. Such "dual treatment" is not uncommon. For example, if a patient has hypertension and a heart arrhythmia, a cardiologist may prescribe a drug that both regularizes the heart rate and lowers the blood pressure. The same drug would not be used in a patient whose blood pressure is too low, or a patient with high blood pressure and an abnormally low heart rate.

When treating depression the doctor must make similar decisions. If the patient is depressed and has insomnia he may be treated with a relatively sedating drug. If he has depression and anxiety he may be treated with a drug with anxiolytic properties. If he has depression and hypersomnolence he may be treated with an antidepressant which is relatively stimulating.

Your distinction between clinical depression and situational depression is also meaningless. Both can be mild or severe. Both can be treated with antidepressants. A life stress may unmask an otherwise well compensated depression, much as pregnancy can unmask a tendency towards diabetes that resolves after delivery but recurs later in life. Patients with situational depressions, such as those caused by severe job stress, may become suicidal. Look at the suicide rate of men after the loss of a spouse. So even if Foster did not meet the criteria for major depression (a diagnosis difficult to make over the internet) it does not mean that he was not suicidal.

Depressed patients can be quite adept at hiding their depression. Since it is a mental illness the denial can be quite strong. The stigma attached may also lead family members to deny the depression, or if they see it to cover for the patient when dealing with outsiders. Might one of these account for why family members denied Foster's depression on the night of the shooting? Those in denial might have wished to keep up the facade to assuage their guilt for not having intervened earlier. Those who saw the depression and were trying to cover for Foster--like his sister--may have still been in "cover-up" mode and only after the shock of the suicide had sunken in realized that it was pointless to continue to do so.

Utter speculation, as is most of what you posted. The only way to tease these things out would be to actually talk to the people involved. Like the investigators did. And you and I didn't. Thus without better reason to doubt their conclusions than you have been able to provide, I choose to lean heavily towards believing the conclusions in the report.

[BeAChooser]

So just to get this straight, you are now alleging that Foster's sister did not contact a psychiatrist 4 days before his death: that this story was fabricated with the complicity of the sister and the psychiatrist as part of a cover-up?

Well either that or she lied to Park Police and the FBI (a crime) the night of Foster's death when she told them that Vince wasn't depressed nor did he show any signs of depression. Either that or she obstructed an investigation by failing to tell them she'd given Foster the names of 3 psychiatrists. Either that or her husband lied a few days after Foster's death when he said there was no indication Foster was depressed ... that such an assertion was "crap". Either that or the doctor obstructed the investigation when he failed to tell FBI agents that Sheila had called him about Foster 4 days before the death. Can you think of a logical reason they would have hidden these things for over week after Foster death before mentioning them for the first time? Isn't it curious that the first mention of depression by these people occured after a meeting in the Whitehouse attended by Sheila (and Lisa) where the bogus suicide note was discussed?

Is the psychiatrist that may or may not have been contacted by the sister the same as the psychiatrist that prescribed the antidepressants

No. And he didn't prescribe antidepressants. He proscribed medicine for insomnia which just happens to be an antidepressant at much higher dosage than was prescribed. :D

[ANTPogo]

It wasn't a matter of hate.

Sure it wasn't.

It was a matter of what the facts showed. And by the way, David Schippers, who developed the case against Clinton, was not a republican. He was a democrat who voted for Clinton twice. And he wrote afterwords that the Senate sabotaged the impeachment and prevented him from investigating and presenting the real case against Clinton. Instead they limited him to the stupidity of Monica and the dress.

Apparently the Republican-controlled Congress (and the Republican-controlled Congress under the Republican President Bush) were in on the whole thing, otherwise they might have pursued this evidence leading to the horrific conclusion that a Democratic president and his hated wife at the very least participated in a cover-up of murder, and at worst ordered that murder themselves.

Is there no end to the terrible power the conspirators hold?

I've already answered that on this thread. Did you ignore that or did you not notice? I suggest you go back and find my response and then challenge the logic of what I wrote ... if you can. :D

I am well aware of that.

I just like reading your fumbling conspiratorial excuses, and was hoping you'd repeat them once more.


Starr's entire case for depression was based on claims by just a few people made well after the death ...

It'd be remarkably prescient of Starr to collect statements from witnesses before the death actually occurred.

Though undoubtedly you'd say that, too, would be evidence of a cover-up, since it would mean Starr knew Foster's death would happen.




You misrepresent what Starr and Rodriguez said. Starr said lots of blood was found while implying that it was where Foster's body was originally found.

Unless the conspirators refilled Foster's body with blood like a reused water balloon, that's kind of irrelevant.

The EMTs corroborate this fact.

According to Rodriguez, not all EMTs.


Lots of blood was only found at the location the body was moved to ...

And where do you think all this blood came from?



And someone else that Fiske never bothered to interview is Dr Haut, the only medical examiner to view Foster's body that night at Fort Marcy Park. He stated that the body was found 10 to 20 yards from the first cannon one encounters in the park. This location was corroborated by Fairfax County rescue worker, George Gonzales, and several others. Their statements directly contradict Fiske's claim (regurgitated by Starr) that the body was found deep inside the park at the base of the second cannon.

And, of course, Rodriquez totally backs up this claim that Foster's body was discovered in another part of the park, in addition to being murdered elsewhere and transported to the park?

Sheesh...

And here is something even more curious. A Secret Service memo from the night of Foster's death

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/MISC/2551.gif

that states "Park Police discovered the body of Vincent Foster in his car." It also states that "a .38 cal. revolver was in the car" Do you have any explanation why the Secret Service would have gotten these details soooooo wrong? Are they in the habit of misquoting Police who call them? Are the Park Police in the habit of getting the details so wrong? :D

No. This report says the ID/DD reported that Secret Service Agent Lieutentant Wolz told them that Patrick Gavin told him that Foster's body was found in his car.

Unfortunately, Gavin was, at most, the fourth person on the scene after Foster's body was found (not in his car), and after several photographs of the not-in-a-car body were taken. But just in case you don't take my word for it, here's a conspiracy-favoring website featuring an interview with John Clarke (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/legacy.newevidence.html), Knowlton's own attorney:

"[Robert Edwards] was the third Park Police officer to respond to the body site. As he was walking up to the body site the first Park Police officer was leaving. Edwards ordered him to leave the park and return to his duties. Edwards proceeded to the body site where Park Police officer Franz Ferstl was photographing the body. Ferstl was the 'beat officer'; it was his beat. He took about 7 photographs before Edwards got there. Edwards then took Ferstl's photographs and sent Ferstl to the parking lot. Then two other Park Police officers walked up to the body site, Lt. Patrick Gavin and Christine Hodakievic. They stayed for a few minutes and left."

So, what you have is a fourth-hand report alleging something that not even the lawyer who works with Knowlton mentions. Yes, that's quite convincing.



So you don't mind the apparent fact that the body was moved to a new location, photographed there, and that new location was then called "the crime scene" by Starr? Do you understand that one reason you might move a body is to hide a crime.

Not when moving the body (a few feet, mind you) results in something that not even the most able conspirators could have faked had Foster not been killed at the park location his body was found at.

So are you claiming that blood won't flow from a body that's been dead 2 to 3 hours (the official claim for how long Foster was dead before his body was discovered and investigated) if it's moved? Would you like to bet your continued presence on this forum on the validity of that claim? :D

Perhaps you'd like to explain why Knowlton's appendix goes to great lengths to try and paint all the blood found with Foster's body as either in tiny amounts or as "dried" and "old"? Especially when Rodriguez's statement as quoted by Knowlton contradicts both those assertions.



It always has been true that small things trip up big conspiracies. And that criminals generally make mistakes.

Publishing a suppressed and possibly forged document that utterly contradicts the "official explanation" in the main report issued by the bought-off-by-the-conspiracy lead investigator kind of goes beyond "small things trip up big conspiracies".



Go ahead, name the EMT that said there was lots of blood at the location Foster's body was originally found.

Why are you asking me? You should ask Miguel Rodriguez, since he's the one that mentions it.


Who prescribed medication that was clearly intended to treat Foster's insomnia. A fact that Starr lied about. A lie that you are continuing to promote.

Funny, that specific claim doesn't appear even in the conspiracy-website quotes from Foster's doctor.





Really? So you didn't really mean it when you stated:

[...]

