Jump to content

The P B S Whitewash Of Clinton's Legacy

Recommended Posts

We're talking about a double edged sword. He governed very effectively with Newt. It wasn't perfect and not altogether stable but pretty effective.


That was a weird and wild dance, wasn't it? Clinton definitely got the better of Newt. Newt even knew it. He admitted he just couldn't help himself.


Personally, I think the country would be much better off had Newt Gingrich never gone into public life, but you probably feel that way about Clinton. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the serial bubbles of the last 30 years were produced by artificially low interest rates, which convinced consumers to buy much that they could not afford coupled with tax cuts to investors who then had an artificial reason to cook up some new scheme to invest in to bilk those consumers out of their cheap credit dollars. That is all classic, conservative, supply side economics.


The usual dishonest crap from a lying troll.


I cannot recall one single time reading a Supply Sider advocating artificially low interest rates.


Every Supply Sider I read when rates were artificially low under Bush warned about the danger of that policy; the WSJ and Forbes, among others.


Got any sources from Supply Siders that supported those low rate? Any actual quotes?




Never thought you did.


Clinton definitely got the better of Newt. Newt even knew it. He admitted he just couldn't help himself.


Yeah, Clinton kept hitting Newt in the fist with his nose, which is why Clinton caved on Welfare Reform, caved on Medicare Reform, caved on ending so many favorite Dem programs and signed most of the Contract with America.:lol:


While Dems went bonkers that Clinton was actually signing these things.


Can't you even tell believable lies?:lol:


Edited by RichClem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another sad sack POS. I love it that Clinton still makes repukes heads explode 12 years after his TWO TERMS.



That's the only pathetic argument you've been able to come up with. Ignore the fact that he should have been removed from office and numerous other failings and focus on the fact that liberals love him. Pathetic :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BeAChooser, on 20 February 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Would you like to discuss the death of Vince Foster?


Nothing but right wing propaganda and there was absolutely no evidence to suggest the Clintons had anything to do with it

Well if that's true, you should have no problem debating the facts in that case with me. But first, that sure is a curious way of your supporting the official claim that he committed suicide. You were doing that, right? Or should I just charge the Clintons with helping cover up his murder, regardless of who committed it? Wouldn't that be a serious enough accusation all by itself? Hmmmmm? :)


In any case, I tell you what ... to make things simple, let's narrow the discussion at first to Foster's so-called "suicide note". In case you've never seen it, here's a photo of the note: http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/NOTE/forg.gif . It wasn't easy to come by. 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, however, a copy was leaked to the WSJ who published it.


The IOC declared the note authentic, based on the opinion of Sergeant Larry Lockhart, the so-called U.S. Capitol Police handwriting expert. Fiske and Starr used this to bolster their suicide theory. But if it's a forgery, as appears to now be the case (see all the reasons below), then that clearly means someone in the Clinton WhiteHouse tampered with Foster's briefcase … and that would suggest someone was trying to make people believe Foster was suicidal. And why would someone do that unless Foster really was murdered? Furthermore, a bogus note means the FBI, Fiske and Starr, through sheer incompetence or corruption, went along with the deception as long as it was being called a "suicide note" but completely lost interest once it was exposed as a fraud … even though only White House employees could have placed the note in the briefcase. It all smacks of a coverup, if nothing else … if the note is bogus. So let's discuss the authenticity of that note. :)


The note was torn into 28 pieces … which makes it quite surprising that nothing fell out of Foster's briefcase when Bernard Nussbaum, opened and upended it in front of Park Police, showing it to be empty? That occurred a couple days before the note was officially discovered in the briefcase by Stephen Neuwirth, Associate Counsel to the President. This source has Mr Neuwirth describing his finding the note in the first place: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/committee.pdf . Apparently, the pieces of note were quite easy to dislodge from the briefcase. Interestingly enough, a congressman, Frank Murkowski, tried to duplicate that stunt a few years later during the Senate hearings on Foster's death, just to see what would happen. And lots of pieces of yellow paper fell out in front of everyone at the hearing.


Since the note was on yellow legal paper, it's all the more unlikely that Nussbaum would have missed seeing it when he looked inside the briefcase. Especially since Detective Markland of the Park Police told the Washington Post that Nussbaum searched the briefcase not once, but twice. And Foster's secretary certainly had no trouble seeing the pieces of yellow paper in the briefcase when she happened to glance inside it days later … just before the note was supposedly *discovered* (that's a matter of public record, too).


Then there is the puzzle of the fingerprints, or rather lack of fingerprints. The FBI analysis of the note reported no fingerprints were found. That's according to the FBI (and according to a speech in Congress by Representative Burton of Indiana quoted here http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/hillprints.html ). Isn't that a little surprising? That means Foster must have worn gloves every time he touched the note … even when he supposedly tore it up. How else would he not leave fingerprints on it? Vincent Scalice, a police detective and handwriting expert, said that had Foster torn the note with his bare hands, there "would have been numerous latent impressions". So Foster must have worn gloves. But why would he do that? That's seems more than a little odd, don't you think?


