Cleon
King of the Pod People
Hillary as Secretary Of State? Change?
- Thread starter BeAChooser
- Start date
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Oh yes you are!! See how BAC debunked the last person to make this claim?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Well, Tricky, you seem to be the only one willing to take the challenge where my one question was concerned. I think that says something interesting about the others.
Now, regarding your response ...
You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
First of all, that wasn't *her* (Mrs Foster's) writing. That was what an FBI agent wrote to a specific question that he asked Lisa.
Did you actually look at that link I provided? Here is both the question (typed ahead of time by the agent) and the response to that question written by the agent based on Lisa's answer.
It says "he was fighting prescription". You have provided absolutely no evidence (remember, conjecture is not proof, or so I've been informed on this thread) that the agent misstated Lisa's response. I see no logical reason to believe that had Lisa said "he was fighting depression", the highly trained agent wouldn't have written "he was fighting depression". Instead of wrote "he was fighting prescription".
You are wrong. As noted at the link you apparently didn't read, elsewhere in the interview with Lisa the agent recorded that
He said he was suffering from insomnia ... not depression. He said he was afraid of addiction to sleeping pills. People do indeed "fight prescriptions" because they "fight addiction" to prescriptions. Look it up.
Furthermore, you are COMPLETELY wrong in claiming that the doctor confirmed Foster had clinical depression and was given a prescription to fight it. That is not the case at all and the written record proves it.
Here is what the report of the FBI interview with Foster's doctor, Dr. Watkins, shortly after Foster's death, stated (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_/ai_17817574 ):
So Foster's doctor told the FBI that he did NOT think Foster was significantly depressed. That stands in direct contradiction to the claim by Fiske and Starr that Foster was "clinically depressed". "Clinical depression" refers to MAJOR depression, not mild depression. Look it up. http://www.answers.com/topic/clinical-depression-1
The doctor also told the FBI the prescription was to help him sleep better. Not to treat depression as you/Fiske/Starr claimed. Plus the doctor told them that Lisa was completely surprised by his death, again contradicting later claims that she had been worried. And the desyrel dose was NOT what a doctor would prescribe had depression been the concern. I'll prove that in a moment.
Beyond that, the doctor made no further statements ... until, that is, Ken Starr (in his investigation) claimed that the doctor provided him with a note he'd typed after the death. Maybe he did type that note but it only confirms the above facts. Here's what that note said according to Starr's report:
Again, it says Foster complained about insomnia, not depression. Any depression he did have was described as only "mild". Not "clinical". And the medication and dosage was again one used for insomnia ... not depression.
Now I know you are thinking, how do you know the prescribed dosage was for insomnia and not depression? Simple. The FBI interviewed of the owner of the prescribing pharmacy and his statement contradicts Starr's contention that this medication was for depression. According to the pharmacy, Foster was to take 1-3 pills prior to bedtime, rather than spaced out over the day, as would be the case if depression was the concern. Here, just check the on-line medical references:
http://mental-health.emedtv.com/desyrel/desyrel-dosage.html
Based on all the above, one can ONLY logically conclude that your (and Fiske's and Starr's) claim that Foster's doctor confirmed clinical depression and that Foster was prescribed anti-depressants to treat depression ... is false. I hope you are now better informed, Tricky. And more skeptical of Fiske and Starr.
Ah, but now you are probably saying ... what about Starr's so-called suicide *expert*, Dr Berman? He was able to conclude from the above facts that "to a 100% degree of medical certainty, the death of Vincent Foster was a suicide." My response is yeah, right. But here's what another expert in suicide thought of Berman's conclusion in the Foster case (http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-critiquing-bermans-report-on-foster/ ):
Finally, let me remind you, in case you forgot (or simply didn't read what I posted earlier), of one more thing. The Park Police notes of interviews conducted with about a dozen family and friends the night of Foster's death (including Lisa Foster, his daughter, both sisters) clearly ruled out depression. As already noted, one police officer reported "One of the last things I got from Mrs. Foster -- I asked her was he -- did you see this coming? ... Everyone said, no, no, no, no, he was fine. ... Nobody would say anything about depression or that they noticed some signs". Another officer said "[We] asked, was there anything, did you see this forthcoming, was there anything different about him, has he been depressed, and all the answers were no.".