We'll keep your *intentions* in mind the next time you claim someone "explains" anything. :rolleyes:

No, I meant it. Rodriguez did indeed attempt to explain why blood poured from Foster's body when it was moved. It was, however, my own interpolation that if blood flowed so freely (and so stainingly, if I may be allowed to coin a word) from the body when it was moved, the lack of such bloodflow and blood-staining on the body before it was so moved indicates that it hadn't been moved since its death.

Oh, so now we are also to believe that in pointing out that Foster's doctor mentioned depression, you weren't conjecturing that Starr's claim of clinical depression was correct? :rolleyes:

You're still avoiding the question. Odd, considering since your own post indicates that you know the real answer to that question, and are refusing to answer because it contradicts your conspiracy theory.



But you didn't provide one. The internet is not mainstream ... not unless you can prove that article made it to TV. Obviously you can't, nor can you tell us why that CNN article left out so many very important details in the story. I think we can conclude you aren't confident enough to defend your mainstream, non-conspiracy, news sources as a reliable source of information. :D



I'm impressed. In all my years dealing with crackpottery on the internet, this is the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that a CNN.com article doesn't count as "mainstream media" because it didn't appear on TV.

See? You doesn't even know what I'm talking about. Even though the Senate investigation was mentioned in liberal "mainstream" sources. :rolleyes:

Please, enlighten me.



They didn't rule on the truth or accuracy of Starr's report either.

...which doesn't help yours and Knowlton's claims one bit.



That's incorrect. There was no legal requirement that the judges attach Knowlton's addendum to Starr's report. The IOC law just allows persons named in the report to submit comments and factual information. It is left to the DISCRETION of the court to order them attached to the IOC report. And again note that this is the only time an Independent Counsel has been ordered to attach evidence of a cover-up by his own investigators to his own report. That is not something that a three judge panel would likely do lightly so I posit that they did see some merit (accuracy) in Knowlton's concerns.

...thus contradicting your own statement directly above.

And did you notice that Knowlton's website states this event has not been reported to the public by a single newspaper. Even now. And you claim the mainstream media reports all? :rolleyes:

No, I don't, and indeed never have.

Nice strawman attempt, however.



Who somehow managed to convince the three judge panel to order Starr to attach an addendum charging the OIC office with witness intimidation and evidence tampering.

...based on US Code Section 594 h 2 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=28&sec=594). Read it yourself.


It says nothing about allowing an addendum based on its inherent merits, only that a court can allow an addendum to protect the rights of "any individual named in such report", because such an individual has the right to submit any comments to the report. Starr's filed objection claimed Knowlton was not a named individual, but the court said he was.

That's why his appendix was included. Not because of the comments or (dubious) facts it supposedly contained.

[BeAChooser]

No matter how many times you repeat this, you are still wrong. Foster was prescribed an antidepressant that can also be used for insomnia.

No matter how many times you repeat that, Starr lied when he implied or claimed the medicine was prescribed for depression. It was not. It was prescribed for insomnia because Foster was afraid of getting addicted to ordinary sleeping pills. Starr lied when he said Foster called the doctor for antidepressant medication. He did not. He called to complain about insomnia and to get a medication that wouldn't be addictive.

It would appear that the psychiatrist thought that Foster's anorexia and insomnia may have been related to depression, and thus decided to treat both the depression and the insomnia with a single drug.

FALSE. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the doctor was treating his "mild" depression with drugs. And as I pointed out with sources that you just ignored, the dosage of the drug recommended for treating depression is considerably higher than that for insomnia (which is the dosage Foster received) and is given in divided doses rather than just at night as recommended for insomnia. You can talk till your blue in the face, Mr *expert*, but you won't change those facts. All you are doing is conjecturing, which I was informed proves NOTHING.

Your distinction between clinical depression and situational depression is also meaningless. Both can be mild or severe. Both can be treated with antidepressants.

Which isn't what the numerous medical sources I provided said. I'm still waiting to see your sources on this matter, Mr. *expert*. Or are we just supposed to take your *word* for it? :rolleyes:

But at least this red herring allows you to ignore all the other facts that point to a murder and coverup. Right? At least this diversion allows you to ignore the oven mitt lie. And the missing bullet, missing soil stains, missing blood and brain matter, missing gun, missing car keys, missing exit log, missing suicide note, missing Whitewater documents, etc. etc. etc. Right? :D

[gdnp]

Which isn't what the numerous medical sources I provided said. I'm still waiting to see your sources on this matter, Mr. *expert*. Or are we just supposed to take your *word* for it?

Let's see: from the first link (http://www.psychologyinfo.com/depression/causes.html) in google under depression treatment:

You may have heard people talk about chemical imbalances in the brain that occur in depression, suggesting that depression is a medical illness, without psychological causes. However, all psychological problems have some physical manifestations, and all physical illnesses have psychological components as well. In fact, the chemical imbalances that occur during depression usually disappear when you complete psychotherapy for depression, without taking any medications to correct the imbalance. This suggests that the imbalance is the body's physical response to psychological depression, rather than the other way around

....snip....

So, while there may be some biological factors that contribute to depression, it is clearly a psychological disorder.

A variety of psychological factors appear to play a role in vulnerability to these severe forms of depression. Most likely, psychological factors are completely responsible for other forms of mild and moderate depression, especially reactive depression. Reactive depression is usually diagnosed as an adjustment disorder during treatment.

People who have low self-esteem, who consistently view themselves and the world with pessimism, or who are readily overwhelmed by stress are more prone to depression. Psychologists often describe social learning factors as being significant in the development of depression, as well as other psychological problems. People learn both adaptive and maladaptive ways of managing stress and responding to life problems within their family, educational, social and work environments. These environmental factors influence psychological development, and the way people try to resolve problems when they occur. Social learning factors also explain why psychological problems appear to occur more often in family members, from generation to generation. If a child grows up in a pessimistic environment, in which discouragement is common and encouragement is rare, that child will develop a vulnerability to depression as well.

A serious loss, chronic illness, relationship problems, work stress, family crisis, financial setback, or any unwelcome life change can trigger a depressive episode. Very often, a combination of biological, psychological, and environmental factors are involved in the development of depressive disorders, as well as other psychological problems. When you feel depressed, and don't know where to turn, talk to someone who can help.... a psychologist.


However, some symptoms of depression, such as sleep and appetite disturbances, significant concentration problems, and chronic fatigue, interfere with your ability to make the life changes necessary to eliminate the depression. In more serious depression, suicidal thoughts and urges, and preoccupation with death, may require medication in addition to psychotherapy. Antidepressant medication can help relieve those symptoms, and allow you to make needed life changes. The decision to take medication, in addition to participating in psychological treatment, should be discussed with your treating psychologist and your primary care physician. Your thoughts and feelings regarding medication, after considering information about both the benefits and risks involved, are an important part of a collaborative treatment approach between psychologist and client.

from their page on medications: (http://www.psychologyinfo.com/depression/medication.htm#symptomrelief)

Antidepressants are used most widely for serious depressions, but they can also be helpful for some milder depressions. Antidepressants, although they are not "uppers" or stimulants, take away or reduce the symptoms of depression and help the depressed person feel the way he did before he became depressed.


The dosage of antidepressants varies, depending on the type of drug, the person's body chemistry, age, and, sometimes, body weight. Dosages are generally started low and raised gradually over time until the desired effect is reached without the appearance of troublesome side effects.

You will notice Mr. *expert* that the authors here make no distinction between major depression and situational depression in the use of drugs to relieve symptoms, which can be effective both for severe and mild depressions. And doses are generally started low and gradually increased. Thus the psychiatrist, who felt (incorrectly) that Foster was only suffering from a mild depression, may have felt that treating the insomnia with an antidepressant would allow him to get past the rough patch he was going through. Even if he had prescribed no drugs at all, this does not imply that he did not think Foster was depressed: some depressed patients are treated with psychotherapy or behavioral therapy without drugs at all.

As for the other factors I am "ignoring", I suggest you reread my earlier post. I have no desire to debunk your theories. I have not read Starr's report, nor do I have desire to, since based on the garbage you have posted I see no reason to challenge his conclusions. Unlike *some people* who consider themselves modern day Sherlock Holmes, I choose to leave the investigations to the experts. I have therefore chosen only to chime in when you make ignorant medical statements or obvious errors in logic.