And the fingerprint puzzle is even deeper than that. Mr Neuwirth didn't mention wearing gloves as he tried to reassemble the note. And do you know that later on Philip Heymann, Deputy Attorney General at the time, testified under oath (http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/WW/white5.html ) that while viewing the note "a number of pieces of the note fell down on the floor and there was a scramble to pick them up." He testified "by the time it had been reassembled, the fingerprints of everybody in the White House were on it." Now how can that be when the FBI reported there were no fingerprints on the note? Only Nussbaum's palmprint was identified by the FBI as being on the note.


And just look at the note. Content-wise, it's as if the central portion was inserted just to defend the Clintons from various allegations after the beginning and end were written. And the three sections seem to be written in different styles of language and handwriting. Isn't that suspicious? Plus the timeline of the note's *discovery* and handling is suspicious. Let's look at that timeline:


1) July 20, 1993 … Foster is found dead at Fort Marcy Park. White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum, Hillary's Chief of Staff Maggie Williams, and her aide Patsy Thomasson enter Foster's office. They open a safe in the office which the White House at first claims didn't exist (but later on admits does). Foster's secretary, Deborah Gorham, later reveals that two unmailed letters from Foster to Janet Reno and Kennedy which were in the safe have disappeared. A Secret Service agent, Officer O'Neill, later testified under oath that he saw Williams removing files from the office. She denied it (see http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/27/us/2-conflicting-accounts-on-files-from-white-house-aide-s-office.html?pagewanted=all .) If she hadn't, she'd have been admitting to committing a serious crime … tampering with a possible crime scene that Park Police had asked the Whitehouse to seal. The same article notes that she admitted to going "to the White House that night after being called twice by the First Lady". Another news article (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/03/us/advisers-to-mrs-clinton-are-questioned-anew-in-foster-case.html?pagewanted=all ) points out there was a flurry of phone calls between Thomasson, Williams and Hillary that night. Yet both Ms Thomases and Ms Williams later claim they never talked about the issue with the First Lady. And by the way, Kenneth Starr is on record (according to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, another mainstream liberal source) saying Starr believed Secret Service Agent O'Neil told the truth. Here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/shadow061599.htm .


2) July 21, 1993 … Park Police investigators arrive at the White House but are denied access to Foster's office or the right to conduct interviews. A secret Service agent observes Craig Livingston removing various files and documents from the area of Foster's office. Livingstone denies it. Nussbaum finally makes an agreement with the DOJ on how to search Foster's office ... then unilaterally breaks that agreement leading the Deputy Attorney General to ask "Bernie, are you hiding something?"


3) July 22, 1993 …. White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum conducts the "official" search of Foster's office in front of Park Police, FBI and DOJ personnel. They search for a suicide note. Nussbaum turns Foster's briefcase upside down in front of everyone to prove it is empty. Beryl Anthony, who was married to Foster's sister, Sheila, the Assistant Attorney General in Clinton Administration, is 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." More documents are seen being removed from the Office without being inventoried by Park Police (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/27/us/2-conflicting-accounts-on-files-from-white-house-aide-s-office.html?pagewanted=all ).


4) July 26, 1993 … Associate White House counsel Stephan Neuwirth claims to have found a torn yellow note in Foster's briefcase. But noone outside the Whitehouse inner circle is told. Hillary is shown the note by Nussbaum after Neuwirth reassembles it, and a Whitehouse phone log shows Hillary and Bill having a 9 minute phone conversation shortly afterwords.


5) July 27, 1993 … Lisa Foster views the *suicide* note in the Whitehouse (at a mysterious meeting that she, her lawyer and sister in law attend). At 8 pm, 27 hours after the supposed discovery of the note, Park Police are finally notified about it's existance. Park Police take custody of the note. Beryl Anthony changes his story about Foster's depression. He tells the Park Police "that he and his wife had noticed a gradual decline in Mr. Foster's general disposition to the point of depression" and he claims that his wife had given Mr Foster a list of three counselors, psychiatrists or other doctors to contact.


6) July 29, 1993 … Lisa Foster changes her story about Foster's depression in a session with Park Police with her lawyer present. The deposition of the officer who conducted the *interview* reveals "You know, we didn't have to question her a whole lot." He said 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."


7) August 9, 1993 … FBI concludes investigation into the torn note. The DOJ and FBI conclude there is insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone "beyond a reasonable doubt" for obstruction of justice in regards to it, or any of the other documents that were removed from Foster's office and withheld from the OIC and Congress. Never mind that among other things, a number of Clinton staffers swore under oath that the first lady had no role whatsoever in the handling of Foster's *suicide* note and that a memo was discovered (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9608/27/whitewater/index.shtml ), written by White House lawyer Miriam Nemetz, who quotes then-White House chief of staff Mack McLarty saying Mrs. Clinton "was very upset and believed the matter required further thought and the president should not yet be told".


8) August 10, 1993 … Contents of the torn note are revealed to the press for the first time, but both the Park Police and FBI reports on it are withheld.


