Jump to content
BeAChooser

The P B S Whitewash Of Clinton's Legacy

Recommended Posts

Some people let their unreasoning hatred blind them to what Clinton did right and what he did wrong. There are plenty of things he should be blamed for, but seething cons aren't even listening.

My dislike is not "hatred" and it's certainly not "unreasoning". And I'm more than willing to listen to anything you have to say ... but you have to say something ... something factual or logical ... and hopefully back it up with a credible source. So far you haven't.

 

Again, I invite you or any liberal to try and dispute any the assertions I've made in the OP or the facts I've presented so far to back up some of those assertions.

 

Pick something in my list that you claim didn't happen or for which you think Clinton shouldn't be blamed.

 

If you don't want to discuss the death of Foster (a topic I've already broached with just a portion of the facts available), then how about the death of Ron Brown? Or how about Chinagate? Or CampaignFinancegate? Or Filegate? Don't hide behind vagueness.

 

Sure, there are things that Clinton did right at times (often, I suspect, only because he saw the way the wind was blowing) ... and I'm sure that the PBS documentary presented that face of him with great fanfare.

 

But there were many things he did wrong ... very serious things ... that I suspect PBS completely ignored in it's effort to create a legacy for him.

 

In that case, one can only label the PBS effort what I suspected in the OP ... a leftwing Whitewash.

 

How can you dispute that, except by letting your own unreasoning love of Clinton blind you to the truth? :)

Edited by BeAChooser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PBS will begin showing a 2 part series on Bill Clinton tonight, a liberal icon. The only question is how big a whitewash it will be. That will depend on whether the following topics are properly and fairly covered … but I suspect most will be ignored:

 

-

 

 

 

The PBS American Experience on Bill Clinton was up to the high standards of all PBS programming. They didn't whitewash a single thing. It showed the greatness and brilliance of William Jefferson Clinton.

 

It also acutely zeroed in on his weaknesses and failures. It also shone a light on the republicans vindictiveness, hatred and pettiness which caused Gingrich's demise and the democrats actually picking up seats in the election.

 

But most of all...as that one republican was shaking his head totally perplexed....is how President Clinton never lost the American people who love and respect him to this day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are all the cons who predicted this PBS special would whitewash the Clinton Legacy?

 

As ALWAYS, you were dead wrong....but don't have the balls to admit it.

 

Same ole same ole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PBS American Experience on Bill Clinton was up to the high standards of all PBS programming. They didn't whitewash a single thing.

Not a single thing?

 

Then I assume it fully discussed Chinagate (to name but one item from my list in the OP).

 

For example, did PBS discuss the millions and millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions that flowed into Clinton and DNC campaign coffers from foreign entities with direct ties to Communist China?

 

Did PBS mention the 22 people who were convicted during Clinton's term (despite efforts by the Clinton controlled DOJ to hinder the investigations) of funneling illegal foreign funds into Clinton and DNC coffers?

 

Did PBS even mention James Riady and what I call the Riady Non-Refund? You know, he's the Indonesian billionaire, again with ties to Communist China, who illegally donated millions of dollars to Clinton and the DNC? And when this was discovered, Clinton and DNC officials quite publically proclaimed that it was all a mistake and they'd returned those millions to James Riady. But years later, James Riady stood up in front of a California courtroom, under a plea agreement where he promised to tell the truth, and told the judge that the money had NEVER been returned. When the judge asked the prosecuting attorney if this was true, the attorney said "to the best of his knowledge", "yes." Did PBS mention that? No? Well if not, you can learn more about that here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2001/879.shtml and here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/ois/specials/bushenforce.htm .

 

Did PBS mention the 94 to 120 other people (depending on the source) who either pled the 5th or fled the country all together in the scandal? For some reason I suspect they overlooked that as well.

 

Maybe these sources will give you and others a bit more understanding of the scope and importance of what occurred during the Clinton administration:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/cf021098.htm

 

Findings Link Clinton Allies to Chinese Intelligence

 

… snip …

 

The report describes what it calls "strong circumstantial evidence" that six individuals with strong ties to the Chinese, including the Riadys, may have funneled foreign money into political campaigns during the 1996 U.S. election cycle.

 

... snip ...

 

Concern about Chinese activities began in 1996, when the CIA determined that China, which worried that it lacked sufficient influence in U.S. politics and policymaking, planned to raise $3 million for an effort to buy influence with U.S. politicians, according to officials familiar with sensitive intelligence.

 

Here's the Senate report the Washington Post is talking about and a few excerpts from it:

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1998_rpt/sgo-sir/2-18.htm

 

Committee staff identified several instances of foreign money donations connected to six individuals with ties to the PRC. As noted below, John Huang, Maria Hsia, Ted Sioeng, and James and Mochtar Riady each have been associated in some way with the Government of China. The sixth, Yah Lin ``Charlie'' Trie, is a business partner of Ng Lap Seng, a Macao businessman with alleged ties to the PRC. Trie, who recently was indicted and arrested, escorted Wang Jun, head of China's principal arms trading company, Polytechnologies, to a February 6, 1996 coffee with President Clinton and a meeting the same day with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

 

In 1996, John Huang solicited some $3.4 million in contributions to the DNC. Nearly half this amount has been returned as the contributions were determined by the DNC to have been made with actual or suspected foreign funds. In September 1993, Huang wrote three checks to the DNC, each in the amount of $15,000, each paid with foreign money. The checks were drawn on the accounts of three Lippo Group subsidiaries--Hip Hing Holdings, San Jose Holdings, and Toy Center Holdings. At the time the checks were written, all of the companies were losing money and operating in the red. Hearing testimony from a Huang coworker indicates the money for the three contribution checks came from Lippo accounts in Jakarta.

 

... snip ...

 

Huang's $45,000 in DNC contributions was made in close proximity to occasions when Huang may have arranged for Vice President Gore to meet Shen Jueren, the head of a commercial enterprise wholly owned and operated by the PRC's Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation. Called China Resources Holdings, Shen's company has been identified as a PRC intelligence-gathering operation; one with reported ties to the People's Liberation Army.

 

... snip ...

 

The Riadys were Huang's patrons and supporters throughout his careers at Lippo and later the Department of Commerce and the DNC. In fact, James Riady attended a small meeting in the Oval Office on September 13, 1995, at which President Clinton was asked if he would help Huang move from Commerce to the DNC. President Clinton acceded to the request, and by the end of the year, Huang became the DNC's vice-chairman of finance, a position created especially for him.

 

... snip ...

 

Information obtained by the Committee reveals close ties between the PRC and many of the individuals who produced or facilitated foreign campaign contributions. And these individuals--Ted Sioeng, Maria Hsia, John Huang, and James and Mochtar Riady--interacted with one-another with some frequency. Their paths appear to have crossed most often when they were engaged in fund- raising or contributing money to the Democratic National Committee.

 

Ted Sioeng.\11\ The Committee has learned that Sioeng

worked, and perhaps still works, on behalf of the Chinese government. Sioeng regularly communicated with PRC embassy and consular officials at various locations in the United States, and, before the campaign finance scandal broke, he traveled to Beijing frequently where he reported to and was briefed by Chinese communist party officials.

 

... snip ...

 

Maria Hsia.\15\ The Committee has learned that Hsia has been an agent of the Chinese government, that she has acted knowingly in support of it, and that she has attempted to conceal her relationship with the Chinese government. The Committee has also learned that Hsia has worked in direct support of a PRC diplomatic post in the U.S.

 

... snip ...

 

John Huang.\16\ Since well before its hearings began, the Committee focused on John Huang. The goal was to understand why an executive at a small California bank (owned by a large Indonesian conglomerate), who raised money prolifically for the Democratic party and was rewarded with a political appointment at the Department of Commerce, was so often and well received by President Clinton and his staff. The Committee's interest was further piqued by the fact that to date, the DNC has returned half of the money Huang raised in 1996.