By the way, any progress on the list of conspirators yet? :D

[gdnp]

BAC, what is your explanation for this statement from the Ken Starr report (http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/Starr_text.html):

On Monday, July 19, Mr. Foster contacted Dr. Larry
Watkins, his physician in Little Rock, and was
prescribed an antidepressant. Watkins' typed notes of
July 21 say the following:

I talked to Vince on 7/19/93, at which time he
complained of anorexia and insomnia. He had no GI
[gastrointestinal] symptoms. We discussed the
possibility of taking Axid or Zantac to help with
any ulcer symptoms as he was under a lot of stress.
He was concerned about the criticism they were
getting and the long hours he was working at the
White House. He did feel that he had some mild
depression. I started him on Desyrel, 50 mg. He was
to start with one at bedtime and move up to three.
. . . I received word at 10:20 p.m. on 7/20/93 that
he had committed suicide.

Dr. Watkins said that it was unusual, even
unprecedented, for Mr. Foster to call him directly. Lisa
Foster said that Mr. Foster took one tablet of the
antidepressant medication on the night of the 19th.


One at bedtime and move up to 3...hmm...50 mg three times a day. Where have I heard that before? Oh, now I remember, Isn't that the usual starting dose for treating DEPRESSION that you posted? Gee I suppose it is. Now why would the doctor want him to increase his dose to 150 mg/day when the usual dose for insomnia is 25-50 mg? Curious. :D

[ANTPogo]

BAC, what is your explanation for this statement from the Ken Starr report (http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/Starr_text.html):



One at bedtime and move up to 3...hmm...50 mg three times a day. Where have I heard that before? Oh, now I remember, Isn't that the usual starting dose for treating DEPRESSION that you posted? Gee I suppose it is. Now why would the doctor want him to increase his dose to 150 mg/day when the usual dose for insomnia is 25-50 mg? Curious. :D

Obviously it means that Apothecon Inc, the manufacturer of Desyrel, is part of the Clinton-loving conspiracy.

[Lonewulf]

I'm too lazy. Can someone please summarize ToBeAChooser's points?

[Tricky]

BAC, what is your explanation for this statement from the Ken Starr report (http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/Starr_text.html):



One at bedtime and move up to 3...hmm...50 mg three times a day. Where have I heard that before? Oh, now I remember, Isn't that the usual starting dose for treating DEPRESSION that you posted? Gee I suppose it is. Now why would the doctor want him to increase his dose to 150 mg/day when the usual dose for insomnia is 25-50 mg? Curious. :D
Obviously, Ken Starr was LYING!!! He was just trying to cover up for his good pals, the Clintons.

[Tricky]

I'm too lazy. Can someone please summarize ToBeAChooser's points?

I think they can be summarized thusly:

I hate the Clintons with such rabid intensity that I will believe absolutely anything bad that any crackpot website says about them regardless of the evidence and in spite of the fact that the conspiracy to protect them would involve thousands of people who have somehow never chosen to reveal the evidence for this conspiracy in a way that any court in the land would accept.


Other Democrats too, but mostly the Clintons.

[gdnp]

I think they can be summarized thusly:

I hate the Clintons with such rabid intensity that I will believe absolutely anything bad that any crackpot website says about them regardless of the evidence and in spite of the fact that the conspiracy to protect them would involve thousands of people who have somehow never chosen to reveal the evidence for this conspiracy in a way that any court in the land would accept.


Other Democrats too, but mostly the Clintons.


You are most unfair. I have never heard BAC say anything bad about either Chelsea or George Clinton, nor have I heard a peep from him about Clinton Portis. So clearly this is just another left wing smear. :D

[varwoche]

Third bullet added for completeness: I think they can be summarized thusly:

I hate the Clintons with such rabid intensity that I will believe absolutely anything bad that any crackpot website says about them regardless of the evidence and in spite of the fact that the conspiracy to protect them would involve thousands of people who have somehow never chosen to reveal the evidence for this conspiracy in a way that any court in the land would accept.



Other Democrats too, but mostly the Clintons.
:D

[BeAChooser]

Apparently the Republican-controlled Congress (and the Republican-controlled Congress under the Republican President Bush) were in on the whole thing, otherwise they might have pursued this evidence leading to the horrific conclusion that a Democratic president and his hated wife at the very least participated in a cover-up of murder, and at worst ordered that murder themselves.

Like I said, go look up my response to this red herring assertion and respond to that. If you don't, well ...


It'd be remarkably prescient of Starr to collect statements from witnesses before the death actually occurred.


And who suggested that? If you can't understand what I clearly wrote, well ...

Quote:
Starr said lots of blood was found while implying that it was where Foster's body was originally found.

Unless the conspirators refilled Foster's body with blood like a reused water balloon, that's kind of irrelevant.


That's not irrelevant at all. It's proof of Starr's dishonesty. Just like his claiming the FBI files had been returned when it turned out they weren't is proof of that dishonesty.

Quote:
The EMTs corroborate this fact.

According to Rodriguez, not all EMTs.


Would you please point out that statement by Rodriguez?

And, of course, Rodriquez totally backs up this claim that Foster's body was discovered in another part of the park

Yes, he does. Rodriguez says the body was moved and the photos claimed by Starr to represent the crime scene were then retaken ... with the original photos mysteriously disappearing.

This report says the ID/DD reported that Secret Service Agent Lieutentant Wolz told them that Patrick Gavin told him that Foster's body was found in his car.

Well who got it wrong? You think Gavin? Why would he get such a detail so wrong? Why would he also say the gun was found in the car? You still haven't answered that. Or do you think Secret Service agents are in the habit of making such transcription mistakes?

So, what you have is a fourth-hand report

No, this is a first hand account of what Gavin supposedly told the Secret Service agent. And Gavin is a first hand witness to what he saw or was told at the park. Now if he first observed the body in the park, why did he tell Wolz it and the gun were found in the car? You still haven't answered that. Did Starr ever try to resolve this curious inconsistency? Can you point us to him doing that?

Not when moving the body (a few feet, mind you) results in something that not even the most able conspirators could have faked

Even you must realize that you don't tamper with possible crime scenes (and the first EMTs on location identified this as a homicide) before taking photos and allowing a coroner and investigators to see it. You disturb evidence, you lose clues. If little blood and brain matter was observed at the initial location then that tells the detective something very important. Moving the body might smear blood and lose information. The orientation of the body with respect to the surroundings says things. The way the hands and arms are positioned tells the investigator something important. I'm surprised that a smart person like you wouldn't realize this. :D

Perhaps you'd like to explain why Knowlton's appendix goes to great lengths to try and paint all the blood found with Foster's body as either in tiny amounts or as "dried" and "old"?

Is Knowlton talking about the blood seen on the outside of the body or the blood inside the body? You see, it makes a difference. And in any case, you are wrong. If you actually read Knowlton's 500 page assessment of the evidence where he describes exactly what each witness says he/she saw with regards to blood, you will see Knowlton didn't go to great lengths to paint "all the blood" as "dried" and "old". But then you couldn't be troubled to read that document because Knowlton's just a untrustworthy, quote mining fool, right? (I truly hope you can detect the sarcasm and irony in that last question. :D)

Quote:
Go ahead, name the EMT that said there was lots of blood at the location Foster's body was originally found.

Why are you asking me? You should ask Miguel Rodriguez, since he's the one that mentions it.

Would you quote to us exactly what Rodriguez says in that regard?

Quote:
Who prescribed medication that was clearly intended to treat Foster's insomnia. ... snip ...

Funny, that specific claim doesn't appear even in the conspiracy-website quotes from Foster's doctor.

Yes it does. The doctor told the FBI he gave Foster the drug "to start sleeping better". Those were his words.

No, I meant it. Rodriguez did indeed attempt to explain why blood poured from Foster's body when it was moved.

But he did not say what you claimed he "explains" in the passage Knowlton quoted. He did not say "the lack of blood was due to the way the body fell after Foster shot himself". So if you meant it, then you were being deceptive. Hoping someone out there might buy your deception?


Quote:
Oh, so now we are also to believe that in pointing out that Foster's doctor mentioned depression, you weren't conjecturing that Starr's claim of clinical depression was correct?

You're still avoiding the question.

And what was that question? If the doctor asked Foster how he was doing ... whether he was depressed? I've answered that previously. Weren't you paying attention or were you too busy planning your next red herring?

I'm impressed. In all my years dealing with crackpottery on the internet, this is the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that a CNN.com article doesn't count as "mainstream media" because it didn't appear on TV.