9) March 14, 1994 … New York Daily News, using its leaked copy of the Park Police findings, discloses that the authentication of the torn-up note was performed by Sergeant Larry Lockhart of the US Capitol Police. No explanation is given why he was chosen for this task and it's later revealed that Lockhart had no formal qualifications as a handwriting examiner. Senate documents also later reveal that he used only one document purportedly written by Foster for comparison purposes, which he himself admits isn't good procedure. It's also revealed that Fiske sent the note, with the same known sample that Lockhart had used, along with several canceled checks bearing Foster's signature, to the FBI lab. Of course, the note wasn't signed so it's not clear what use Foster's signature would have been. But in any case, using only this evidence, the FBI lab pronounces the note authentic, with no explanation as to how this was determined.


And that's where things stands until ...


10) August 2, 1995 … The Wall Street Journal under the heading "The Note that Won't Go Away," leaks a photo of the "suicide" note on its editorial page.


11) October 25, 1995 … three board certified independent handwriting experts hold a press conference announcing their findings … that the torn note is a forgery. The three are Professor Reginald Alton, a renowned lecturer on handwriting, manuscript authentication, and forgery at Oxford University; Ronald Rice of Boston, who wrote the course on handwriting examination for the American Board of Forensic Examiners; and retired police detective Vincent Scalice of New York, a certified member of that board who, like the other two, has given expert handwriting testimony in numerous court cases. They all agree that the note was not even a good forgery. Each gave detailed reasons for his conclusions. You can find their statements here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/NOTE/note.html .


Or to summarize:




26 October 1995


Washington (Reuter) - Someone forged the torn-up suicide note that was discovered after White House lawyer Vincent Foster was found with a fatal gunshot wound, a group of handwriting experts said yesterday.


Three handwriting specialists presented analysis at a news conference of the note found in Foster's briefcase after the deputy White House counsel was found dead on 20 July 1993 in a park near Washington. They said it appeared the note was not written by Foster but was a forgery.


… snip …


The handwriting specialists, former New York police department homicide expert Vincent Scalice, Oxford University manuscript expert Reginald Alton, and Boston private investigator Ronald Rice, said comparisons with a letter Foster had written had enough differences in style and letters to conclude the suicide note was not written by Foster.


Now you'd think this would be news? But no, the New York Times and the Washington Post, the two newspapers which gave the most coverage to the discovery of the "suicide" note, ignored it. So did mainstream TV and radio news programs, mainstream news magazines, and virtually every mainstream newspaper in the US. They all ignored this revelation and instead continued to write about the Foster case as though the three handwriting experts had never concluded that a primary piece of evidence, discovered by Clinton's Whitehouse lawyers and used by Fiske to explain Foster's death as a suicide, was a rather obvious forgery.


And here's another twist (http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/1995/08a.html ). 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 to him. 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. He pointed out indications of conscious efforts to imitate Foster's handwriting by the person who wrote the note. At that point he didn't know that he was reversing the opinion he gave the Park Police. When he was told that, he acknowledged that he had not used any enlargements for his 1993 analysis.


The fact that this note is so obviously bogus (that now even defenders of the official story pretend like no note ever existed) is reason enough to reopen the Foster case and find out what really happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That code isn't enforced.


Then it's just another liberal facade?


No, it was run by liberals, and because of their political censorship, it was almost driven into the ground.


The new owner, a conservative, allows nearly unlimited freedom of speech, but because of the unchanged software, some obscenities and politically incorrect terms aren't allowed.


Use the Ignore feature in your personal controls freely. Some people are simply to clueless to waste time with.


Edited by RichClem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder how the republicans can claim to have dragged Clinton kicking and screaming into a balanced budget

I didn't claim that. Nice strawman. It is a fact that the deficit only started really falling when Gingrich and Republicans gained control of Congress in 1995. That's because after that, the economy really took off (http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/SPECIAL-tax-cuts-1990s-economy-chart-1.jpg ) … and that was the chief cause of the deficit falling in the last half of the 1990s.


And what do you suppose happened to their deficit reducing magic dust when Clinton left office? One would think if the republicans balanced the budget fighting Clinton, having a president of their party would make it much easier. I suppose they must have used up all their balancing budget dust on Clinton and had none left for Bush.

The late 90s "magic" you speak of was a booming economy and lowered taxes (thanks to aRepublican Congress' policies). Plus, it was a period with no 9/11 and no recession (until the very last month of Clinton's term). So Bush inherited a recession and then that was exacerbated by the effects of 9/11. GDP growth plummetted. Here, look at this chart: http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/images_lessons/811_em811_figure11.jpg . To bring us out of that downturn, Bush enacted two different tax cuts.


First, there was a tax cut enacted in June of 2001 (http://articles.cnn.com/2001-06-07/politics/bush.taxes_1_child-tax-credit-trillion-tax-tax-relief?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS ). You can see from the chart that the first tax cut was enacted at a time when GDP growth was over -1 percent (i.e., NEGATIVE) and it was only 1 percent in the quarter before that. After it was enacted, GDP growth immediately climbed to nearly 2% and then stayed above 2% for the next 3 quarters.


Then the economy went back into another slump, falling to near zero percent growth and then only 1 percent in the first quarter of 2003. So Bush cut taxes again. The second tax cut was enacted in May of 2003. And as you can see, immediately GDP growth rate rose to over 3%. Then in the next quarter climbed to over 7%. And then it averaged about 3.5% until mid 2006 … the next 11 quarters.