 

... snip ...

 

The Committee has examined in detail Huang's activities at Lippo, Commerce, and the DNC. A single piece of unverified information shared with the Committee indicates that Huang himself may possibly have had a direct financial relationship with the PRC government.

 

... snip ...

 

James and Mochtar Riady.\18\ The Committee has learned from recently-acquired information that James and Mochtar Riady have had a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency. The relationship is based on mutual benefit, with the Riadys receiving assistance in finding business opportunities in exchange for large sums of money and other help. Although the relationship appears based on business interests, the Committee understands that the Chinese intelligence agency seeks to locate and develop relationships with information collectors, particularly persons with close connections to the U.S. government.

 

... snip ...

 

The foregoing indicates that large amounts of money were funneled from accounts in Greater China into the DNC by individuals who had close ties to the PRC. This activity takes on greater import when viewed in light of the fact that the PRC government had developed and implemented plans to influence the U.S. political process before most of the aforementioned contributions were made.

 

You might also want to read the La Bella Memo? A browser search will locate it for you. It concluded among other things that " [A] pattern [of events] suggests a level of knowledge within the White House -- including the President's and First Lady's offices -- concerning the injection of foreign funds into the reelection effort"?

 

You might want to do a browser search on Johnny Chung. You'll find he testified under oath that in 1996 the head of China's military intelligence, General Gee Shengdi, gave him $300,000 for Clinton's campaign? He said he was told by the General that other people were also receiving money "to do good things for China". You learn that Red China's General Shengdi told Chung that he gave Mark Middleton $500,000 for Clinton? Mark Middleton, a top member of Clinton's administration, pled the 5th when asked about it. You'll find that the Committee on Government Reform checked Mark Middleton's bank records and found he received over $1.75 million dollars from Asian "businesses" and worked directly for the Riady family.

 

You'll discover that some of the money Chung illegally gave the Whitehouse passed directly through Hillary's office and through her Chief of Staff's (Maggie William's) hands. After Chung presented Maggie with a check for $50,000 in illegal contributions (which was also illegal because the money was handed over inside the White House), Chung met with the first lady, whose first words to him were "Welcome to the White House, my good friend." Chung was such a "good friend" that he was in the Clinton Whitehouse on 57 different occasions.

 

Look beyond your usual news sources, and you'll find an FBI transcript of a call to Johnny Chung from Chinese operative Robert Luu in which Luu credits the source of Clinton and DNC campaign contributions to the "princelings" ... that is, the children of People’s Liberation Army officers in front companies. He said in the call, "Chairman Jiang agreed to handle it like this. The President over here also agreed." Well it happens that Clinton and Jiang were meeting when the call took place.

 

You've heard of the Cox Report, right? Just a few weeks after the Cox Report was released, Carl Cameron reported that "The President appointed his long-time friend and fundraiser Charlie Trie of Little Rock to a trade commission to deal with Hong Kong and other Asian nations. Trie has pleaded guilty to fundraising violations and is cooperating with investigators, but in 1997 FBI surveillance observed Trie’s employees destroying evidence in the campaign fundraising investigation. At the time, the Justice Department sent two officials to Little Rock to get search warrants and intervene. But on the eve of Senate hearings into campaign finance abuse, the Justice Department pulled back on the warrants and the search of Trie’s office and frustrated FBI agents watched as more documents were destroyed."

 

James and Mochtar Riady, Indonesian billionaires and ex-employers of John Huang, were longtime friends and financial supporters of Clinton. James Riady donated more than $475,000 to the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton Inaugural Fund and various Democratic candidates. Moctar's gardener managed to contribute $450,000 directly to Bill Clinton in a single check. James Riady visited the White House over a dozen times. His visits were scheduled through Mark Middleton. Authorities said the Riadys had a long relationship with Chinese intelligence. Clinton, while out of the country, met privately with them ... at a time when they were avoiding US authorities that sought to question them. Clinton tried to arrange a "Justice" Department deal for James Riady, Mochtar's son, to protect him from prosecution but it didn't go through before Bush took over, in large part thanks to the efforts of Judicial Watch.

 

Here's a source. The NY Times. Willing to accept it, liberal?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/15/opinion/15SAFI.html?ex=1219204800&en=7972765325c29651&ei=5070

 

New York Times

 

Riady Cops a Plea

 

By WILLIAM SAFIRE

 

... snip ...

 

Consider the unprecedented scope of what even the most ardent Clinton partisan must admit is a criminal conspiracy. In a limousine with Clinton shortly after the 1992 nomination, Riady — well known by Clinton to be a foreign national — stated his intent to raise a million dollars for the campaign. (The president legalistically says he has no "specific recollection" of this, but John Huang, then Riady's agent, does.) He delivered most of it through illegal fronts.

 

Riady then gave Huang a million- dollar "bonus" and ensconced him in a sensitive post at the Commerce Department. Records show Huang had the run of the White House and kept in close touch with Riady interests in Asia. He used his "bonus" to fill campaign coffers of Clinton and his allies throughout the first term.

 

To what end? "To obtain various benefits," the criminal information signed by Riady asserts, including "Most Favored Nation status for China, open trade policies with Indonesia, normalization of relations with Vietnam." Clinton delivered on all three, to the huge financial benefit of Riady interests in Asia.

 

... snip ...

 

Because Clinton had reversed his policy in order to benefit Riady's clients in Asia, the Asian connection paid off; Huang raised $3.4 million for Clinton-Gore and other Democratic campaigns

 

... snip ...

 

As a side favor, Riady gave a $100,000 retainer to the tight-lipped felon Webster Hubbell, which some of us cruelly held to be hush money. Riady will now explain this to Independent Counsel Robert Ray's grand jury as well as to Congress, but Justice's sweetheart plea bargain before Clinton's departure has removed the Indonesian financier's incentive to tell truths that might further shame the shameless.

 

Staring us in the face is this stunning assertion now harder than ever to controvert: An American president's foreign policy decisions were substantially influenced by unlawful campaign contributions at critical times from a foreign source. In my view, that inescapable judgment will be more damning in history's eyes than Whitewater cover-ups or any abuses for which Clinton was impeached.

 

And the above was only part of the problem of Chinagate. During the Clinton years, China acquired a wide array of US military-related technology and the Clinton Administration actively helped them do this. Such as making it possible for China to purchase hundreds of super computers. I wish to note in particular that Clinton, overruling the State and Defense departments, switched the authority for licensing satellites, computers and other high technology items from the State Department to the Commerce Department. This is important because Ron Brown's signature, by itself, then became the conduit for providing access to formally restricted technologies of all types. Is it just a coincidence that a "friend" of Charlie Trie met with Ron Brown after attending a "coffee" with Bill Clinton, the same day that Clinton signed a waiver allowing Loral to transfer missile and satellite related technology to China? Is it just coincidence that Bernard Schwartz, the CEO of Loral, was the single largest *legal* contributor to the DNC that year (giving over $500,000 ... $400,000 more than he'd given in any previous year)? Isn't it curious that Ron Brown died under clouded circumstances just as he was planning to turn state's evidence on this activity and other campaign finance related illegalities? It that a mere rumor? No. There is sworn testimony from a Brown confidante that he told Bill Clinton, shortly before he died, that he was about to do just that. Because he was facing a lifetime in jail had he been convicted of all the crimes he was about to be charged with by a special prosecutor. I bet the *high standards* PBS didn't cause them to report THAT as part of Clinton's legacy.