Of course an article appearing solely on the internet it is not mainstream media. Especially back in the 90's. Not because it doesn't appear on TV but because it's readership ... especially back in the 90's ... was but a tiny fraction of the CNN's TV audience. Or any other mainstream TV network. Or any mainstream newspaper or newsmagazine. The reason most people are still unaware of the details in the Foster or Brown's deaths ... in most of the Clinton related scandals ... is because they DON'T use the internet as their source of news. It's the reason they were also so ignorant about Obama's history. People like me (and maybe you) are the exception, not the rule.


Please, enlighten me.


http://www.newsweek.com/id/120767/output/print

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/tripp073098.htm


Quote:
They didn't rule on the truth or accuracy of Starr's report either.

...which doesn't help yours and Knowlton's claims one bit.

But it does undermine your insinuation that because they didn't rule on the accuracy of Knowlton's claims, they have no merit.


Quote:
That's incorrect. There was no legal requirement that the judges attach Knowlton's addendum to Starr's report. The IOC law just allows persons named in the report to submit comments and factual information. It is left to the DISCRETION of the court to order them attached to the IOC report. And again note that this is the only time an Independent Counsel has been ordered to attach evidence of a cover-up by his own investigators to his own report. That is not something that a three judge panel would likely do lightly so I posit that they did see some merit (accuracy) in Knowlton's concerns.

...thus contradicting your own statement directly above.


Not at all. But then you've already demonstrated you can't read and don't understand what I write. :D


And you claim the mainstream media reports all?

No, I don't, and indeed never have.

Really? I'm almost certain you insinuated that some of the facts I've noted must be false simply because I can't quote a mainstream source containing them. ;)

It says nothing about allowing an addendum based on its inherent merits

I didn't say that. But I did suggest that attaching something as potentially explosive as Knowlton's addendum to an IOC's report is not likely something the judges would have done lightly ... would have done if they thought the charges/evidence had no merit. I stand by that opinion.

such an individual has the right to submit any comments to the report.

Submit them to the court ... yes. But the judges have no obligation under the statute to order that material attached to the report when it is released ... which they did in Knowlton's case.

Starr's filed objection claimed Knowlton was not a named individual, but the court said he was.

Might this be proof of Starr lying yet again? Or if Starr was correct might that be an indication that the Judges were looking at a bigger picture than the letter of the law? :D

[BeAChooser]

Let's see: from the first link in google under depression treatment:

Let's examine the items you bolded from that source.

Most likely, psychological factors are completely responsible for other forms of mild and moderate depression, especially reactive depression.

So what? That doesn't say mild depression requires medication or is no different than the clinical depression that Starr claimed existed.

A serious loss, chronic illness, relationship problems, work stress, family crisis, financial setback, or any unwelcome life change can trigger a depressive episode.

sleep and appetite disturbances

So what? No one has denied that Foster might have been depressed. Mildly depressed. That's what the doctor said. But MILLIONS OF PEOPLE are mildly depressed. And aren't on any medication. And don't commit suicide. No one is denying that he was having trouble sleeping either. You haven't proven anything with these quotes, gdnp. Nada.

Antidepressant medication can help relieve those symptoms, and allow you to make needed life changes.

Great. They can do that. But the doctor didn't say he prescribed the medicine to resolve Foster's depression. He said he prescribed it to help him "start sleeping better".

I notice that you didn't bold the sentence before that one that says when medication is prescribed for depression:


In more serious depression, suicidal thoughts and urges, and preoccupation with death, may require medication in addition to psychotherapy.


But then the doctor didn't say Foster had serious depression. He said he had "mild" depression and was NOT "in crisis". And I don't believe he expressed suicidal thoughts to anyone or was preoccupied with death. So based on your source, I'd again have to conclude that the medication was prescribed to help Foster sleep better ... not resolve his depression.


from their page on medications:


Ok, let's look at this too ... only I will bold something different:


Antidepressants are used most widely for serious depressions, but they can also be helpful for some milder depressions. Antidepressants, although they are not "uppers" or stimulants, take away or reduce the symptoms of depression and help the depressed person feel the way he did before he became depressed.


Seems to me that all you are doing is conjecturing without a supporting foundation. We know these facts. The doctor said Foster called him to complain about insomnia. His wife said Foster was worried about addiction to sleeping pills. His wife said there was no sign of depression. The doctor judged he had "mild" depression but was NOT "in crisis". The drug the doctor prescribed is effective against insomnia at the dosage prescribed. The drug is not addictive. Now THAT is a basis for believing that Foster was not prescribed the drug for depression (because he wasn't in crisis) but to ONLY fight insomnia.


Dosages are generally started low and raised gradually over time until the desired effect is reached

Fine. That's exactly what the literature I linked said. But I note you haven't provided any detailed dosage information for the drug in question. I did. And what those sources said is that for depression, the recommended initial dosage is 3 times the dosage that Foster was started at. And the dosage that the doctor told Foster to ramp up to is only the starting dosage for depression. The usual recommended dose for treating depression if 3 or more times higher than that. But the dosage that was prescribed lies squarely in the range recommended for insomnia. So you really haven't proven anything here, gdnp. Nada.

You will notice Mr. *expert*

I don't claim to be an expert. I've merely cited expert sources to back up what I claim. You, on the other hand, told us you were a doctor and based on your *expertise* I was wrong. But I hesitate to tell you that so far you haven't proven that AT ALL, *doctor*.

that the authors here make no distinction between major depression and situational depression in the use of drugs to relieve symptoms

Nonsense. The source you posted said that "Antidepressants are used most widely for serious depressions". That clearly implies they aren't used for "mild" depression nearly as often. Hence there must be a distinction between "mild" and "serious". And the source you provided said "serious depression" may require medication. That implies that medication is probably not required for "mild" depression, especially when the patient is not having suicidal thoughts or is preoccupied with death. Again, there seems to be a distinction between the type of depression the doctor said Foster had (i.e., "mild") and the type that Starr alleged Foster had ("clinical" or "serious"). By the way, neither of your sources even used the word "situational". :D

Thus the psychiatrist, who felt (incorrectly) that Foster was only suffering from a mild depression, may have felt that treating the insomnia with an antidepressant would allow him to get past the rough patch he was going through.

Apparently you don't even realize that the doctor in question wasn't a psychiatrist. He's a doctor of Internal Medicine. Again, you are speculating without foundation. As I was pompously informed earlier in this thread ... even with a foundation, conjecturing proves nothing. :D

As for the other factors I am "ignoring", I suggest you reread my earlier post. I have no desire to debunk your theories.

Of course you don't. You hate to admit that the Clintons were serious criminals and that Obama has made a serious mistake in judgement by appointing one to Secretary of State before even taking office. :D

[ANTPogo]

And who suggested that? If you can't understand what I clearly wrote, well ...



You attach a bizarre significance to the fact that Starr obtained witness statments made after the crime. When else would such statements have been made?


You simply want to make it look like Starr told these people what to say, when in fact it's standard in any investigation of this nature.


That's not irrelevant at all. It's proof of Starr's dishonesty.

So, Starr is being dishonest when he says, and I quote from the report here:

Dr. Lee noted that Dr. Beyer had "observed a large amount of liquid blood in the body bag and in Mr. Foster's body," which "further indicates that the location where the body was found is consistent with the primary scene [and that it] is, therefore, unlikely that Mr. Foster's body was moved to the Fort Marcy Park scene from another location."

The shirt itself, which was removed at the autopsy after movement of the body to the morgue, contains bloodstains on areas where blood does not appear in the photographs of the body at the scene. Dr. Lee stated that these stains on the shirt "most likely occurred when the body was placed into the body bag and moved from the scene and/or when in the body bag, prior to the collection of the decedent's clothing." As noted below, the experts concluded that the shirt likely would have been more extensively stained when the body was found at the second cannon area at Fort Marcy Park had the body been moved from another location.

Is Rodriguez being just as dishonest, when he says
The fact is, a number of people have said there was a small amount where the body was originally found. Later on it's moved to a horizontal position at the top of the berm where it does have some seepage under the body. And then when they put it in the body bag they see, faced in that horizontal position, there's a ten-inch or so bloodstain under the body.

Or perhaps you'd like to point out where what Starr reported is in any way contradicted by what Rodriguez stated?

All right, let's focus on one thing here, and see if we can make any headway.

And again, you seem to attach some strange significance to the fact that there wasn't much blood before Foster was moved, and none at all to the fact that there was a lot of blood, as well as a definition "where the body was originally found" that would confuse the hell out of any CSI.