So, he managed, by cutting taxes, to get the economy growing again at rates better than those that Clinton had enjoyed at the beginning of his term and yet still control the deficit (as a percent of GDP), while simultaneously fighting several major wars across the globe. Remarkable, if you ask me.


And then what happened? The power of democrats grew. They won control of Congress at the end of 2006. And looked what happened then? GDP growth rates began to head south. While two quarters of 2007 continued the 3.5% average level of the earlier quarters, for two other quarters it was only 0.5%. Then came the crash (in large part caused by bank and mortgage policies enacted during Clinton's adminstration) and GDP really headed south … followed by Obama who made the collapse even worse and has prolonged it.


So I'm sorry, you're not going to make Clinton look good with this approach. The facts just won't support you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vince Foster killed himself.


The police investigation is a matter of public record. Post that liar instead of innuendo. Post facts not BS liar.

LOL! It looks like YOU are the one ignoring the "public record". And lest you think that's the extent of the mystery surrounding the note, Foster's briefcase, and the search of Foster's office, you can add these facts to the stack you clearly intend to blindly ignore.


The Final Report of the Special Committee investigating Whitewater (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/committee.pdf ) contains numerous discrepancies in the accounts of those who were in Foster's office the night he died and involved in the matter later on over the next several days and years. Their stories didn't even agree as to who entered Foster's office first, much less what they did once they were there. Here's a small excerpt:


Finding 12. Senior White House officials did not provide complete and accurate information to the Park Police and FBI with respect to the handling of Mr. Foster’s note


]It is undisputed that Mrs. Clinton saw the note within hours of its discovery on July 26. In addition, Susan Thomases testified that Mr. Nussbaum called and told her about the note the same afternoon. Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Ms. Thomases were identified in the reports by the FBI or Park Police as among those who saw or knew about the note before it was turned over to the authorities. Although Mr. Neuwirth testified that he told FBI Spe-cial Agent Salter that Mrs. Clinton was made aware of the note, his testimony is inconsistent with written records of the interview. Neither Agent Salter’s report nor his handwritten notes of the interview (later obtained by the Committee) indicated that Mr. Neuwirth told him that Mrs. Clinton was among those who saw the note. Instead, Agent Salter’s notes recorded Mr. Neuwirth’s continuous narrative of the chain of events after Mr. Neuwirth discovered the note. The narrative, however, omitted any mention of Mrs. Clinton as the second person Mr. Nussbaum brought into his office to view the note.


The Special Committee finds that Mr. Neuwirth’s omission of Mrs. Clinton may have been willful. Bill Burton’s handwritten record of a meeting about Mr. Foster’s note on July 28, the day after the note was turned over to the authorities, listed ‘‘HRC’’ with an arrow pointing to an adjacent letter ‘‘n’’. Because Mr. Burton testified that he did not know what his own notes meant, the Special Committee adopts the most reasonable interpretation of his notations—that those present at the meeting discussed the matter and decided not to disclose that Mrs. Clinton saw the note.


Read that report and you'll find dozens of facts suggesting Nussbaum lied over and over in the Foster matter. And he's the guy who claimed to have found the note. For example, he failed to disclose the existance of the Travel Office documents that he apparently found in Foster's briefcase. Travelgate was a matter that was being investigated at the time with a promise of cooperation from Bill Clinton. Yet, according to the linked Senate report:


In fact, the Justice Department official responsible for the investigation, Office of Professional Responsibility Counsel Michael E. Shaheen, Jr., found out about the existence of Mr. Foster’s notebook through a press report in July 1995. Mr. Shaheen, enraged at Mr. Nussbaum’s concealment of the notebook, wrote a memo to Mr. Margolis on the subject. It stated in part:


We were stunned to learn of the existence of this document since it so obviously bears directly on the inquiry we were directed to undertake in late July and August 1993, by then DAG Philip Heymann—that is, to review the conduct of the FBI in connection with its contacts with the White House on the Travel Office matter and to determine what Vince Foster meant by the statement in his note that ‘‘the FBI lied in their report to the AG.’’


In a July 13, 1993 letter, President Clinton informed then Congressman Jack Brooks that the Attorney General was in the process of reviewing matters relating to the Travel Office, ‘‘and you can be assured that [she] will have the Administration’s full cooperation in investigating those matters which the Department wishes to review.’’ While these may have been Mr. Clintons’ views, the White House personnel with whom we dealt apparently did not share his commitment to full cooperation with respect to our investigation. The recent disclosure of the Foster notebook confirms this.


Mr. Shaheen, after outlining specific instances of noncooperation by the White House, concluded, ‘‘The fact that we have just now learned of the existence of obviously relevant notes written by Mr. Foster on the subject of the FBI report is yet another example of the lack of cooperation and candor we received from the White House throughout our inquiry.’’