 

And I bet it didn't mention any of the other *serious* items I listed in the OP. Like Filegate. No, instead they wasted 40 minutes of the 4 hour long documentary discussing ... the Lewinsky affair. I've always said that Monica was just a distraction that Clinton and Ken Starr used to focus everyone's attention on when the black community started taking a real interest in the curious circumstances surrounding the death of Ron Brown, their icon. They decided that sex would trump murder, and they could get away with sex. Looks like she's still being used as that distraction. As WHITEWASH. :(

Edited by BeAChooser

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

 

 

his shirt

fostershirt.gif

 

 

the gun

 

THE-DEATH-OF-VINCE-FOSTER--WHAT-REALLY-HAPPENED.jpg

 

yea Vince foster committed suicide

 

here are some more interesting facts

 

the log book for the white house that day does not show that he signed out, nor is there any security cam footage of him leaving the white house.

 

there was no pool of blood.

 

no one in a near by neighborhood heard a shot, including the body guards for the ambassador of Saudi Arabia who's home was 700ft away from the spot Foster's body was found.

 

those neighbors were not interviewed by police until a month after the incident, that fact on its own blows the whole police investigaiton [excrement] out of the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a single thing?

 

Then I assume it fully discussed Chinagate (to name but one item from my list in the OP).

 

For example, did PBS discuss the millions and millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions that flowed into Clinton and DNC campaign coffers from foreign entities with direct ties to Communist China?

 

Did PBS mention the 22 people who were convicted during Clinton's term (despite efforts by the Clinton controlled DOJ to hinder the investigations) of funneling illegal foreign funds into Clinton and DNC coffers?

 

Did PBS even mention James Riady and what I call the Riady Non-Refund? You know, he's the Indonesian billionaire, again with ties to Communist China, who illegally donated millions of dollars to Clinton and the DNC? And when this was discovered, Clinton and DNC officials quite publically proclaimed that it was all a mistake and they'd returned those millions to James Riady. But years later, James Riady stood up in front of a California courtroom, under a plea agreement where he promised to tell the truth, and told the judge that the money had NEVER been returned. When the judge asked the prosecuting attorney if this was true, the attorney said "to the best of his knowledge", "yes." Did PBS mention that? No? Well if not, you can learn more about that here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2001/879.shtml and here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/ois/specials/bushenforce.htm .

 

Did PBS mention the 94 to 120 other people (depending on the source) who either pled the 5th or fled the country all together in the scandal? For some reason I suspect they overlooked that as well.

 

Maybe these sources will give you and others a bit more understanding of the scope and importance of what occurred during the Clinton administration:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/cf021098.htm

 

 

 

Here's the Senate report the Washington Post is talking about and a few excerpts from it:

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1998_rpt/sgo-sir/2-18.htm

 

 

 

You might also want to read the La Bella Memo? A browser search will locate it for you. It concluded among other things that " [A] pattern [of events] suggests a level of knowledge within the White House -- including the President's and First Lady's offices -- concerning the injection of foreign funds into the reelection effort"?

 

You might want to do a browser search on Johnny Chung. You'll find he testified under oath that in 1996 the head of China's military intelligence, General Gee Shengdi, gave him $300,000 for Clinton's campaign? He said he was told by the General that other people were also receiving money "to do good things for China". You learn that Red China's General Shengdi told Chung that he gave Mark Middleton $500,000 for Clinton? Mark Middleton, a top member of Clinton's administration, pled the 5th when asked about it. You'll find that the Committee on Government Reform checked Mark Middleton's bank records and found he received over $1.75 million dollars from Asian "businesses" and worked directly for the Riady family.

 

You'll discover that some of the money Chung illegally gave the Whitehouse passed directly through Hillary's office and through her Chief of Staff's (Maggie William's) hands. After Chung presented Maggie with a check for $50,000 in illegal contributions (which was also illegal because the money was handed over inside the White House), Chung met with the first lady, whose first words to him were "Welcome to the White House, my good friend." Chung was such a "good friend" that he was in the Clinton Whitehouse on 57 different occasions.

 

Look beyond your usual news sources, and you'll find an FBI transcript of a call to Johnny Chung from Chinese operative Robert Luu in which Luu credits the source of Clinton and DNC campaign contributions to the "princelings" ... that is, the children of People’s Liberation Army officers in front companies. He said in the call, "Chairman Jiang agreed to handle it like this. The President over here also agreed." Well it happens that Clinton and Jiang were meeting when the call took place.

 

You've heard of the Cox Report, right? Just a few weeks after the Cox Report was released, Carl Cameron reported that "The President appointed his long-time friend and fundraiser Charlie Trie of Little Rock to a trade commission to deal with Hong Kong and other Asian nations. Trie has pleaded guilty to fundraising violations and is cooperating with investigators, but in 1997 FBI surveillance observed Trie’s employees destroying evidence in the campaign fundraising investigation. At the time, the Justice Department sent two officials to Little Rock to get search warrants and intervene. But on the eve of Senate hearings into campaign finance abuse, the Justice Department pulled back on the warrants and the search of Trie’s office and frustrated FBI agents watched as more documents were destroyed."

 

James and Mochtar Riady, Indonesian billionaires and ex-employers of John Huang, were longtime friends and financial supporters of Clinton. James Riady donated more than $475,000 to the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton Inaugural Fund and various Democratic candidates. Moctar's gardener managed to contribute $450,000 directly to Bill Clinton in a single check. James Riady visited the White House over a dozen times. His visits were scheduled through Mark Middleton. Authorities said the Riadys had a long relationship with Chinese intelligence. Clinton, while out of the country, met privately with them ... at a time when they were avoiding US authorities that sought to question them. Clinton tried to arrange a "Justice" Department deal for James Riady, Mochtar's son, to protect him from prosecution but it didn't go through before Bush took over, in large part thanks to the efforts of Judicial Watch.

 

Here's a source. The NY Times. Willing to accept it, liberal?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/15/opinion/15SAFI.html?ex=1219204800&en=7972765325c29651&ei=5070

 

 

 

And the above was only part of the problem of Chinagate. During the Clinton years, China acquired a wide array of US military-related technology and the Clinton Administration actively helped them do this. Such as making it possible for China to purchase hundreds of super computers. I wish to note in particular that Clinton, overruling the State and Defense departments, switched the authority for licensing satellites, computers and other high technology items from the State Department to the Commerce Department. This is important because Ron Brown's signature, by itself, then became the conduit for providing access to formally restricted technologies of all types. Is it just a coincidence that a "friend" of Charlie Trie met with Ron Brown after attending a "coffee" with Bill Clinton, the same day that Clinton signed a waiver allowing Loral to transfer missile and satellite related technology to China? Is it just coincidence that Bernard Schwartz, the CEO of Loral, was the single largest *legal* contributor to the DNC that year (giving over $500,000 ... $400,000 more than he'd given in any previous year)? Isn't it curious that Ron Brown died under clouded circumstances just as he was planning to turn state's evidence on this activity and other campaign finance related illegalities? It that a mere rumor? No. There is sworn testimony from a Brown confidante that he told Bill Clinton, shortly before he died, that he was about to do just that. Because he was facing a lifetime in jail had he been convicted of all the crimes he was about to be charged with by a special prosecutor. I bet the *high standards* PBS didn't cause them to report THAT as part of Clinton's legacy.

 

And I bet it didn't mention any of the other *serious* items I listed in the OP. Like Filegate. No, instead they wasted 40 minutes of the 4 hour long documentary discussing ... the Lewinsky affair. I've always said that Monica was just a distraction that Clinton and Ken Starr used to focus everyone's attention on when the black community started taking a real interest in the curious circumstances surrounding the death of Ron Brown, their icon. They decided that sex would trump murder, and they could get away with sex. Looks like she's still being used as that distraction. As WHITEWASH. :(

 

Maybe PBS should have hired you as their researcher! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how they spin it and no matter how fast folks masturbate Clinton will ALWAYS be known for the BJ. That's the legacy. Just sayin'!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

.

