And this is the point where rabid anti-Clintonites reach logical disconnect.
ROTFLOL! Having difficulty logically dealing with the specific facts I've noted, Tricky? Have you nothing concrete to challenge them with? Why is it that EVERY time these facts get mentioned we hear the same disconnect from you folks? Rather than directly address the facts we get arguments like the following:
The Clintons have been investigated more than any presidential family in history.
Yeah, we've heard this argument before, Tricky. Countless times. Investigated by whom? A DOJ and FBI that was clearly corrupt and controlled by the Clintons? Some special prosecutors that the Clinton's helped pick and who demonstrably lied to the public on various occasions? By a mainstream media that fell over itself idolizing the Clintons and protecting democrats? Or how about Congress? Did you ever read the book by David Schippers (A DEMOCRAT) on the impeachment? If not, you might find this interesting:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_1_17/ai_72273372 . But I warn you ... it doesn't paint a pretty picture of the Senate's interest in truth. Or the Clintons.
They were so hated by the Republicans that they set an investigative team out to find dirt on them.
This thread isn't about hate, Tricky. That's a red herring on your part. It's about facts and truth, and logical implications. Silly me. I thought that was what this forum was about.
Heck, even Ken Starr concluded that there was nothing suspicious about Vince Foster's suicide
And yet, his top investigator resigned, stating that Starr was covering up what really happened. There are lots of reasons to believe Starr was controlled by the Clintons, Tricky.
He was the second name on the list of candidates provided by the Clintons for the job of independent counsel. Does anyone honestly think the Clintons, crafty as they are, would have left that position to chance? I think they had some means of controlling what Starr investigated and what he didn't investigate.
The proof that Starr was corrupt is that he blew every single investigation he was involved in, he tampered with evidence and he didn't investigate certain other important allegations even though they were timely and impeachable. His untrustworthiness is most starkly seen in Filegate and Fostergate, the two gates he actually did *investigate*. And both connect to Hillary.
In Filegate, for example, a tiny little outfit called Judicial Watch found out more about what happened using the FOIA and depositions in
civil cases than Starr found out with the full power of the DOJ and FBI behind him? How could that be?
There was sworn testimony ... from democrats, no less ... that Hillary Clinton was behind Filegate. Yet Starr spent less than 10 minutes interviewing her ... asking innocuous questions. There is sworn testimony that she ordered the collection of the data in the files. Yet Starr spends less than 10 minutes *chatting* with her as friendly as can be. Something is definitely wrong with this picture and even a blind man would *see* it.
Starr also failed to ask the key witness, Linda Tripp, numerous important questions. Tripp commented about this later on, expressing her surprise at how little he delved into the matter. Most of the missing files were discovered not by Starr, but by that little outfit, Judicial Watch. And Starr never did learn who hired Livingstone. But now we know, don't we. Yes, there is definitely something wrong with this picture.
Another reason to suspect Starr in this matter (a big one, I think) is that he told the public that the illegally obtained files (containing blackmail material that was being illegally loaded onto DNC computers) had been returned to the FBI. But years later, Independent Counsel Ray, who took over from Starr, revealed in a TV interview that the files were still in the White House. In other words, Starr lied to the public and the blackmail material remained in Clinton's hands for years. Plenty of time to get it onto DNC computers.
Now regarding Starr's involvement in the Foster case, it is true that he *investigated* for a year and published a report exonerating everyone. But you ignore a few important details.
First is the fact that Starr was sent in to investigated after questions arose about the impartiality of the first name on the Independent Counsel candidate list, Mr. Fiske. I ask you ... if one independent counsel could be turned, why not two?
Second, you forgot to mention that this was the first time in history where the panel of judges supervising the IOC required that an addendum,
basically accusing the OIC of witness tampering and evidence tampering, be attached to the final report. This is the famous Knowlton addendum which blasts the OIC for failing to address numerous facts and which charges the OIC with witness intimidation. See
http://www.fbicover-up.com/ for more information. And then read these two links from AIM:
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-the-independent-counsels-final-report/ and
http://www.aim.org/publications/special_reports/2003/jul15.html . Keep in mind that the evidence presented to the court by Knowlton stands
uncontradicted to this day. The court rulings against Knowlton in the matter provided NO analysis whatsoever of the evidence. In short, they were nothing but a coverup too.