And here's another curious example of Nussbaum lying:


Mr. Nussbaum testified that he did not recall, during the course of his review on July 22, ever picking the briefcase up off the floor or looking into the briefcase as he was pulling out the files. Agent Salter testified, however, that Mr. Nussbaum picked up the bag, opened it by the handles, tilted it, and looked inside. Mr. Adams, Agent Condon, Agent Flynn, Captain Hume, Detective Markland, and Mr. Spafford all confirmed that Mr. Nussbaum picked up the bag.


Detective Markland testified that Mr. Nussbaum told the law enforcement officials that the briefcase was empty:


He would reach down, take papers out of the briefcase, put them on the desk, go through them, put them in the appropriate piles. When he got done, he said that’s it, it’s empty. After that he picked up the briefcase with both hands, spread it apart a little bit, tilted it, put it back down and shoved it to the back of the room. I could see the briefcase lifted off the floor by him and tilted, put it down, said it was empty two times and moved it back.


Detective Markland was certain that Mr. Nussbaum had looked in the bottom of the briefcase. ‘‘He had a clear view of the briefcase on the floor so that he had it spread open with both hands and was looking down into the briefcase.’’


Agent Salter similarly confirmed that Mr. Nussbaum ‘‘stated that it was empty and he turned and placed it behind him against the wall.’’ Mr. Margolis likewise testified that ‘‘he did take files out of it, a number of files out of it, and then he told us, I don’t remember the exact language, but told us that that was it, that there was nothing more.’’


Mr. Nussbaum contended that he did not recall the process described by Detective Markland, and his White House colleagues concurred in Mr. Nussbaum’s testimony that he did not state that the briefcase was empty.


The general impression of those at the review was that the briefcase was empty when Mr. Nussbaum was finished. Thus, when Mr. Burton found out that Mr. Neuwirth had discovered a note in the briefcase, he said, ‘‘Well, you’ve really got to explain this because I saw Bernie empty it. How could it have been in that briefcase?’’


The law enforcement officials present at the review agreed with Mr. Burton’s assessment. After the note was discovered, Captain Hume was skeptical that Mr. Nussbaum would not have seen a note in the briefcase on July 22. Major Hines agreed with Captain Hume that ‘‘our oldest, blindest detective would have found the note.’’ Detective Markland likewise testified that it was impossible for Mr. Nussbaum to miss a torn up note in the briefcase because ‘‘he is looking for documents, he has a co-worker and friend who is dead. One of the things he may be looking for could presumably be ripped up, he is not a stupid person. And he physically picked up the briefcase at one point and tilted it and I saw it come off the floor and tilt, and then he put it down and said it is empty.’’


Detective Markland was blunt in his testimony:


Q: Do you think he [Nussbaum] was lying?

A: Yes, I think it would have been impossible for him to miss that many torn scraps of yellow paper out of a briefcase that he was searching on the 22nd.


And that's still not the limit of the incriminating facts that I can point out related to the so-called "suicide note" and those involved in it's saga. Check this out:




The same day Hillary Clinton was scheduled to speak at the Democratic National Convention, newly released documents suggest she was behind the 30-hour delay in releasing late White House counsel Vincent Foster's suicide note to authorities.


How the White House handled Foster's 1993 death, and the possibility that administration officials improperly removed documents from his office or impeded an official search of it, has been the subject of intense scrutiny by congressional Republicans and the media.


The newly released memo, written by White House lawyer Miriam Nemetz, quotes 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" about Foster's note.


According to the document, Mrs. Clinton "said they should have a coherent position and should have decided what to do before they told the president."


That contradicts sworn testimony to the Senate Whitewater Committee from Clinton staffers that the first lady had no role whatsoever in the handling of Foster's note.


See? It appears you know a lot less than you think you do about the Foster case. Or perhaps you now want to argue that both the Washington Post and CNN are just Clinton-hating, right-wing, conspiracy-prone media outlets?


And just to warn you, that's still not the limit of the incriminating facts I can point to with regards to the note, must less the entire Foster case.


For example, do you know during the Lisa Foster's FBI interview, her lawyer, James Hamilton, reminded 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. And Hamilton is the lawyer that helped keep the Foster photos under lock and key a few years back ... the photos that might have told us conclusively whether Foster was murdered. And I can discuss why that's true if you like next. :)


But the question now is whether you can even respond to the above listed facts that indicate the so-called suicide note was phony?


Or will you go on drinking the Foster Koolaid like FosterTruthers do and hide behind a string of transparently bogus rationalizations ...like liberals always seem to do when this topic is discussed?


I guess we'll see. :)


And I bet the PBS documentary didn't mention ANY of this, did it? Like I said ... Whitewash. Conservatives should defund PBS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Than you for your usual dishonest crap, Mr. lying troll.


Could an honest, sane person hold the following opinion?


Unless you're psychotic enough to believe NO GOVERNMENT would create a better society.


That's the right wing mantra as foolish as it is in practical application.


Where has a single conservative advocated "no government?" Can you quote them?


Bleat away.


Edited by RichClem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder how the republicans can claim to have dragged Clinton kicking and screaming into a balanced budget when the charts show deficits dropping through all his term? Nothing changed when republicans took control of congress. And what do you suppose happened to their deficit reducing magic dust when Clinton left office? One would think if the republicans balanced the budget fighting Clinton, having a president of their party would make it much easier. I suppose they must have used up all their balancing budget dust on Clinton and had none left for Bush.