 

 

 

This deadbeat partisan ass is still in "hate" with Bill Clinton just like most of the republican party. Bill is still THE most popular american current or former politician ...and it drives nutcases like Kelloggs Cornflakes crazy.

 

He outsmarted the dumbass republicans for 8 years....and walked away with his head held high. Can't say the same for the republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a single thing?

 

Then I assume it fully discussed Chinagate (to name but one item from my list in the OP).

 

 

 

 

Just putting the word "gate" at the end of a word does not make it significant. And if you had a brain you'd understand you can't cover 8 long years completely in 2 hours.

 

The documentary was extremely well done. It was fair and balanced...something Fox has never been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched an episode of the Presidents about REgan a few months back. It whitewashed alot of Regans history as well - so what. PBS produced that series for entertainment/educational value - not as a bloodletting shit fest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the liberals on this forum seem unwilling to step up the to plate and defend Clinton (one of their biggest icons) and his administration by challenging the highly incriminating facts that I've presented so far in the Foster case (about the so-called suicide note and the nature of the wound), let's see if I can evoke some response with some additional facts regarding one of their hated enemies.

 

I'd like to talk next about Ken Starr. Oh the things liberals said and say about Ken Starr. It would curl your ears.

 

Ken Starr figured prominently in the PBS documentary. Afterall, they spent 40 minutes on the Lewinsky matter and also talked about Whitewater. He was painted as a conservative bulldog who was out to get the Clintons. He certainly did get to investigate them a lot. In Whitewater. Monicagate. Foster's death. Filegate. But how did he get selected? And what did he really accomplish when all was said and done? Was PBS' characterization of him a true picture of what he actually did in those investigations? Or was Starr actually a plant … working to help the Clintons escape justice? There a lot of sound reasons to suspect the latter … facts that the PBS documentary failed to mention. I shall now discuss a few of those reasons.

 

Starr's HIGHLY FLAWED Foster investigation

 

I have already mentioned a number of significant reasons to suspect Starr wasn't an honest broker in the Foster investigation. Here they are:

 

- Why did Starr show no interest in exploring the origin of the obviously bogus suicide note supposedly found in Foster's briefcase in the Whitehouse? Starr treated it as further evidence of Foster's depressed state of mind, as long as it was believed to be genuine. But the moment it was not, it became an obvious liability to the story he was spinning, so he dropped the note like a hot potato. Even after it was proven that a number of Clinton staffers, who swore under oath that Hillary had no role whatsoever in the handling of the note, had lied. Starr sure wasn't very curious for a right-wing bulldog supposedly out to get the Clintons.

 

- Why did Starr fail to tell the three judge panel monitoring his 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? Why did Starr fail to mention in his report that every single actual witness in the case (Dr Haut, the EMTs and park police officers, the doctor at the morgue, and a man at the mortuary) reported either seeing no exit wound in his head and/or seeing an exit wound in Foster's neck, rather than the huge exit wound Dr Beyer claimed was in the upper part of Foster's head? Why did Starr or the FBI clearly tamper with the testimony it received from the doctor at the morgue?

 

-Why did Starr show no interest in evidence, that he had in his possession, that clearly showed Dr Beyer lied about the x-ray machine being broken? Why did Starr refuse to make public the work of the three consultants he hired, in particular the one who again highlights the obvious lie of Dr Beyer regarding the x-ray machine?

 

- Why did Ken Starr's lead investigator, Miquel Rodriguez, resign in disgust, saying Starr's investigation was a sham … a coverup (see http://www.aim.org/special-report/death-of-vince-foster-part-1/ )? Why did Rodriguez say that blowups of the one photo he was able to obtain of Foster's head/neck show a wound where Beyer and Starr's report claimed there was none … in the neck … which directly contradicts what Dr Beyer and Starr reported ... but which agrees with what the witnesses said? Yet Starr showed no interest in Rodriguez's discovery. Curious.

 

- Why did Ken's Starr and his people harass Patrick Knowlton in the manner described by Knowlton in the addendum that the panel of judges ordered Starr to attach to his report ... other than to silence him? Why did Starr then ignore the judge's order and not attach the addendum to his report when he issued it to the public ... other than to keep the public in the dark?

 

And who do all these actions by Starr help? The Clintons, of course, who clearly didn't want what Foster had been doing for them and working on at the time he died to come to light. Go ahead, liberals, try to challenge that statement. :)

 

But there are additional reasons to suspect Starr in the Foster case. Here:

 

1) Let's talk about the big green oven mitt. Oh yes, that oven mitt should definitely be part of Starr's legacy because Starr is the one who first mentioned its existence. His report claimed that it was found in the glove compartment of Foster's car at Marcy Park, where he supposedly parked it before walking into the park to commit suicide. It was apparently introduced to help explain why Foster's fingerprints were not found on the alleged suicide weapon … even though he was found wearing no gloves nor had any on him at the time.

 

Here's the picture of it that Starr included in his report:

 

2400b.jpg

 

Notice how big it is? And how green it is? Given that, isn't it odd that when the Park Police *officially* inventoried every item in the glove compartment, they failed to note the presence of that big green oven mitt? In fact, the Park Police officer who searched the car testified in July 1994 (during the Fiske investigation) that there was "nothing out of the ordinary" in the glove compartment. Now here is a question that some you timid liberal out there might be willing to attempt … ordinarily, do you keep an oven mitt, of any color or size, in YOUR glove compartment? ;)

 

Isn't it odd that this BIG, GREEN OVEN MITT was never mentioned by either of the three investigations (the Park Police's, the FBI's and Fiske's) that preceded Starr's? One would think that at least one of them would have at least mentioned this curious item supposedly found in Foster's car.

 

But here's the kicker. The "official" timelines and photos made by the Park Police at the time of Foster's death seem to directly contradict even the possibility of what that photo that Starr put in his report shows? Here's a picture of the car taken when it was still at Fort Marcy Park:

 

2112mid4.jpg

 

Look closely and you'll see that there is material on the floor of the front passenger seat. Indeed, the Park Police records note the time that one of their officers removed debris from the floor on the front passenger seat side. But the picture Starr offered as the oven mitt evidence has no debris on the floor. So obviously, Starr's oven mitt photo has to have been taken after the floor was cleaned of debris. Right?

 

But according to Park Police records, Detective Braun emptied the glove box of all items at 6:35 AM on July 21st, prior to Detective Smith removing the debris from the passenger seat floor after 12 "noon" on July 21st. Thus, a photograph showing the glove compartment with items in it, over a clean passenger floor (like the one in Starr's report), flatly contradicts the Park Police records and is impossible.

 

You don't have to be much of a skeptic or very rational to know that the above is clear proof that Starr fabricated the oven mitt evidence in the Foster case. He fabricated it to try and explain away an inconvenient detail in the case that had been bothering folks in the previous investigations … the lack of fingerprints on the gun. And why would Starr do that? So that no one would look closer at the facts in the case. And who does that help? The Clintons, who didn't want investigators digging into their relationship with Foster and his activities.

 

2) Starr's tampering with witness statements and facts about Foster's depression

 

There is no question that the single most essential ingredient in Starr's explanation for why Foster killed himself is the claim, made in Starr's report repeatedly, that Foster was "clinically" depressed. It's the same claim that Fiske made. Starr cites a few key witness statements, a doctor's statement, and describes some medication evidence in order to bolster this assertion. But there is clear evidence, which Starr ignored, that Foster was not clinically depressed at all. There is clear evidence that the key witnesses he used to claim he was clinically depressed were tampered with by the Whitehouse. There is clear evidence that Starr himself tampered with evidence to bolster the suicide theory.