Knowlton actually manipulates this twisting of definitions to try and imply foul play - he takes "little blood was found where Foster's body was initially positioned", and describes that as "little blood was was found at the crime scene". Then, he spins the story that since little blood was found at the "crime scene", (using the standard definition of "physically located at the place that a crime is presumed to have happened, when it happened", then that means Foster must have been killed elsewhere and moved to that location, since otherwise there'd be blood everywhere at the crime scene, right?

You're doing the exact same thing. However, neither you nor Knowlton can explain why there was no blood all over Foster if it started pouring out and staining everything the instant he was moved, if he had been moved postmortem before the "official story" says he was discovered.

Try a little experiment at home, BAC: take a ziploc bag. Fill it as full as you can with tomato juice, and seal it tight. Lay it flat on one end of a long white table. Now, slide a sharp knife underneath the bag, and poke a hole in the bottom (that's pressed against the table) as close to the center of the bag as you can.

Now pick up the bag and move it to another part of the white table. Notice how the bag and table weren't covered in tomato juice when the bag was resting in the same place where it had been poked, while the bag and table had juice all over them after you picked it up and set it back down in a place other than the one where it had been poked.

Which of those two states most accurately describes Foster's body and the park around it as Rodriguez describes them?


Well who got it wrong? You think Gavin? Why would he get such a detail so wrong? Why would he also say the gun was found in the car? You still haven't answered that.

Because I'm not reading what Gavin said, but what someone else reported that yet someone else says Gavin said.

Or do you think Secret Service agents are in the habit of making such transcription mistakes?

In a chaotic situation when someone is reporting on a report of a report? Even Secret Service agents don't have superhuman transcription powers.

No, this is a first hand account of what Gavin supposedly told the Secret Service agent.

You have no clue what "first hand account" means, then.

And Gavin is a first hand witness to what he saw or was told at the park.

First hand witness to what he was told? You really don't see how ridiculous that sounds?

Now if he first observed the body in the park, why did he tell Wolz it and the gun were found in the car? You still haven't answered that. Did Starr ever try to resolve this curious inconsistency? Can you point us to him doing that?

And how come the 9/11 Commission never resolved why so many witnesses to the WTC attacks reported hearing sounds like bombs, if there were no bombs that brought down the towers? And why did the Mayor of Shanksville say that there was no plane where Flight 93 was supposed to have crashed, when his own sister and a good friend of his were among the first on the scene?



Is Knowlton talking about the blood seen on the outside of the body or the blood inside the body? You see, it makes a difference.

Unless Foster was refilled with blood after it poured out at the original location he was murdered at (and meticulously cleaned up with his clothes dry-cleaned) so it could pour out and smear around again later, no it doesn't make a difference.



And what was that question? If the doctor asked Foster how he was doing ... whether he was depressed?

WHY the doctor asked whether he was depressed if Foster himself didn't mention it.

I've answered that previously.

Indeed. And you've been backing away from that initial answer ever since, because it contradicts what you've been trying to claim about the whole reason for the prescription he was given.


Of course an article appearing solely on the internet it is not mainstream media. Especially back in the 90's. Not because it doesn't appear on TV but because it's readership ... especially back in the 90's ... was but a tiny fraction of the CNN's TV audience. Or any other mainstream TV network. Or any mainstream newspaper or newsmagazine. The reason most people are still unaware of the details in the Foster or Brown's deaths ... in most of the Clinton related scandals ... is because they DON'T use the internet as their source of news. It's the reason they were also so ignorant about Obama's history. People like me (and maybe you) are the exception, not the rule.

Matt Drudge might disagree.



http://www.newsweek.com/id/120767/output/print

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/tripp073098.htm

I hate to break this to you, BAC, but Linda Tripp making a statement doesn't quite count as "the original senate investigation report". Nor does a Newsweek summary article whose only mention of a Senate investigation involves hearings "next week"...and since this article was published in 1995, that means it was a year after Fiske's report was issued.


But it does undermine your insinuation that because they didn't rule on the accuracy of Knowlton's claims, they have no merit.

Just as it undermines your assertion that they included Knowlton's claims because they did have merit. They made no judgement about the factual accurary of Knowlton's claims.

They simply ruled on a matter of law regarding that specific statute.

Really? I'm almost certain you insinuated that some of the facts I've noted must be false simply because I can't quote a mainstream source containing them. ;)

Very good.

Perhaps, for a hat trick, you can explain how my doubting a specific document you apparently could only find on conspiracy websites differs from your strawman assertion that I "claim the mainstream media reports all".

[BeAChooser]

One at bedtime and move up to 3...hmm...50 mg three times a day. Where have I heard that before? Oh, now I remember, Isn't that the usual starting dose for treating DEPRESSION that you posted? Gee I suppose it is. Now why would the doctor want him to increase his dose to 150 mg/day when the usual dose for insomnia is 25-50 mg? Curious.

Apparently you not only haven't found any sources to back up your claims, you never bothered to look at the ones I supplied. :rolleyes:

Here are mine again. Note the bolded portions.

http://mental-health.emedtv.com/desyrel/desyrel-dosage.html


The recommended starting Desyrel dose when treating depression is 150 mg per day (divided into two or three doses per day). Your healthcare provider may choose to increase the dosage if symptoms continue, or decrease the dose if side effects occur. The maximum recommended dose of Desyrel is 400 mg total per day, although people who have been hospitalized due to their depression may take up to 600 mg per day.

... snip ...

Usually, the dose of Desyrel for insomnia is lower, starting with Desyrel 25 mg or 50 mg at bedtime.


http://www.rxlist.com/desyrel-drug.htm


DESYREL is indicated for the treatment of depression. ... snip ... An initial dose of 150 mg/day in divided doses is suggested.The dose may be increased by 50 mg/day every three to four days. The maximum dose for outpatients usually should not exceed 400 mg/day in divided doses.


http://www.psychatlanta.com/documents/trazadone.pdf


When prescribed for insomnia and sleep disturbance, the usual dose for trazodone is 50–100 mg at bedtime, but some patients may need doses as high as 150–200 mg. ... snip ... For treatment of depression, trazodone is gradually increased to the effective therapeutic dosage of 300–400 mg, although some individuals may require dosages up to 600 mg."


http://books.google.com/books?id=4gItF4QOIT8C&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=desyrel+insomnia+dosage&source=web&ots=Q4UXyn0pdt&sig=itZhyGcmho-jO1KS2YHk63K7ps8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPP1,M1


Symptom-Focused Psychiatric Drug Therapy for Managed Care, By Sonny Joseph ... snip ... For treatment of insomnia and as an adjunctive medication, the dosage range is 50 to 150 mg, given at bedtime for insomnia


http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:TISVvkxWsrEJ:www.collegeofwellness. com/images/pdf/ce/Summer04-RX-for-Insomnia.pdf+desyrel+insomnia+dosage+AD+Schmetzer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us


Primer For Prescription Medicines ... snip ... Two of the most commonly used medications for insomnia in the United States are ... snip ... and the antidepressant trazodone (Desyrel) used in the range of 25 to 150 mg, which is lower than its effective antidepressant dose.


And let me add a few more links.

http://www.pdrhealth.com/drugs/rx/rx-mono.aspx?contentFileName=Des1128.html&contentName=Desyrel&contentId=173


Desyrel is prescribed for the treatment of depression.

... snip ...

The usual starting dosage is a total of 150 milligrams per day, divided into 2 or more smaller doses. Your doctor may increase your dose by 50 milligrams per day every 3 or 4 days. Total dosage should not exceed 400 milligrams per day, divided into smaller doses.


http://www.inhousedrugstore.com/anti-depressants/desyrel.html


The daily dosage is usually administered in three divided doses.

Adults

Depression - The optimal dosage is between 300 - 400 mg/day. It is suggested that a starting dose of 150 mg/day is given for the first week, increasing to 300 mg/day or higher according to the clinical response (600 mg/day dosage has been reported).


http://www.realmentalhealth.com/medications/trazodone.asp


For relief of depression.

... snip ...

An initial dose of 150 mg/day in divided doses is suggested. The dose may be increased by 50 mg/day every three to four days. The maximum dose for out patients usually should not exceed 400 mg/day in divided doses.


http://www.druglib.com/druginfo/desyrel/indications_dosage/


DESYREL is indicated for the treatment of depression. ...snip ... An initial dose of 150 mg/day in divided doses is suggested. The dose may be increased by 50 mg/day every three to four days. The maximum dose for outpatients usually should not exceed 400 mg/day in divided doses.


http://www.drugs.com/cons/desyrel.html


Adults—Oral, to start, 50 milligrams per dose taken three times a day, or 75 milligrams per dose taken two times a day. Your doctor may increase your dose if needed.