Ah - hahahaha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here's another curious example of Nussbaum lying:


Detective Markland testified that Mr. Nussbaum told the law enforcement officials that the briefcase was empty:


He would reach down, take papers out of the briefcase, put them on the desk, go through them, put them in the appropriate piles. When he got done, he said that's it, it's empty. After that he picked up the briefcase with both hands, spread it apart a little bit, tilted it, put it back down and shoved it to the back of the room. I could see the briefcase lifted off the floor by him and tilted, put it down, said it was empty two times and moved it back.


And very, very curiously, the long WashPost story quoted from Markland's testimony, but clipped the most important part out.


The story strongly implied there were no contradictions at all to Nussbaum's testimony, but could only do so by refusing to report the most important part of Markland's testimony.


The Washington Times carried a full story. Had I not read that, I'd have never known.


Why would the WashPost mis-inform its readers that way?


So that this information wouldn't be picked up by the national media; so that Americans wouldn't know.


Just one example of many how the liberal MSM censor news to cover up scandals and crimes involving liberal Democrats.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could an honest, sane person hold the following opinion?




Where has a single conservative advocated "no government?" Can you quote them?


Bleat away.


Well, whether you realize it or not, you argued that Al Capone was the creation of government policy -- no such policy, no Al Capone.




I argued that Conservatives created that government policy - to which you argued that was irrelevant.


I argue it is not irrelevant - that both liberals and conservatives effect policy THROUGH the government - that conservatives simply got it wrong to try to legislate morality.


Your implication was very clear: government policy creates problems; absence of government policy equates to absence of problems.


Therefore, the ONLY way your argument is valid is if you are advocating the elimination of ANY government policy -- and therefore, government itself.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where has a single conservative advocated "no government?" Can you quote them?


Your implication was very clear: government policy creates problems; absence of government policy equates to absence of problems.


Therefore, the ONLY way your argument is valid is if you are advocating the elimination of ANY government policy -- and therefore, government itself.


So anyone who criticizes a particular government policy or policies is actually advocating no government?


Lie much?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if he helped cover up a couple murders (or was possibly even involved in them)? Even if he sold out this country to the Communist Chinese for campaign contributions? Hmmmmm?


Clinton didn't cover up murders, nor was he involved in any, but he had some deeply corrupt backers that might have been.


He was arguably the most corrupt president in US history.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of which, did you ever find those WMDs?

LOL! You and me will have to have a discussion about that sometime. But not on this thread. Let's just stick to the OP, shall we?


You want to try your hand at defending the Clinton administration in the Foster case? Or Chinagate? Or CampaignFinancegate? Or Filegate? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Hi GOP Socialist Soldier,


Revisionist History is a good description of what the leftist media do when it comes to the Clintons. Often the revision is just a matter of not telling the whole story … as is the case in the PBS special. And, unfortunately, even some of the more conservative media have bought into some of the revisions now. Part of the reason for that is that they see people who suggest the Clintons were involved in murders or at least in covering up murders as "kooks". And part of the reason for that is videos such as the one you linked.


Now I'm not making a statement about the accuracy or inaccuracy of anything in that video or what is alleged, but I wish that like-minded individuals wouldn't mention the Clinton Death List during discussions like this because it serves no purpose other than to provide ammunition for liberals to discredit the whole effort of getting to the bottom of what the Clintons and their administration did. The plain and simple truth is that "Death List" is simply not provable by any stretch of the imagination at this point in time. Much of it is nothing more than sheer speculation. It only muddies the water. It's going a bridge too far … and you know what happened to the soldiers who did that. ;)


Instead of making allegations that can't be proved, I wish conservatives would stick to just the Ron Brown and Vince Foster deaths. In both cases there is a mountain of evidence that one can cite from credible sources indicating foul play in the deaths and a coverup in the government investigations that followed. There is also a mountain of reasons that *someone(s)* in the Clinton administration would have had motive to murder these two. I could devote whole posts to just that topic if you'd like.


Also, in both cases, a murder could still be proved by something relatively simple to do … even now. For example, Ron Brown's body need only be exhumed and autopsied (it never was despite calls by forensic pathologists to do so at the time). Even 30 years later, if Brown was shot in the head, as expert forensic pathologists at the time said was possibly the case, then expert forensic pathologists, with all the tools available now, would still be able to tell whether or not he was shot. Find confirmation of a bullet wound in Brown's head and a number of Democrat icons would doubtless see jail time, even if they were now in their 70s. And THEN one would have good reason to explore whether there were other murders connected to the Clintons over the years. And should any of you liberals disagree with my assertion that there was foul play in the death of Brown and coverup afterwords, I'm more willing to discuss the facts. :)


Now, unfortunately, Vince Foster's remains were cremated, but there is still evidence that could confirm foul play in his death. The suicide note I already mentioned is one example. A close look at that note and all the facts surrounding it could definitely lead an impartial investigation to conclude there was foul play and a coverup by various government entities. That would be enough to discredit the "official" story and lead to a more rigorous examination.