 

To begin, you will find no mention in Starr's report that all three of Starr's key witnesses to Foster's depression … Lisa Foster (Foster's wife), Sheila Foster (his sister) and Beryl Anthony Foster (his sister's wife) … changed their claims, about a week after Foster died, 180 degrees from what they first reported to police and FBI agents immediately after Foster's died. You will find no mention that they changed their claims soon after two of them (Lisa and Sheila) attended a meeting in the Whitehouse with Bill Clinto. You will find no mention of the many other witnesses who stated that Foster showed no sign of depression and never changed their stories.

 

The night of Foster's death, Park Police and FBI agents spent 70 minutes interviewing family members (including Lisa, Sheila and Foster's daughter) and friends at Foster's house. If Foster had been as severely depressed in the weeks before he died as the government later claimed, those interviewed that night surely would have described symptoms of depression. But they did not.

 

Here are some quotes from the Senate depositions and testimony about the interviews, including statements taken from Lisa and Sheila Foster:

 

"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."

During the interview, Lisa Foster was asked by the Park Police if her husband had been taking ANY medication, specifically any anti-depressant medication, and she categorically answered "NO".

 

Years later, a 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.

Beryl Anthony Foster, husband of Sheila Foster, was a former Democrat Congressman from Arkansas and a former President of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In an interview on July 22, two days after Foster died, 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."

 

And many other people in Foster's circle of friends and associates were interviewed or made statements in the following days regarding his mental state. This includes President Clinton (who had a 20-25 minute phone conversation with Foster the night before he died), Marsha Scott (aide to the President, who had a long meeting with Foster the day before he died), David Watkins (Assistant to the President for Management and Administration, who saw Foster every day), Betsy Pond (White House Counsel Nussbaum's secretary), Nancy Hernreich (Deputy Assistant to the President), Beth Nolan (Associate White House Counsel), Bernard Nussbaum (White House Counsel), and Web Hubble . Every single one of them said they saw nothing to make them think he was depressed. For example, 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 recorded: "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. One would think she'd have notice major depression. In an interview with Federal agents in 1994, Web Hubbell 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.'' And Starr mentioned none of these witness statements in his report.

 

So Starr ignored all of the above statements in the report that he pushed on an unsuspecting public. He ignored any witness who said they saw no indication of depression. It is simply impossible to reconcile those published statements by the investigators who where there, with the claim in the Fiske's and Starr's reports that all the witnesses said Foster was depressed. They did not. Starr lied.

 

What happened is this. On July 27, the day the so-called suicide note was finally given to Park Police, Lisa and Sheila, as well as Lisa's Lawyer, attended a meeting in the Whitehouse which Bill Clinton attended, where supposedly the so-called suicide note that had just turned up was discussed. And soon after that meeting, their stories began to change. That very day, Beryl Foster 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." A 180 degree change in his story. And he claimed that his wife (Sheila) had given Mr Foster a list of three counselors, psychiatrists or other doctors who do counseling. And of course, Sheila Foster soon parroted those claims.

 

Then, on July 29, Lisa Foster for the first time claimed her husband, Vince, had been taking anti-depressant medication. That day she told the Park Police, in a meeting also attended by her lawyer, 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." That's a 180 degree change in her story, too. In a later deposition, the officer who conducted the *interview* said "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. He 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 the investigators did not get to interview any of Foster's children because the attorney "would not make them accessible to us."

 

But curiously, neither Fiske and Starr showed any interest in investigating that Whitehouse meeting and why there were such a dramatic change in the stories of these three people (all three with connections to the meeting). Note, also, that none of the other witnesses changed their stories. Now any investigator worth his salt (and Starr was supposed to be quite competent) would wonder if there was a connection between the two. But Starr neither investigated or reported the changes in testimony to the public. It all smacks of a coverup in which Starr was complicit.

 

In his report, Starr cites Sheila Anthony, who also happened to be the Assistant Attorney General in Clinton's Administration, saying that Vince told her 4 days before the death that he was depressed. But she specifically denied he was depressed when asked by FBI and Park Police investigators about depression the night of his death. Of course, Starr didn't mention that in his official report. She also didn't tell the investigators the night he died her later claim that she gave Vince the names of 3 psychiatrists. No, she only voiced those claims after the mysterious Whitehouse meeting, which she attended. And Starr doesn't mention that Sheila transferred $286,000 to Lisa Foster four days before Vince's death. What was that about? What were Lisa and Vince involved in? A good investigator would have looked into that. It all smacks of a coverup, in which Starr was complicit.

 

And what about Starr's claimed evidence regarding the anti-depressant?

 

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 up completely negative. Dr. Anh Hyunh, who did the blood toxicology, stated in the official report that no Trazodone (an antidepressant) or Valium-derivatives were found in Foster's blood. 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 they lied to help confirm Fiske's claim? And we now know, thanks to the testimony of Dr. Frederic Whitehurst who worked at the FBI labs during this time, that the FBI Labs were routinely tampering with evidence. Whitehurst, who ended up suing the FBI as a whistleblower regarding tampering, received a substantial cash settlement from the FBI, suggesting his allegations had merit. But again, Fiske and then Starr both hid these facts from the public in their reports.

 

Starr claimed in his report that "Foster had called a family doctor for antidepressant medication" and that the Desyrel (Trazodone), that Foster was indeed proscribed by his doctor before his death, was proscribed in order to treat clinical depression. But both claims are patently false. Here is what the report of the FBI interview with Foster's doctor, Dr. Watkins, shortly after Foster's death, said (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." In this and another note, Foster's doctor clearly states that Foster called him to complain of insomnia, not depression. And the doctor described Foster's depression as mild (at worst), a far cry from clinical depression. And indeed, the medication and dosage he proscribed is one routinely used for insomnia ... not depression. The anti-depression dosage is much higher and there were better medications to use for that purpose at the time. Look it up. To claim what Starr claimed is outright dishonest. It smacks of a coverup in which Ken Starr was complicit.

 

And there is evidence that the FBI, perhaps at Fiske's behest, tampered with Lisa Foster's witness statement to support the depression angle. Starr claimed in his report, based on an FBI form, that Lisa Foster said her husband was "fighting depression" the night of his death. But the handwritten FBI interview notes from May 9, 1994 clearly show that she told the investigators he was "fighting prescription", apparently a reference to the sleeping pills dispensed several months earlier for insomnia. The agent wrote: "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." But the typed FD-302 report of the interview cited by Starr in his report states in the equivalent location on the interview form, that Foster had been "fighting depression." In other words, the FBI altered Lisa Foster's interview report to enhance Fiske's claim that Foster was depressed, and Starr didn't bother or care to notice … when he should have, if he were anywhere near as competent as claimed. It smacks of a coverup with Starr complicit.

 

Finally, both Starr (and Fiske) claimed Foster was losing weight as further evidence of depression. They claimed it was obvious to many. But Foster's medical records are actually consistent with Foster losing no weight between the time he took the job in Washington and died. They indicate that on December 31, 1992, at a physical the month before he went to Washington, he weighed 194 pounds. Foster's autopsy weight was 197 pounds. In short, Fiske and Starr again misled the public. They lied.

 

It should be more than obvious by now that neither Fiske, nor Starr, was not an honest broker. They were used to circumvent an honest investigation of this matter. To keep the public from looking too closely at the Clintons and what Foster was doing for them at the time.

 

3) The Whereabouts of Foster's Briefcase

 

Why did Starr fail to mention in his report that there were witnesses (two paramedics and two motorists) who testified they saw a briefcase in Foster's car at Fort Marcy Park? A briefcase is certainly something that Starr should have been interested in … especially when Foster's briefcase showed up in his office at the Whitehouse later, supposedly containing the so-called suicide note. So let's see … Starr fabricates oven mitt evidence that wasn't there, but then makes reports of a briefcase in the car just *disappear* from public memory. More than curious.