So ....

To summarize the above, the recommended STARTING dose for treating depression is not 50 mg/day (Foster's starting dose) but 150 mg/day. And the 150 mg/day starting dose is to be divided into several doses a day rather than one dose prescribed at bedtime, as Foster's prescription specified. For depression, the starting dosage is increased every 4 to 5 days ... with the therapeutic range higher than 150 mg/day.

In contrast, the STARTING dose to treat insomnia is 25-50 mg at bedtime. Just like Foster was prescribed. The word STARTING means it can go higher than that. According to the above sources that dose can range from 50 to 200 mg/day. Foster's prescription went to 150 mg/day ... which is lower than the effective antidepressant dose and only the STARTING dose for use as an antidepressant. The dosage for insomnia is to be given at bedtime (as Foster's prescription directed).

I think it is clear enough from the above that you don't know what you are talking about. Would you like to continue this charade ... *doctor*?

[BeAChooser]

Obviously it means that Apothecon Inc, the manufacturer of Desyrel, is part of the Clinton-loving conspiracy.

No, obviously you didn't read or understand the links I posted on dosage either. But that doesn't surprise me in your case. :D

[BeAChooser]

I think they can be summarized thusly:

I hate the Clintons with such rabid intensity that I will believe absolutely anything bad that any crackpot website says about them regardless of the evidence and in spite of the fact that the conspiracy to protect them would involve thousands of people who have somehow never chosen to reveal the evidence for this conspiracy in a way that any court in the land would accept.



Thank you, Tricky.

You have shown your true colors on this thread.

A skeptic, you are not.

Able to argue the facts, you are not.

A member of the Cult of Clinton? Most certainly. :D

[ANTPogo]

No, obviously you didn't read or understand the links I posted on dosage either. But that doesn't surprise me in your case. :D

Hmm...

"Dosing

1. Sleep
1. Dose: 25-100 mg PO qhs
2. Average: 50 mg PO qhs
2. Major Depression
1. Start: 50 to 150 mg per day in divided doses
2. Effective dose: 400 to 600 mg in divided doses"
(http://www.fpnotebook.com/Psych/Pharm/Dsyrl.htm)

50 to 150mg per day for major depression!

What was Foster prescribed again? 50mg to start, working up to 150mg per day. Remarkable coincidence, don't you think?

And why start with a low dosage and work up to 150mg, with a dose starting at bedtime?

"The dosage should be initiated at a low level and increased gradually, noting the clinical response and any evidence of intolerance."
(http://www.drugs.com/pro/desyrel.html)

Foster complained of insomnia and told his doctor he felt depressed. His doctor gave him a prescription for an anti-depressant, for a dosage higher than that normally given for insomnia (note how few of these drug information websites talk about dosages for insomnia being 150mg, and how many for 100mg or lower), but right in line with the normal starting dose for depression, since it can take a few weeks for the effects of Desyrel to be seen. And, per the official FDA recommendation, Foster's doctor worked him up to that starting dose.

[Tricky]

Thank you, Tricky.

You have shown your true colors on this thread.

No, no, thank you for this opportunity. I think I demonstrated my points sufficiently well. If you doubt me, then why don't you demonstrate your confidence by asking the very people you have been preaching to here? Oh. I forgot. We're all in on the conspiracy.:D

Hey Starr! Where's my silence money check? You better sent it PDQ or I'm gonna crack and tell BAC the real truth!:p


*****
ETA:
One thing that I always find surprising about Conspiracy Theorists is that they never seem to question why they are allowed to continue to reveal this government suppression of truth. (My brother-in-law 9-11 troofer has never been able to answer this question.) I mean, these guys are totally evil and incredibly powerful, yet, the 9-11 truth sites and the anti-Clinton sites continue to operate without any apparent suppression. What's going on with that?

They're willing to wipe out Vince Fosters and a whole list of other, and suborn Ken Starr and all of the doctors and judges in all the investigations, but they can't manage to take out a bunch of people with websites who are actively involved with revealing all their secrets! So are these operatives incredibly powerful are are they hopelessly inept? Why can't the Clintons put together a decent cabal?

Maybe you can answer that, BAC. Why are you still free to write these things? Why isn't your body being hauled off by Ken Starr's CIA goons?

[Darth Rotor]

Yeah. You've claimed that before.
No, I haven't. You are a liar, yet again, or merely mistaken. I'll go with the former on this one, given your habit of deliberately blowing smoke all over a topic.

Gary did not work at 16th Airforce. My associates at 16th Air Force were my original sources of input on that mishap, and the usual message traffic when one is a watch officer. That's over ten years ago. (Gary worked at a USAF unit in Germany.) We didn't meet until 2003. Again, it was odd, having not known he was on the investigation team, to stumble across that in conversation as we were sharing old war stories. So I asked him about your horsecrap. Stop lying BAC about who ran anywhere. I even offered to sign your petition, if you ever began one and if the Brown family actually wanted to reopen the investigation. Your time bandit act got old last time, and it's still old, as is your variation on argument from ignorance.

Back to the Hillary as Secretary of State Topic, not Vince Foster:

The change is that Bill Clinton isn't the Sec State, and Hillary Clinton holds an executive branch job, rather than wearing her husband's stars.

We'll see how she handles it. I predict a few gaffes in the first 100 days. Trying to hard does that to people. I also predict that Bill will provide entertainment for one and all. He can't help himself. His potential to be a different version of Billy Carter in Air F___ One is significantly greater than zero.

Buy some popcorn, it'll be a laugh riot.

DR

[BeAChooser]

You attach a bizarre significance to the fact that Starr obtained witness statments made after the crime.

There is nothing at all bizarre about questioning the veracity of witnesses who said one thing the night of and days following Foster's death and then claimed something entirely different a little over a week later ... coincidentally, shortly after a meeting was held in the Whitehouse to discuss an obviously bogus *suicide* note that *mysteriously* appeared (according to one of Clinton's lawyers) inside a briefcase a week after the contents of that briefcase had been dumped out in the presence of Park Police and found not to include a suicide note. If you can't see that as significant, you wouldn't make much of a detective. :)

So, Starr is being dishonest when he says, and I quote from the report here:

Quote:
Dr. Lee noted that Dr. Beyer had "observed a large amount of liquid blood in the body bag and in Mr. Foster's body,"


Do you know who Dr. Lee is? He's the expert who embarrassed himself in the Simpson case. Called by the defense, jurors cited Lee as a key factor in their acquittal of Simpson. During the trial, he was soundly criticized for his speculative testimony about blood stain patterns. Two FBI experts said that what Lee said certain things were, was not what they were. One of them, Douglas Deedrich called Lee's research "inadequate" and suggested Lee was "irresponsible" to have made the inferences he made. Later, Lee said "I don't want to talk about it." John Hicks, who retired in 1994 as an assistant director of the FBI crime lab, is on record saying that Lee's testimony cost him credibility "with a lot of people in the forensic community." "I think he is definitely a hired gun," Hicks said. So perhaps he was just a hired gun for Starr, too? :D

And apparently, you are unaware that Dr Lee wrote a book, "Famous Crimes Revisited", where he "admitted that some of the evidence that Foster was murdered was 'compelling.'" According to http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/lee-denies-he-wants-new-foster-probe/, Dr Lee was interviewed by a Globe reporter and during that interview said he would like to see a new Foster probe. He also reportedly


said that he had never read the statements given by the witnesses, including those who saw the body at the crime scene and even the medical examiner who performed the autopsy. He first said he didn't know that this medical examiner, Dr. James Beyer, had lied to explain the absence of x-rays of Foster's head, but later in the interview he let it slip that he had been told that the machine "chewed up the x-rays." He claimed he didn't know that Dr. Beyer's office did not request a service call to fix the x-ray machine until over three months after Foster's death. He also claimed he didn't know that the Park Police officer who tried to find an exit wound by feeling the back of Foster's head could find only a soft spot, no hole. He reported that there was no exit wound, but Dr. Beyer claimed he found a hole the size of a half dollar.


As the AIM article notes,


If he didn't read any of the witness interviews, Lee had no way of knowing that Foster's dead body arrived at Fort Marcy Park before his car did. His book says suspicious-looking men were seen around Foster's car. That shows he was familiar with what three eyewitnesses reported. But he apparently doesn't know that they were not describing Foster's car. They all described an older model brown Honda that was parked where Foster's silver gray 1989 Honda was found by the police. A car fitting the description of Foster's Honda was not seen in that spot until hours after the estimated time of his death.