This was again confirmed by an officer who answered a question posed by a Senate attorney in later hearings:
It is impossible to reconcile these statements by the investigators who where there with the claim in the IOC report that witnesses said Foster was depressed immediately after the event. They did not say that. Fiske and Starr LIED. And the mainstream media just regurgitated that lie over and over. Until you bought it.
The truth is that claims about depression only appeared days later ... in many cases with witnesses directly contradicting their earlier statements. I noted some of those contradictions earlier in this thread. Did you read them? The first time Lisa Foster claimed Vince was taking anti-depressants was 9 days after his death (long after telling the Park Police that he was not taking them). I don't think it's just coincidence that the first time Mrs Foster claimed Vince was taking anti-depressants was also after her meeting with the Clinton inner circle where the torn note was discussed.
And even then, lab tests of Foster's blood, conducted immediately after the death, came up negative for the presence of the specific anti-depressants mentioned. It was only later ... before Fiske's report was to be issued ... that *new* lab tests revealed the presence of those medications. Again, that's a little too convenient given that the tests were conducted by an FBI that had already altered witness statements to make it appear like Foster was clinically depressed. An FBI that was already under attack for routinely tampering with evidence by an insider ... a whistleblower ... who eventually won a big settlement from the FBI.
No, Tricky, what's ludicrous is your side believing you've won this debate.
Now, regarding your response ...
You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
First of all, that wasn't *her* (Mrs Foster's) writing. That was what an FBI agent wrote to a specific question that he asked Lisa.
Did you actually look at that link I provided? Here is both the question (typed ahead of time by the agent) and the response to that question written by the agent based on Lisa's answer.
It says "he was fighting prescription". You have provided absolutely no evidence (remember, conjecture is not proof, or so I've been informed on this thread) that the agent misstated Lisa's response. I see no logical reason to believe that had Lisa said "he was fighting depression", the highly trained agent wouldn't have written "he was fighting depression". Instead of wrote "he was fighting prescription".
You are wrong. As noted at the link you apparently didn't read, elsewhere in the interview with Lisa the agent recorded that
He said he was suffering from insomnia ... not depression. He said he was afraid of addiction to sleeping pills. People do indeed "fight prescriptions" because they "fight addiction" to prescriptions. Look it up.
Furthermore, you are COMPLETELY wrong in claiming that the doctor confirmed Foster had clinical depression and was given a prescription to fight it. That is not the case at all and the written record proves it.
Here is what the report of the FBI interview with Foster's doctor, Dr. Watkins, shortly after Foster's death, stated (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_/ai_17817574 ):
So Foster's doctor told the FBI that he did NOT think Foster was significantly depressed. That stands in direct contradiction to the claim by Fiske and Starr that Foster was "clinically depressed". "Clinical depression" refers to MAJOR depression, not mild depression. Look it up. http://www.answers.com/topic/clinical-depression-1
The doctor also told the FBI the prescription was to help him sleep better. Not to treat depression as you/Fiske/Starr claimed. Plus the doctor told them that Lisa was completely surprised by his death, again contradicting later claims that she had been worried. And the desyrel dose was NOT what a doctor would prescribe had depression been the concern. I'll prove that in a moment.
Beyond that, the doctor made no further statements ... until, that is, Ken Starr (in his investigation) claimed that the doctor provided him with a note he'd typed after the death. Maybe he did type that note but it only confirms the above facts. Here's what that note said according to Starr's report:
Again, it says Foster complained about insomnia, not depression. Any depression he did have was described as only "mild". Not "clinical". And the medication and dosage was again one used for insomnia ... not depression.
Now I know you are thinking, how do you know the prescribed dosage was for insomnia and not depression? Simple. The FBI interviewed of the owner of the prescribing pharmacy and his statement contradicts Starr's contention that this medication was for depression. According to the pharmacy, Foster was to take 1-3 pills prior to bedtime, rather than spaced out over the day, as would be the case if depression was the concern. Here, just check the on-line medical references:
http://mental-health.emedtv.com/desyrel/desyrel-dosage.html
Based on all the above, one can ONLY logically conclude that your (and Fiske's and Starr's) claim that Foster's doctor confirmed clinical depression and that Foster was prescribed anti-depressants to treat depression ... is false. I hope you are now better informed, Tricky. And more skeptical of Fiske and Starr.