 

4) The Trips To Switzerland

 

We know that Foster made a number of overnight (i.e., one day) trips to Switzerland between 1991 and 1993. One on November 3, 1991. One on December 7, 1992. On July 1, 1993, just weeks before he died, he purchased another one-day round trip ticket to Switzerland. But he never used that one and received a refund on July 8th. What were these trips for? It obviously these trips were business, not a vacation. It's widely known that Switzerland is where people hide things. Perhaps he was hiding something? And why did he cancel the trip just before his death?

 

It is odd that Starr showed absolutely no interest in investigating the reason for these trips and any possible connection to his death? In fact, Fiske and Starr both showed little interest in what Foster was doing at all at the time of his death. Certainly, Foster would have known a lot about the Clintons, given that was he their friend, personal attorney and a business partner in various ventures (such as the Rose Law Firm) over many years. If the Clintons were involved in some nefarious activities, isn't is likely that their lawyer or business partner would have known? And if Foster was growing mentally unstable, unable to handle the pressure as even the official story suggests, wouldn't he have posed a risk to the Clintons?

 

There were Whitewater documents (they were billing records) found in the White House a considerable time after Foster's death. Apparently, they were originally in Vince Foster's office the night of his death, and then quickly disappeared, despite it being designated a possible crime scene by the Park Police. They were being sought under a subpoena at the time, and they finally turn up in the Clinton's White House residence, just after the statute of limitation of the crimes to which they pertained elapsed. Documents that would have shown Hillary lied under oath during the Whitewater investigation. If Foster was growing unstable, his possession of those documents could have proven very inconvenient … especially since the Whitewater matter was still being investigated at the time. In fact, we know that Foster wrote a memo in which he stated “Whitewater is a can of worms that you should NOT open!” (The Washington Times, July 15, 1995).

 

The FBI found various fingerprints on the billing records. Vince Foster's. Those of Carolyn Huber, the White House official who discovered the documents. Marc Rolfe, an employee of the law firm that took custody of the documents after they were discovered in the White House. Sandra Hatch, a secretary in the Rose Law Firm, where the documents were first produced. And Millie Alston, a White House official who had also worked at the Rose Law Firm. Oh … and also Hillary's. Michael Chertoff, the counsel for the Senate Whitewater Committee's Republicans stated that only the President and Mrs. Clinton, and one or two of their friends, would have been interested in the documents and would have had access to the Book Room [where they were found]. Of that small group, only Mrs. Clinton's fingerprints were found. Hmmmmm….

 

We know that the night Foster was found dead, White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum, Hillary's Chief of Staff Maggie Williams, and her aide Patsy Thomasson entered Foster's office and opened a safe in the office which the White House at first claimed didn't even exist (but later had to admit did). We know that Foster's secretary, Deborah Gorham, later said that two unmailed letters from Foster to Janet Reno and Kennedy, which were in the safe before his death, disappeared. We know a Secret Service agent, Officer O'Neill, testified under oath that he saw Williams removing stacks files from Foster's office, despite the police tape. We know Williams lied about doing that. We know more documents were taken from that office later on and some of them wound up in the Clinton residence despite being sought as part of subpoenas. We know there were a flurry of conversations between the people in that office and Hillary Clinton the night that Foster died. We know Hillary lied when she initially denied it. There is plenty of reason to think Foster was involved in things the Clintons didn't want known. So why no interest by Starr?

 

Indeed, Foster was involved in many matters. He had access to information on Travelgate, which was a major scandal. And on what really happened at Waco (about which he was reportedly quite upset). He was responsible for preparing the Clinton's blind trust and that he was months late in completing it. Why did it take so extraordinarily long to get it finalized (far longer than previous Presidents), when the Clintons came into office not even owning a house? And then just three days after Foster's death, the trust declarations were suddenly delivered to the trustees, with Vince Foster's "signature" on them. Amazing. There were reports of a possible affair between Vince and Hillary. He was involved with Hillary in Whitewater. He's was a man who literally knew more than was good for him where the Clinton's were concerned. A man at the center. Much like Ron Brown was focal point for the Clintons and their illegal Chinagate activities. And look what happened to Brown. So if Foster was becoming unstable or unreliable ...

 

The Highly Flawed Filegate File Investigation

 

For those who don't know what Filegate was, it was, plain and simple, an concerted effort by the Clinton administration to gather blackmail material from raw FBI data files for future use against Republicans and potential enemies.

 

When the effort was discovered, the Whitehouse claimed it was just a innnocent "goof". Years later, NPR (PBS' radio sister in hiding liberal misdeeds) reported on a new book by the FBI director during the Clinton era, Louis Freeh, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4954665 , in which Freeh wrote (regarding the origins of Filegate):

 

We added our own mess to the pile by incorrectly sending the president's staff more than four hundred FBI file summaries of people who had had White House security clearances during the Bush and Reagan years. It was a goof, plain and simple, as Ken Starr's office eventually confirmed, but it was embarrassing all the same.

This statement was utterly dishonest and NPR could have demolished the credibility of the book, Freeh and Starr by simply focusing on this one paragraph. But they didn't because they, like PBS, were protecting Clinton and his legacy.

 

First of all, it wasn't just "four hundred FBI files" that found their way into Whitehouse hands. Four hundred files is just the number the Whitehouse and the FBI, under Freeh, originally tried to claim were obtained. But in fact, within weeks the number had spiraled to 700 and eventually it was confirmed (thanks to the work of Judicial Watch, not the Clinton controlled DOJ) that over a thousand raw FBI files were illegally delivered to the Whitehouse. Indeed, there was unconfirmed, sworn testimony in Judicial Watch's deposition of Linda Tripp that suggests the WhiteHouse may have acquired 1000's of files.

 

Second, it wasn't just a "goof". The Whitehouse specifically requested the files, and then proceeded to illegally transfer the information in those files into Whitehouse and, even worse, DNC computer databases in a highly organized operation. This was blackmail material being deliberately collected in a planned way. Plain and simple. And it was an operation that several Whitehouse employees testified in depositions under oath to Judicial Watch was masterminded by none other than Hillary Clinton. And these files were was previously considered very sensitive by Democrats. Charles Colson, of Watergate fame, received a one- to three-year prison sentence (he served 7 months) for leaking just one FBI file to a reporter. Yet here was the Clinton Whitehouse rummaging around in hundreds and hundreds of illegally obtained files, illegally entering the data in them in computer databases and illegally taking that data home.

 

Now Ken Starr investigated Filegate and concluded it was just a "goof". But the presumed honesty of his investigation is not to be trusted. He failed to ask Linda Tripp, one of the key witnesses in the scandal, rather obvious and critical questions. Tripp expressed her surprise at how little he delved into the matter. Despite sworn statements that Hillary was behind Filegate, Starr questioned Hillary for less than 10 minutes. In that time, Hillary Clinton said she had nothing to do with the hiring of Craig Livingstone, the guy who ran the office of security that had Anthony Mareca acquire the files from the FBI. In fact, she claimed she didn't even know Craig Livingstone. Starr just accepted that as fact. Livingstone at the time stated under oath that there was no truth to her having hired him. And that was the extent of Starr's so-called investigation. Starr just accepted what they said.

 

But years later, after Bill Clinton left office, Livingstone admitted that Hillary not only knew him but hired him. And the evidence was there all along. There were photos of them together in Whitehouse files that Starr could have easily uncovered. Tiny little Judicial Watch, without any of the powers of Starr, discovered them via the FOIA. And those photos show Hillary and Livingstone walking or standing together at numerous White House events, putting the lie to claim of not even knowing him. The truth is that both of them lied under oath, and Starr (I strongly suspect) knew they were lying … because Starr was working for them all along. That's why he spent less than 10 minutes *investigating* the accused mastermind behind Filegate.