Now Lee later claimed he didn't call for a new probe in the interview but as AIM points out,


If Lee is sure Foster committed suicide, what is this case doing in a book about famous crimes, all murders but one? Why does this chapter end saying, "Time will tell what really happened?"


Other than that, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. Other than Dr Lee likes to speculate. :D


Is Rodriguez being just as dishonest, when he says

Quote:
The fact is, a number of people have said there was a small amount where the body was originally found. Later on it's moved to a horizontal position at the top of the berm where it does have some seepage under the body. And then when they put it in the body bag they see, faced in that horizontal position, there's a ten-inch or so bloodstain under the body.


Of course not. And this just shows that where the body was originally found, there wasn't much blood. The large amounts of blood appeared after it was moved (against procedure) to a new location. To bad they effectively destroyed what that shirt could have told them about what happened to Foster. :D

And again, you seem to attach some strange significance to the fact that there wasn't much blood before Foster was moved

Why do you see the significance of that as strange? Starr's claim is that a hole over an inch in diameter was blown out the top of Foster's head with a high velocity bullet. Even a modicum of common sense should tell you that there should have been blood and brains all over the area. He had a hole in his mouth, too. Yet there wasn't much blood in evidence. Or brains. Or missing pieces of skull. Or the bullet. There wasn't blood on the gun. There wasn't blood on Foster hands. There wasn't blood on his sleeve. Now how in the world could that be?

Here's what happens when someone really shoots himself in the mouth:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/SUICIDE/suicide.html

a definition "where the body was originally found" that would confuse the hell out of any CSI.

True. They'd wonder what incompetent moved the body. And perhaps suspect the person who ordered it moved. :D

Try a little experiment at home, BAC

ROTFLOL! This is so like something a 9/11 truther would suggest.


Because I'm not reading what Gavin said, but what someone else reported that yet someone else says Gavin said.


You are still avoiding the question. Seems to me you have only a few options. You can claim the SS memo is a complete fabrication. You can claim that the ID/DO made two very serious transcription errors when contacted by Lt Woltz. You can claim that Lt Woltz made two very serious transcription errors when contacted by Lt Gavin. You can claim that Lt Gavin completely misunderstood whatever happened when he arrived at the park and apparently spoke with whoever was there at the time. Or you can assume that Foster's body and gun were indeed in the car when discovered. Pick one. And also tell us whether Starr ever investigated this curious memo or did he show no interest?


In a chaotic situation when someone is reporting on a report of a report? Even Secret Service agents don't have superhuman transcription powers.


Well do you think what was said was that they discovered the body and gun "near" his car and someone heard "in" his car? I'm curious what you think the transcription error was?

And how come the 9/11 Commission never resolved why so many witnesses to the WTC attacks reported hearing sounds like bombs, if there were no bombs that brought down the towers?

There's a difference. This was a Secret Service memo in a case where the cause of death really wasn't all that obvious (remember ... the EMTs on the scene wrote it down as a homocide). And keep in mind that the Secret Service has not told us how Foster got out of the Whitehouse without logging out or being seen on any of the video cameras that are surely surveilling the facility.


Originally Posted by ANTPogo
Perhaps you'd like to explain why Knowlton's appendix goes to great lengths to try and paint all the blood found with Foster's body as either in tiny amounts or as "dried" and "old"?

Posted by BeAChooser: Is Knowlton talking about the blood seen on the outside of the body or the blood inside the body? You see, it makes a difference.

Unless Foster was refilled with blood after it poured out at the original location he was murdered at (and meticulously cleaned up with his clothes dry-cleaned) so it could pour out and smear around again later, no it doesn't make a difference.

Are you really claiming that ALL the blood had drained out of Foster at the location where the body was first found? If so, why did the EMTs and others say they saw little blood at that location? Did it evaporate into thin air? And do you really know what Foster said about the state of what little blood was at the original scene? Because you admit you haven't bothered to read the 500 page report by Knowlton. Are you just making things up as you go along here? Just trolling for the sake of it? :D


Quote:
And what was that question? If the doctor asked Foster how he was doing ... whether he was depressed?

WHY the doctor asked whether he was depressed if Foster himself didn't mention it.

Because he wanted to find out why Foster wasn't sleeping. Because the good doctor was concerned Foster might be depressed. Now do you think that is significant in some way? Does it alter any of the dosage information that I posted a while ago? Does it alter what the doctor wrote down about his treatment? The doctor concluded that Foster was at worst mildly depressed and not in crisis. And prescribed medicine at the dosage recommended for treating insomnia, not depression.


Quote:
I've answered that previously.

Indeed.

Then this is at least the second time that you've asked a question that I've already answered.

And you've been backing away from that initial answer ever since

Care to prove that? With actual quotes? Or should we just label you a liar?

Matt Drudge might disagree.

ROTFLOL!

http://www.jdlasica.com/articles/colapr98.html


How should the mainstream media respond to lone-wolf cyber-reporting on the Internet? Not by lowering journalistic standards


Guess they aren't one and the same.


I hate to break this to you, BAC, but Linda Tripp making a statement doesn't quite count as "the original senate investigation report".

I hate to break this to you but I was only trying to prove, using mainstream sources, that senate investigations of this matter exist and they put out reports. I asked you earlier to show us how to acquire those report using your vast mainstream links on the internet. Still waiting. Or are you prepared to admit that just because something isn't published by a mainstream source on the internet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist? :D

Just as it undermines your assertion that they included Knowlton's claims because they did have merit.

But unlike you, I have basis for saying they thought that. Because the addendum is politically inflammatory and they'd be quite reluctant to force Starr to attach something like that to his report unless they thought there was a good reason. And clearly, the reason isn't that they were forced to by law.

They simply ruled on a matter of law regarding that specific statute.

That's false. The judges were NOT required to force Starr to attach the addendum to the final report. They were only required to allow witnesses named in the report to submit comments and factual information to them.

Perhaps, for a hat trick, you can explain how my doubting a specific document you apparently could only find on conspiracy websites differs from your strawman assertion that I "claim the mainstream media reports all".


Funny how any source you don't like immediately becomes a "conspiracy" website. Then you can sweep it under the rug and not have to deal with anything it reports.

But I'd be willing to compare the veracity in reporting facts of many of those "conspiracy" websites to that of your mainstream media outlets any day of the week. Especially where the Clintons and democrats are concerned.

But for now, can you find a link to the Senate Foster report in the mainstream media? :D

[RandFan]

Before I go to that trouble, let's establish whether you are open to a few possibilities.

Are you open to the possibility that Vince Foster was murdered? And if he was murdered, would you agree there might be reason to question making Hillary Secretary of State given her actions following his death?

Will you agree that even if Foster wasn't murdered, efforts by her to obstruct justice in the Whitewater case, if evident, would be reason to question making Hillary Secretary of State?

Are you open to the possibility that Hillary was involved in Filegate? And if she was, would you agree there is then good reason to question making her Secretary of State?

Are you open to the possibility that Hillary was involved in ChinaGate and CampaignFinanceGate? And if she was, would you agree that would be a good reason not to make her Secretary of State?

And finally, are you open to the possibility that Kenneth Starr was controlled by the Clintons? And if he was, can you trust any outcome of any investigation he was involved in related to them?Sorry, I've been away.

Uh... hell yeah. I'm "open" to any possibility. I'm open to 9/11 being an American government conspiracy. I'm open to any JFK conspiracy. I just ask for evidence. That's all. That's fair don't you think?

ETA: If by "open" you mean the typical CT version of open where you have to set aside skepticsim and critical thinking then I'm not open. As James Randi says, you shouldn't be so open minded that your brains fall out.

[BeAChooser]

50 to 150mg per day for major depression!

What was Foster prescribed again? 50mg to start, working up to 150mg per day. Remarkable coincidence, don't you think?


Your desperation is showing. You forgot the word "START:" Why do you think they put that at the beginning of that line? And you forgot that bit about dividing the doses (Foster's prescription called for the entire amount to be taken at bedtime, qhs). And you ignored that part about the effective dose. You do know what "effective" and "therapeutic" dose means, don't you? With respect to that, here's one more source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=jGkgR18XMG8C&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=trazodone+dosage+%22for+insomnia%22&source=web&ots=n2441v8UfM&sig=Wn1sSOqsyEMbZf4Wlb3tDW-vfsw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result


The main indication for the use of trazodone is major depressive disorder. There is a clear dose-response relationship, with dosages of 250 to 600 mg a day being necessary for trazodone to have therapeutic benefit.