But even more conclusive would be seeing what the photos of the wounds in Foster's head actually show. Those photos have been sealed since Foster's death despite all attempts to get them released. Let's look at this specific issue, since I've already begun a detailed discussion of Foster on this thread.


To start with, it is certainly damning that both of the special prosecutors who investigated Foster's death, Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr, failed to tell the three judge panel monitoring their activities, as well as 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. This directly contradicts Starr, Fiske and the official autopsy report, which all stated there was a large exit wound in the back of the head. In fact, according to the official report by Dr Beyer, the Deputy Virginia Medical Examiner who conducted Foster's autopsy, the hole was 1 by 1 ¼ inch in size. The drawing that Beyer made shows a very large exit wound. You'd think that someone would have noticed that at the supposed scene of the suicide or at the morgue where the body was taken. But sworn testimony shows that no one did.


You'd think the photos taken at the scene would have shown it. But the government claimed the official 35 mm photos of Foster at the scene were "underexposed" and deemed useless. Only one polaroid photo of Foster's head (of his neck actually) at the scene survived the *investigation*. Just one. All the others (taken by several different people using several different cameras, by the way) simply disappeared. How convenient … or utterly incompetent.


And what about the *official* autopsy photos? Those supposedly haven't disappeared. You'd think the government would want them released to stop all the allegations of foul play that have circulated. Afterall, clear autopsy photos showing only a large wound where the official report claims there is one would do that. But in a FOIA ruling, the Supreme Court refused to release them to the public. They said the privacy rights of the Foster family outweighed the public's interest in seeing them. This 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. And the US government joined with the Foster family to prevent the release. It seems, they'd rather have these allegations of foul play floating about, discrediting the whole government, then clear the matter up once and for all by simply releasing four photos.


Miquel Rodriguez was Ken Starr's lead investigator during his reexamination of the Foster case. Ken Starr obviously thought highly of his abilities to have chosen him for the job. He worked in that capacity until he finally quit in disgust, alleging that a coverup was underway. Before he quit, however, he got hold of the original polaroid photograph of Foster's head at the supposed scene of his suicide. Even in his position he was not allowed access to the autopsy photos. On his own, he had the Smithsonian institution blow the photo up. And according to Rodriguez, the blowup clearly shows a dime-sized wound on the right side of Foster’s neck about half way between the chin and the ear. That's a wound never mentioned by Fiske or Starr or in the official autopsy report. Now when someone as credible as Starr's own investigator is questioning the honesty of the investigation and stating first hand knowledge of evidence completely contradicting it, you would think that at least some liberals would be interested in seeing the actual photos? Apparently not.


Dr. Donald Haut was the only medical doctor to actually visit Marcy Park when Foster's body was still there. The original report by Dr Haut lists the cause of death as a "self-inflicted gunshot wound mouth to neck." Now let's skip over that "self-inflicted" part since the doctor really had no way to determine that. But he could determine that the gunshot traveled from mouth to neck. Yet according to the official report by Dr Beyer, there was ONLY a 1 by 1 ¼ inch hole in the upper part of his skull. Beyer stated that he found no additional wounds on the body. None. And according to Fiske's panel of pathologists, "There is no other trauma identified that would suggest a circumstance other than suicide." Now curiously, Dr. Haut’s report was not included in the documents released by the government. It was never mentioned by Fiske or Starr. It was discovered in June 1997 at the National Archives by Patrick Knowlton.


Now for those who don't know, Patrick Knowlton was a material witness in the case. He was at Marcy Park about the time of Foster's supposed suicide. He eventually produced a twenty page addendum that the three judge panel ordered, over government objections, be attached to Starr's report on Foster when he issued it (Starr later went on to violate that order, by the way). Knowton's addendum was largely made up of his testimony on the harassment he endured for suggesting there was evidence the investigators had overlooked. This addendum was the first time in US history that an independent counsel had criminal activity by his own staff ordered attached to his own report. To see the Knowlton addendum, and other material produced by Knowlton over time on Foster's death, look at these links (http://www.fbicover-up.com/ , http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-the-independent-counsels-final-report/ , http://www.aim.org/publications/special_reports/2003/jul15.html ). You will get a better idea of the full scope of the coverup that appears to have taken place surrounding the death of Foster. It's not a pretty picture.


Now, getting back to the hole in Foster's head(?), four of the rescue workers who saw Foster's body at Marcy Park testified under oath in secret before the Whitewater grand jury that they saw trauma to the side of Foster’s head or neck. This is consistent with what Rodriquez said the one surviving scene photo shows. This is consistent with what Dr Haut said he observed. This information was submitted to Kenneth Starr in a memorandum from Miquel Rodriguez summing up the proceedings of the Whitewater grand jury. But Starr never mentioned this in his official report. Keep that in mind as you read in the above links what Rodriguez said about Starr's investigation being nothing more than a deliberate coverup.