 

And as further proof that he was working for the Whitehouse in this matter, note that Ken Starr announced to the public shortly after the existance of the files was confirmed, that the files had been returned to the FBI. But years later, special prosecutor Robert Ray, Ken Starr's successor, admitted during a live TV interview, that the FBI files were still in the Whitehouse. In short, Starr had deliberately lied to the American Public and allowed the Clinton Whitehouse to retain the blackmail material they'd acquired.

 

And I could go on and on regarding this subject of people we counted on to investigate scandals during the Clinton era actually working for the Clintons.

 

For example, in hearings before the House Oversight Committee, Bernard Nussbaum, Counsel to President Clinton during the time the files were acquired, testified under oath that they didn't know who was responsible for hiring Livingstone. Then a few weeks later, the FBI discovered a memo dated March 1993 of an interview with Bernard Nussbaum by FBI Special Agent Sculimbrene in conjunction with the background investigation of Livingstone. In the memo, Sculimbrene wrote: "Bernard Nussbaum, Counsel to the President, advised that he has known [Livingstone] for the period of time that he has been employed in the new administration. [Livingstone] had come highly recommended to him by HILLARY CLINTON, who has known his mother for a longer period of time." Sculimbrene was then interviewed by FBI agents and he confirmed he wrote the memo and was told by Livingstone that Livingstone's mother was a friend of Hillary Clinton. But purposefully, the FBI (under Freeh) revealed the discovery of the memo to the Whitehouse days before notifying the House Oversight committee. In short, Freeh's FBI was working for Clinton. Not doing it's job either. And when Representative Clinger asked that Nussbaum be investigated for lying, the Clinton DOJ did nothing because they were also controlled by the Clintons.

 

It was all a big sham, folks. Rodriquez just saw the tip of it. And PBS wants to hide it. Because that is their job.

 

Starr's complete lack of interest in the death of Ron Brown

 

It's common knowledge that at the time Monica Lewinsky surfaced, Starr was ready to close up shop ... stop all his investigations. But just at that moment, the Ron Brown murder allegations surfaced. Very serious ones. About mass murder. Involving perhaps treasonous activities by Clinton and his administration. With credible eyewitnesses such as military pathologists making the accusations based on hard evidence (their own examinations of the body, photos of the wound, and x-rays of the head). And those allegations were getting noticed by some in the mainstream news and in the black community. Demands for a full investigation were growing.

 

Then, suddenly Starr discovered Monica and a sex scandal was born ... one that took the Brown allegations completely out of the public's eye. You see, sex will trump murder any day. And Clinton knew this. Starr never showed ANY interest in investigating the Brown matter. Now surely someone out to "get Clinton" would have done that … because that scandal has real meat on the bone. I'd be happy to discuss it with ANY of you ANYTIME because I've alway maintained that the Ron Brown matter is a litmus test for highly partisan, highly illogical Democrats. :)

 

-----------

 

So let's summarize (and believe me, the above is not everything I could have listed in the post on Starr's dishonesty, bias, imcompetence or whatever). Surely someone out to "get Clinton" wouldn't have lied, tampered with evidence, or ignored incriminating evidence, as many times as I've shown Starr clearly did. No, it's pretty clear to any reasoning person, that he was working all along to keep the activities of the Clintons and as many other members of the Clinton administration as possible from being more carefully examined. And why wouldn't that be the case, given what is known about the way he was selected in the first place. How many of you know that Ken Starr was hand-picked by Janet Reno to be the Special Prosecutor? And Reno didn't do anything that would hurt the Clintons. He was the number two man on the list of Special Prosecutors offered up by the Clintons. Guess who was the first choice … Fiske, who so clearly botched the first Foster investigation. When Fiske had to bow out because his conflicts of interest became obvious, Starr got the job. But you can be sure that the Clintons didn't mind. In fact, there is sworn testimony from an insider that when Starr got the job they opened champaigne bottles in the Whitehouse.

 

The truth is that Starr didn't spend much time investigating anything that didn't involve turning the impeachment of Clinton into just a sex scandal ... which he and Clinton may have known would be minimized by a friendly media. I think that was his purpose. I think that explains why Starr failed to investigate other far more serious matters ... like CampaignFinanceGate, Chinagate and, like I noted, Ron Brown's death. Starr even blew the Monica investigation. Rather than trap Clinton with his knowledge of the blue dress' existence and what it showed (that semen stain), he told Clinton ahead of time that they had the dress and thereby lost any chance of catching Clinton committing perjury, which any honest prosecutor "out to get Clinton" would have done.

 

So like Monica, Ken Starr was used by Clinton and then used again by PBS to WHITEWASH Clinton's sorbid legacy. Any rational comments, liberals? If not, don't bother. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe PBS should have hired you as their researcher! ;)

If they had, they wouldn't have gotten the product the "hoped" for. :)

 

Just putting the word "gate" at the end of a word does not make it significant.

But that's not what I did and I notice you STILL haven't challenge one specific fact I've noted in this thread regarding those "gates". I wonder why ...

 

The documentary was extremely well done. It was fair and balanced

Sure it was, liberal. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched an episode of the Presidents about REgan a few months back. It whitewashed alot of Regans history as well - so what.

Did that episode forget to mention any crimes he committed? Hmmmmm?

 

And if you think that the only agenda by PBS is entertainment, you are willfully deluding yourself.

 

Now, do you have any challenge to the specifics I've mentioned so far in this thread about nefarious activities connect to the Clintons and their Clinton administration ... that PBS just happened to overlook?

 

Or will you let them stand unchallenged? Fine with me because that would say volumes in and of itself.

 

P.S. Was your spelling Reagan's name just a typo?

Edited by BeAChooser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This deadbeat partisan ass is still in "hate" with Bill Clinton just like most of the republican party. Bill is still THE most popular american current or former politician ...and it drives nutcases like Kelloggs Cornflakes crazy.

 

He outsmarted the dumbass republicans for 8 years....and walked away with his head held high. Can't say the same for the republicans.

 

...You're a goddamn idiot.

 

You apparently don't read or comprehend anything other people post. The fact you just called me partisan proves as much.

 

*golf-clap* Good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had, they wouldn't have gotten the product the "hoped" for. :)

 

 

But that's not what I did and I notice you STILL haven't challenge one specific fact I've noted in this thread regarding those "gates". I wonder why ...

 

 

Sure it was, liberal. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

It's quite a shame that you need to be subjected to the way things really are. I know it confuses you and you have no other alternative. PBS does the best job of any station in getting these types of biographies out except maybe HBO.

 

...You're a goddamn idiot.

 

 

 

 

And you're a butt munching right winger who has never had the balls to criticized the extreme far right branch of the republican party. It's your duty to remain silent and you play the role like a pro.

Edited by eclectic skeptic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, did PBS discuss the millions and millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions that flowed into Clinton and DNC campaign coffers from foreign entities with direct ties to Communist China?

 

Does anyone besides me remember how quickly the Thompson hearings into china money going to the DNC came to a close when pictures of Haley Barber, head of the RNC at the time showed him in China collecting money for republicans? :lol:

 

For two weeks, Senate hearings on campaign finance focused on misdeeds by Democrats. But last week tables turned and Republicans had to defend themselves against assertions that their party had accepted an illegal donation of foreign money. Haley Barbour, the Republican Party chairman for the 1994 and 1996 elections, said he had no idea that the money came from abroad. And though he now knows it came from Hong Kong, he said, it was legal because it went to a non-profit offshoot, not the party.

July 27, 1997

 

http://www.nytimes.com/keyword/haley-barbour

Edited by jacksbrat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite a shame that you need to be subjected to the way things really are. I know it confuses you and you have no other alternative.

LOL!

 

You STILL haven't challenged even one specific fact that I've noted in this thread regarding those "gates" or regarding PBS' failure to report those facts.