:D

His doctor gave him a prescription for an anti-depressant, for a dosage higher than that normally given for insomnia

On what do you base the claim that dosage prescribed for Foster is higher than normally given for insomnia? The link you quoted says the dose is 25mg to 100mg. I suppose that range is less than the 150 mg that the doctor said Foster could increase to but I cited three other sources above that showed a range to 150 mg and even beyond isn't all that unusual. One said "the usual dose for trazodone is 50–100 mg at bedtime, but some patients may need doses as high as 150–200 mg." It is admitted that Foster was having a LOT of trouble sleeping. Maybe he's one of those patients the doctor judged "might" need a little more than the "normal" dose. The other two sources I cites said "the dosage range is 50 to 150 mg", and "used in the range of 25 to 150 mg, which is lower than its effective antidepressant dose". So even the "normal" dose range may not be as definite as you try to suggest.

(note how few of these drug information websites talk about dosages for insomnia being 150mg, and how many for 100mg or lower)

This is just disinformation you've made up. You've done no statistical study to prove your case. You cited ONE website. Two of the websites I cited suggest you are wrong where the "normal" dose is concerned. And here are some more dealing with the insomnia dosage that suggest you are wrong:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/508820


The dose of trazodone needed to induce and maintain sleep is not well understood. Thus, clinicians use anywhere from 25 mg to 150 mg taken at bedtime as a hypnotic dose.


http://books.google.com/books?id=Bc5a31tdklIC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=trazodone+dosage+%22for+insomnia%22&source=web&ots=OyWSXlqSdd&sig=FexLFdy-PGK8Awx6-7gaIiIrnz8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA85,M1


Mood Disorders By S. Nassir Ghaemi ... snip ... Trazodone was dosed similarly to TCAs, requiring about 300 mg/day or more for effect, which often led to sedation. As a result, trazodone soon developed a niche as a sleep aid, especially in low doses (25 to 150 mg/day).


http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/diagnosis/organ_system/psychiatric/insomnia.html


Trazodone (25-200 mg qhs) most common antidepressant used for treatment of insomnia.


And by the way, do you know how many 50 mg tablets the doctor prescribed for Foster? 30. That doesn't suggest he expected Foster to actually be using 3 a day, does it? Don't doctors usually prescribe for 30 days? Looks like it was more a case of letting Foster see if he could get a good night sleep at 50 mg and if that didn't work then they'd step up the dosage to a maximum of 3 a day. That's why the pharmacy said the prescription said "1 - 3 pills at bedtime". Sounds reasonable. Certainly a lot more reasonable than your conjecture. At least it fits the facts. :D

[BeAChooser]

Maybe you can answer that, BAC. Why are you still free to write these things?

Simple. Because they figure that only a few people will every read them on this tiny website called JREF. A drop in the bucket. Indeed, my comments are akin to dropping a pebble in the ocean. Even I realize they aren't going to change anything. But the way they are received does make me wonder if this really is a "skeptics" forum.

Now need I say that your latest red herring doesn't change any of the facts I've noted either? Why do you have so much trouble actually confronting the facts, Tricky? You seem to have plunged into redherring and strawman land in this thread. ANYTHING to avoid directly challenging the facts. Why?

[BeAChooser]

I just ask for evidence. That's all. That's fair don't you think?

Of course. Which is why I've posted mountains of evidence on this thread (and then gotten roundly criticized for doing it). :rolleyes:

Now as to that list you wanted, you'll have to give me a while to prepare it. It will take some sorting through, condensing and summarizing so much material. I'll focus on some of the points I made in my previous post to you and what I think are key points. There are in fact, many, many other pieces of evidence to support my concerns. But let's see if you can directly challenge or will accept as valid the specific facts I note. Or whether you do what Tricky and the others have done on this thread and run from the facts while tossing out mountains of redherrings, strawmen, disinformation and speculative conjecture. That's fair don't you think?

[RandFan]

I'll focus on some of the points I made in my previous post to you and what I think are key points. Keep it simple. Your key pieces of evidence should be fine. I'd like to point out one more time that I'm no fan of the Clinton's and think little of the morality of either of them.

Bring it on. If the evidence and your argument is compelling I can tell you right now that I will gladly join you in your lone fight. I mean that with all sincerity. I'm not here to be popular and I've taken unpopular positions in the past.

[gdnp]

And by the way, do you know how many 50 mg tablets the doctor prescribed for Foster? 30. That doesn't suggest he expected Foster to actually be using 3 a day, does it? Don't doctors usually prescribe for 30 days? Looks like it was more a case of letting Foster see if he could get a good night sleep at 50 mg and if that didn't work then they'd step up the dosage to a maximum of 3 a day. That's why the pharmacy said the prescription said "1 - 3 pills at bedtime". Sounds reasonable. Certainly a lot more reasonable than your conjecture. At least it fits the facts.

Thanks, BAC, you have finally taught me something. I was not aware that Desyrel was ever dosed as high as 150 mg for insomnia. Unfortunately, many of your other medical assumptions are incorrect.

Doctors will often prescribe for 30 days when a patient is taking a medication chronically. When a patient is starting a new medication, especially one that may have side effects, smaller numbers of pills are often given as it forces the patient to return for evaluation. Thus you cannot conclude that 30 pills was supposed to be a 30 day supply. Especially since the doctor stated that he was starting at 50 mg with the plan to increase to 150 mg.

Let us look at some of the other evidence that the drug was likely given at least in part for depression.

Sleep aids are usually dosed "prn" or "as needed": you do not take them every day, only on days you are having trouble getting to sleep. I'm not sure Desyrel is dosed this way: you see, its use as a sleep aid is off label, and thus there are no official dosing guidelines. Antidepressants, on the other hand, are dosed to be taken regularly. The patient should not stop the drug abruptly or skip doses even if he is currently asymptomatic. Was Foster's prescription "prn?" or as a standing dose?

Second, the Starr report quotes Dr. Watkins:

I started him on Desyrel, 50 mg. He was
to start with one at bedtime and move up to three.

Note that once again he does not say "move up to three as needed." He says "move up to 3". Why would he plan to increase the dose right from the outset without waiting to find out if 50 mg was enough to control the insomnia if insomnia was all that he was treating?

All of this is largely irrelevant. Dr. Watkins could have prescribed no antidepressant at all and it would not alter the fact that he thought Foster was depressed. As did his sister, who gave him the list of 3 psychiatrists that was found in his wallet when he died. Their belief that the depression was mild and situational does not exclude the possibility that the depression was more severe than they thought. He may still have been suicidal. Foster most likely knew that an admission of suicidal ideation would have been an end to his white house career. Thus it is entirely predictable that he would deny it. This is not to imply that I believe that he definitely lied when he said he had no thoughts of suicide, only that his statement is of little use in determining his true state of mind.

[RandFan]

But let's see if you can directly challenge or will accept as valid the specific facts I note. Or whether you do what Tricky and the others have done on this thread and run from the facts while tossing out mountains of redherrings, strawmen, disinformation and speculative conjecture. That's fair don't you think?I think you need also answer a question. Are you open to the possibility that you are wrong?

[gnome]

I think you need also answer a question. Are you open to the possibility that you are wrong?

I'm pretty sure he's not. In the Ron Brown thread he made it pretty clear that he didn't think it was possible for someone to dislike Clinton and also disagree with the conspiracy theories. They were obviously all just lying about disliking Clinton.

He'll accuse you of the same, no doubt.

[Tricky]

I'm pretty sure he's not. In the Ron Brown thread he made it pretty clear that he didn't think it was possible for someone to dislike Clinton and also disagree with the conspiracy theories. They were obviously all just lying about disliking Clinton.

He'll accuse you of the same, no doubt.
True. In this very thread he accused Darth Rotor of being in the "Clan of Clinton." Darth, a Navy man down to the core of his being, is as likely to be an Al Qaeda fan as he is to being a Clinton Fan.

So ask if you want some entertainment, RF, but don't expect any real evidence, only regurgitation from his pet hate sites. As has been demonstrated, BAC shrugs off contradicting evidence, as shown above in his exchanges with gdnp. Oh, and definitely don't expect anything concise and self contained. You will get a wall of words.