You'd think if there was a 1 by 1 ¼ inch hole in the back of Foster's head, there would have been brain matter and blood all over the scene. But Corey Ashford, the Emergency Medical Services technician, who had to pick up and move the body didn't observe any. He said he didn't get a drop of blood on his white uniform, or on his gloves. He said there was no blood on the ground underneath the body. Not until it was moved did the body bleed on the ground. 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. Corey Ashford didn't see an exit wound. Or Richard Arthur. Or Sgt Gonzalez. In fact, NONE of the paramedics who where there reported seeing the 1 by 1 ¼ inch hole claimed by Fiske and Starr to be in the back of Foster’s skull. Nor did they find any bone fragments on the ground near the body. Nor did they find a bullet.


At the FairFax County Morgue, the doctor on duty was Julian Orenstein. In his FBI statement, he said 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 saying that he tried to locate an exit wound. Apparently, that was added to his statement after the fact. And by the way, that's not the only instance in this case where the FBI (and Starr) clearly tampered with the testimony it received from witnesses or evidence. If you'd like, we can discuss other instances. :)


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. What makes this claim significant is that it was made BEFORE Foster's autopsy report was released, and Purvis' entry wound description matches that of all the witnesses I've named.


Then there is the matter of the x-rays. A Supplemental Criminal Incident Record of the U.S. Park Police states "Dr. Beyer stated that x-rays indicated there was no evidence of bullet fragments in the head." Again, Dr. Beyer was the Deputy Virginia Medical Examiner. The x-ray box on the autopsy report was checked by him, "yes." But, curiously, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Dr. Beyer said that he had been planning to take x-rays but never did. He claimed the equipment was broken and had been for weeks. However, the Knowlton appendix contains information which shows that there are maintenance records which indicate the x-ray machine was fully operable at the time the Foster autopsy was conducted. In short, Dr Beyer lied. And asked whether Fiske had ever talked to him, Dr Beyer said "no". Asked whether Fiske had sent investigators to the hospital, or to the company that services the x-ray machine, he said "Not that I am aware of." Apparently Fiske had no interest in investigating why there were no x-rays. And later Starr also showed no interest, nor interest in Beyer's many contradictory statements.


But wait, I'm not done stating reasons why Beyer is not to be trusted. On January 20, 1994, in an interview six months after Foster's death, Dr Beyer said that an FBI agent, a Secret Service agent and Park Police were present when he conducted his autopsy. You'd think that would be something he could keep straight for 6 months. Yet later, the Park Police admitted that only their officers were present and the FBI admitted none of theirs were present. Dr Beyer was forced to recant his earlier claim and admit that only Park Police were present. Even more curious is in that same January 1994 interview, Beyer stated he had not ruled Foster's death a suicide, only that the death was "consistent with a self-inflicted gunshot". But in his Senate hearing testimony in 1994, Beyer was emphatic that he ruled the Foster death a suicide.


Nor am I done with giving reasons why Starr is not to be trusted where the hole in Foster's head is concerned. 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. Accuracy in Media (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. Beyer. He wrote "I discussed the autopsy x-rays with him." 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. 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 means 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 x-ray 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. Starr had clear evidence that Dr. Beyer’s excuse was false, and did nothing about it. He never even mentioned it in his official report. He hid the fact, along with many other facts.


So if the photos of Foster's head are eventually released and a neck wound is evident, then I think Beyer, Fiske and Starr may all find themselves on trial for deliberately covering up a murder. And then we should ask who asked them to do that. You never know where that might lead.


In any case, there are plenty of reasons to suspect foul play in this case. I've listed but a few of them so far. Just read the Knowlton website, folks. There are literally hundreds of inconsistencies and incriminating facts that liberals (and don't rock the boat Republicans) don't want to touch. But I'd be happy to discuss them with ANYONE on this forum. Aren't we all interested in the truth? :)


Clinton didn't cover up murders, nor was he involved in any,

You really don't know that. Clinton had plenty of motive for wanting both men silenced.


And even if he didn't commit or order the murders, he had plenty of motive for not having their deaths properly investigated.


Like I said, I can make long posts on the topic of motive if you'd like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cons can relive their hatred of Clinton while we re-elect Barack Obama!

It's not "hatred". It's a dislike of people who violate our laws. A dislike of people who would rape or coverup murders. A dislike of people who would sell out America's security for brown paper bags of cash from potential foreign enemies. A dislike of people who would try to corrupt our election system using illegal contributions from foreigners and foreign governments. A dislike of people who would subvert our police and judicial systems, and our military. A dislike of people who ignore rules of conduct even after they've agreed to obey them. And a dislike of people who when presented with incontrovertible evidence of criminal activities like I've done on this thread, choose to ignore it. You wouldn't happen to be one of those, would you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am watching it right now. What a doll. I would so do him.


That's downright disgusting and unattractive...


1) He's just gross. There is zero attractiveness to him. The guy makes me think of a diseased frog with a terrible accent.


2) He's a swindler and a cheat, no better than pond scum really like so many politicians.


Boy, women really don't have any taste do they? I always thought as much but you guys just do an excellent job at confirming it. The Eagle really nailed it when they said that you can be the most hideous, sorriest person to ever exist--just be famous and bítches will bang you.


Then you wonder why you lack respect from the opposite sex without some higher power forcing it so.


I honestly expected better out of you Annoyed.

Edited by Kelliak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...