Ah, but now you are probably saying ... what about Starr's so-called suicide *expert*, Dr Berman? He was able to conclude from the above facts that "to a 100% degree of medical certainty, the death of Vincent Foster was a suicide." My response is yeah, right. But here's what another expert in suicide thought of Berman's conclusion in the Foster case (http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-critiquing-bermans-report-on-foster/ ):
Finally, let me remind you, in case you forgot (or simply didn't read what I posted earlier), of one more thing. The Park Police notes of interviews conducted with about a dozen family and friends the night of Foster's death (including Lisa Foster, his daughter, both sisters) clearly ruled out depression. As already noted, one police officer reported "One of the last things I got from Mrs. Foster -- I asked her was he -- did you see this coming? ... Everyone said, no, no, no, no, he was fine. ... Nobody would say anything about depression or that they noticed some signs". Another officer said "[We] asked, was there anything, did you see this forthcoming, was there anything different about him, has he been depressed, and all the answers were no.".
This was again confirmed by an officer who answered a question posed by a Senate attorney in later hearings:
It is impossible to reconcile these statements by the investigators who where there with the claim in the IOC report that witnesses said Foster was depressed immediately after the event. They did not say that. Fiske and Starr LIED. And the mainstream media just regurgitated that lie over and over. Until you bought it.
The truth is that claims about depression only appeared days later ... in many cases with witnesses directly contradicting their earlier statements. I noted some of those contradictions earlier in this thread. Did you read them? The first time Lisa Foster claimed Vince was taking anti-depressants was 9 days after his death (long after telling the Park Police that he was not taking them). I don't think it's just coincidence that the first time Mrs Foster claimed Vince was taking anti-depressants was also after her meeting with the Clinton inner circle where the torn note was discussed.
And even then, lab tests of Foster's blood, conducted immediately after the death, came up negative for the presence of the specific anti-depressants mentioned. It was only later ... before Fiske's report was to be issued ... that *new* lab tests revealed the presence of those medications. Again, that's a little too convenient given that the tests were conducted by an FBI that had already altered witness statements to make it appear like Foster was clinically depressed. An FBI that was already under attack for routinely tampering with evidence by an insider ... a whistleblower ... who eventually won a big settlement from the FBI.
No, Tricky, what's ludicrous is your side believing you've won this debate.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
You think that concerns about treason, corruption of our election process, blackmail, and murder are petty?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Of course, I've not said either of those things so once again you throw out a red herring and strawman rather than deal with the actual facts in the Foster case. Did you see my last post to Tricky?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Of course not, gdnp. You're going to do exactly what I predicted you'd do.
But did you see my response to Tricky regarding his attempt to answer the question that you would not?
Of course not, gdnp. You're going to do exactly what I predicted you'd do.
But did you see my response to Tricky regarding his attempt to answer the question that you would not?
Yep. Same old junk. As a physician, I can tell you that your medical analysis is fatally flawed. But as I stated, I have no interest in playing this game. I could spend an hour or two debunking this claim, and you would simply post another one.
The only way to win is not to play.
ETA: If you would like a hint at the absurdity of your claim, try this little exercise. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands.
List all of the people complicit in the conspiracy to cover up Vince Foster's murder. Here is my preliminary, based on your last post:
Starr
Fiske
The Clintons
Other Clinton administration officials *
FBI agents *
Policemen *
Pathologists *
Foster's wife
Foster's friends *
Physicians *
You can fill in the specific names for the entries with the asterisks. Have I left anyone out? What total do you get?