Third, you forgot to mention Starr’s lead investigator, Miquel Rodriguez, a rather important person. As I noted, he resigned saying that his investigation was obstructed by the OIC itself. Rodriquez says Mark Tuohey, head of the OIC in Washington, warned him he was not to challenge the findings of the Fiske Report. That's suspicious to say the least.
And Starr failed to tell the three judge panel and the public about an FBI memo to the Director of the FBI written two days after the death stating that the shot was fired into Foster's mouth without leaving an exit wound, which directly contradicts Starr's report which says there was an exit wound in the back of the head. And when Miquel Rodriguez got hold of the original photograph, he said he had the Smithsonian institution blow it up. He says the blowups show a dime-sized wound on the right side of Foster’s neck about half way between the chin and the ear ... a wound never mentioned by Fiske, Starr or in the official autopsy report. Furthermore, four of the rescue workers testified in secret before the Whitewater grand jury that they saw trauma to the side of Foster’s head or neck. This information was submitted to Kenneth Starr in a memorandum from Miquel Rodriguez summing up the proceedings of the Whitewater grand jury. Again, Starr didn't tell the judges or mention this in the official report. Something definitely smells in this case and with regard to honesty of your sainted Kenneth Starr.
According to Accuracy in Media, when Starr released his report about Foster, he refused to make public the reports written by three consultants that he had hired to study the case. AIM sued the OIC to obtain them. Turns out that in one report submitted by a Dr. Brian Blackbourne, the San Diego County medical examiner, Dr. Blackbourne reports meeting with Dr. James Beyer, the 75-year-old medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Foster. He wrote "I discussed the autopsy X-rays with him." Now that suggests that there were autopsy X-rays to discuss, but Dr. Beyer has testified under oath that he did not take any X-rays, even though he checked the "X-rays taken" box on the autopsy report. When asked about that discussion of the X-rays, Dr. Blackbourne admitted that it was actually about the absence of X-rays. According to Blackbourne, Dr. Beyer explained their absence by claiming his X-ray machine was not working on the day he performed the autopsy. That was what he had told the FBI and a Senate committee. But AIM learned that the first call to service this brand new machine was made over three months after Foster’s death. On hearing that, Dr. Blackbourne asked, "Do you mean that they couldn’t take any X-rays for three months?" No, what it meant is that Dr. Beyer was lying about the machine not working. And Starr’s investigators, and presumably Starr himself, knew that the claim that the machine was not working was false. We know that because the record of that first service call on Oct. 29 was included among the documents AIM obtained from the OIC. They had investigated Dr. Beyer’s excuse and had found the proof that it was false, but they did nothing about it. And that's just the tip of what one can say about the Foster case and Starr's *investigation*.
And finally, like I noted, another sign that Starr wasn't the honest investigator that you claim he was is that he didn't bother to even investigate other serious allegations that surfaced concurrently with his tenure. Such as the death of Ron Brown. Allegations made by military forensic pathologists and a military photographer who were involved in the crash investigation. David Schippers said he would have investigated the matter of Ron Brown ... if he hadn't been sold out. What Starr did instead of investigating (remember, this was connected to CampaignFinanceGate and Chinagate, which Starr also ignored) is interesting. Just prior to the Brown allegation surfacing, Starr announced he would be wrapping up his investigations (having found nothing) and going home. But when the Brown allegations began to get some traction in the media and, more important, noticed in the black community, all of a sudden, Monica surfaced with her sex and drug stained dress. My bet is that Clinton and Starr realized that a sleazy sex scandal that probably wouldn't lead to impeachment would trump a mass murder allegation in the press and public's mind any day of the week. And they were right. And even then, Starr blew the Monica investigation. Rather than trap Clinton with his knowledge of the dress' existance and what it showed, he told Clinton they had the dress and thereby lost any chance of catching Clinton committing perjury. Any honest prosecutor would have made that attempt.
Want to try spinning some more for Clinton, Tricky?
I am no great fan of the Clintons
Yeah. Sure you are. We believe you.