 

And i think we all know why. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite a shame that you need to be subjected to the way things really are. I know it confuses you and you have no other alternative. PBS does the best job of any station in getting these types of biographies out except maybe HBO.

 

 

 

 

 

And you're a butt munching right winger who has never had the balls to criticized the extreme far right branch of the republican party. It's your duty to remain silent and you play the role like a pro.

 

Except that I've made entire posts dedicated to attacking so called "conservatives" and Republican-affiliated supporters on this forum. In fact, I've been kicked off of conservative-leaning boards. I spend near as much time damning them as I do the left-wing. As I said before, you don't do a very good job of reading peoples posts through-and-through or at the very least, remembering where they actually stand through their own wording. It's one thing to have a disagreement with me, it's another to outright lie about who I am or where I stand. Even in this very THREAD I generalized politicians into one lump-sum as they belong--corrupt and without salvation.

 

I'm sorry but I firmly believe Clinton was and still is scum. From his actions as presiding president during the 90's to his personal life, he's not a man I would find myself agreeable with at almost every level. He's typical of the foul, immoral, vain filth that runs wild in this country. The only reason I don't loathe Bush as much as him is due to the fact I could probably like Bush on a personal level--politically I wouldn't go near him with a ten-foot pole as he did virtually nothing that was ultimately profitable for the American people. Certainly not in the long haul. In fact, opposite in many ways. Which in truth is the reality for just about every president in the last century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone besides me remember how quickly the Thompson hearings into china money going to the DNC came to a close when pictures of Haley Barber, head of the RNC at the time showed him in China collecting money for republicans? :lol:

 

For two weeks, Senate hearings on campaign finance focused on misdeeds by Democrats. But last week tables turned and Republicans had to defend themselves against assertions that their party had accepted an illegal donation of foreign money. Haley Barbour, the Republican Party chairman for the 1994 and 1996 elections, said he had no idea that the money came from abroad. And though he now knows it came from Hong Kong, he said, it was legal because it went to a non-profit offshoot, not the party.

July 27, 1997

 

http://www.nytimes.com/keyword/haley-barbour

 

Sorry, you're not going to successfully defend Clinton, the DNC and PBS with this approach either.

 

First of all, what makes you think I'm defending all Republicans in their handling of Chinagate and CampaignFinancegate? I have many complaints in that regard. For one, Bush made a big mistake in not pursuing Clinton and the DNC's failure to return the illegal contributions in the Riady Non-Refund. And when PBS creates an American Experience about some Republican and they *forget* to mention all the campaign finance violations and treasonous activities he was engaged in, feel free to start a thread on that topic and you might be surprised to see me joining you in support. But until that happens, we are talking about the failure of PBS to present an accurate picture of Clinton's legacy.

 

Second, Senate Republicans set a fixed duration for Thompson's Committee hearings at the very beginning of the effort … three weeks. So no, the fact that Barbour obtaining money from a Chinese businessman was brought up by Democrats in the last week of that period is not why the Thompson hearings ended. They were scheduled to end anyway.

 

One reason the hearing flopped is that only two weeks, as noted in the article you quoted, was allotted to focusing on Democrat campaign finance violations and Chinagate. Senate Republicans severely underestimated how long it would take to get to the bottom of these massive scandals, especially give the degree of obstructionism that Democrat Senators would display during the hearings (shall I provide some examples?). And that wasn't the only obstruction. The committee was also stymied by the fact that at least 18 critical witnesses fled the country and another 79 refused to testify, citing the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Given all that, Thompson's effort was doomed from the start.

 

Then, Chairman Thompson foolishly allowed Democrats a whole week (1/3 of the total time), when all that was required by Senate rules was 1 day, to draw some moral equivalence between Democrat and Republican finances. During that week, the Senate Democrats did indeed make a big deal of the admission by former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour that he had secured a $2.1 million loan guarantee from Hong Kong businessman Ambrose Young for the National Policy Forum. The loan arrangement may or may not have proper, but it may not have been illegal, and it most certainly was NOT connected with a foreign government, espionage, threats to national security, or any change in foreign policy … as was clearly the case in Clinton's and the DNC's Chinagate. Democrats also provided no evidence of any congressional GOP foreign fundraising that could remotely compare in magnitude with what the Clinton Administration did. And, finally, unlike Clinton and the Democrats, once Barbour admitted this, the money was returned to the Hong Kong company (http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/050997fundraising-repubs.html ), unlike what Clinton and the DNC did in the case of the Riady Non-Refund. So your example is clearly a dishonest effort to derail the thread. But nice try. :)

 

In my opinion, the problem with Senator Thompson's effort was that he was much too accommodating to the Democrats and didn't treat them as the mortal foes they actually were and are. He was much too nice to them. He couldn't even bring himself to vote to convict Clinton of perjury in the Impeachment trial, and that was a slam dunk. Later he even joined Democrats in pushing McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, which tried to make the CampaignFinancegate and Chinagate scandals out to be nothing more than a problem with the campaign finance laws, rather than what they clearly were ... a deliberate, systematic, criminal violation of existing campaign finance laws and one of the biggest betrayals of our national security in US history.

 

In fact, I've been kicked off of conservative-leaning boards. I spend near as much time damning them as I do the left-wing.

For the record, so have I. In fact I was kicked off FreeRepublic years ago ... for suggesting that Republicans would become like Democrats if they just moved-on with regards to the crimes committed during the Clinton years. Go figure. ;)

Edited by BeAChooser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Thats no joke. Id never use my ignore but I probably get lots of other people to do it for me.

 

Still ignore is for dating sites not NHB political sites.

 

And really this site used to be censored? Skeptic claims that's the way of the non-left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did that episode forget to mention any crimes he committed? Hmmmmm?

 

And if you think that the only agenda by PBS is entertainment, you are willfully deluding yourself.

 

Now, do you have any challenge to the specifics I've mentioned so far in this thread about nefarious activities connect to the Clintons and their Clinton administration ... that PBS just happened to overlook?

 

Or will you let them stand unchallenged? Fine with me because that would say volumes in and of itself.

 

P.S. Was your spelling Reagan's name just a typo?

No challenges to your post - to long, to boring and nothing new. I think you should right a book about Clintons misdeeds and add it to the many that have already been written. Yes, I make lots of typo's. I said PBS's The presidents series was for entertainment/educational value. I am well aware of what PBS agenda is. PBS's program on Reagan glossed over most if not all of his misdeeds - I said it was whitewashed as well - so what. It was worth watching - even though I was never and am still not a fan of Reagan or his presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Clinton left office he left this country with a huge surplus. There is no denying this fact even with hard core righties. It only took the feeble George Bush 8 months to squander that huge surplus....BEFORE 9/ll.

 

The facts really put a hurting on lowlife wingnuts.

 

Bill Clinton: still the most popular living American.....by far.

I must agree with you, about Clinton's popularity and about Bush 43 squandering the huge surplus that Clinton left. When Bush's 8 year term was up this country was in dire straights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No challenges to your post - to long, to boring and nothing new.

Sure. I suppose that's as good an *excuse* as any. :rolleyes:

 

I said PBS's The presidents series was for entertainment/educational value.

And do you think they *educate* anyone when they so badly mischaracterize a Presidency as they clearly did (I think I've proven it) in the case of Clinton? No, that's not *education*, that's *indoctrination* with *propaganda*.

 

PBS's program on Reagan glossed over most if not all of his misdeeds

For example? I'm not saying they didn't, but you need to prove it with some examples.

 

And if they did, then again they failed to *educate*. They MISinformed the American Public. And that's not something that taxpayer dollars should be used for. Wouldn't you agree?

 

And also, do we *really* need a government funded entity to *entertain* us? :)

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
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...