Last edited:
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Yes, I can see what is written. It is obviously scribbled quickly. Sometimes when people write, their minds get ahead of themselves (I've actually seen people do it here on these boards
) . But nobody "fights a prescription". They may "fight addiction" or "fight depression" but they don't fight prescriptions. And of course, if he was "fighting addiction" that would mean that he was already addicted to "sleeping pills" as you call them. And then there's this
Foster's doctor had indeed prescribed him an antidepressant. Perhaps it was only for "mild depression". Perhaps it was to help him sleep, (loss of sleep is one of the classic signs of depression) but he was given a prescription. Foster, of course, was not required to fill it or take it once it was filled. He did not have to "fight the prescription". Foster obviously never fought addiction, because he committed suicide the same day as he was given the prescription. It seems quite possible the doctor did not realize the depth of Foster's depression.
Your interpretation makes zero sense, as every official authority who has ruled on the matter seems to agree. Are they all in on it? How many more?
But I could see that this would be a waste of time. I just wanted you to know that we are not ignoring your "wall of words" because we think they are correct. Those who have the patience to deal with conspiracy theorists are few and far between.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Who uses that terminology? I was unable to turn up any instance of that phrase being used in that context by anyone else.
Is this, perhaps, another "'pull it' is a common term used in building demolition" thing?
Actually that's what Insight Magazine reports about the FBI interview (despite your attempts to disguise the source by using a Findarticles link). This is the same Insight Magazine that essentially made up that story about Obama attending a Wahhabist madrassa in Indonesia, and that (according to Findarticles when you click on the magazine name) features such other unbaised and undoubtedly meticulously-researched articles as "The Smear Campaign; Left-wingers have poured money into Bush-hating "527" groups" and "Saddam's WMD Have Been Found; The United States has already located many of Iraq's weapons, but the public wouldn't know it based on the silence with which Bush critics are greeting this success."
I was unable to find any discussion of this FBI interview on any non-conspiracy website. It doesn't seem to be in the actual Fiske Report on Foster's death. Is there some legitimate website that posts this interview report that you can link us to, please?
So, this conspiracy to hide the Clintons' involvement in Vince Foster's murder by making it falsely appear to be a depression-driven suicide issued a whitewashed report written by a liar...in which you find evidence that Vince Foster was not, in fact, depressed, thus breaking open the whole sordid cover-up..
Maybe the Clintons should have hired better conspirators, if their faked report allowed evidence ofsuch a giant glaring hole to slip through and be published! Again, I'm reminded of Truthers who point to "inconsistencies" in things like the 9/11 Commission report and the NIST report to "prove" that there was a conspiracy.
That amused me the most (even aside from AIM being your main source for this...are you ever going to quote from an unbiased source?). This guy's argument is essentially "How come Dr. Berman spent so much time looking at physical and forensic evidence when making his judgment, when everyone knows that there's only a twenty percent chance that someone will commit suicide without having attempted it before (never mind the fact that even those who repeatedly attempt suicide have to have tried it at least once without ever having tried it before)."
Yet again, typical truther. "My theory is obviously the only one that fits the facts...as long as you totally ignore the actual physical evidence involved, that is!"
Last edited:
Cleon
King of the Pod People
This is why, whenever BAC uses the phrase "credible sources," I instantly get a mental image of the guy from Raiders of the Lost Ark saying "top people."
"We have our Top People working on this."
"Who?"
"Top. People."
Last edited:
Yes, I can see what is written. It is obviously scribbled quickly. Sometimes when people write, their minds get ahead of themselves (I've actually seen people do it here on these boards
I agree with your analysis, except for one point. The person who wrote this note did not write "fighting prescription", he wrote "fighting ---> prescription". Which is what I might have written if I wanted to write "fighting depression and was given a prescription." Which remarkably enough also seems to be the interpretation of the person who took the note. Of course, this persons opinion disagrees with BACS obvious, unambiguous, irrefutably correct interpretation, thus proving that he is part of the conspiracy.
Damn. Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in...
Tricky
Briefly immortal
That's what I meant when I said people "get ahead of themselves". People do it when they make notes especially. They put down a few key words. Such mental jumps might be especially true for a woman who had recently discovered her husband was dead. In any case, there is no indication that Foster was "fighting a prescription" and no idiom in the language with that wording.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Sure. And you didn't loose anything, I just hadn't discussed it because I was trying to keep this simple. But since the naysayers on this thread apparently won't even address a single specific question regarding the case, I might as well up the complexity and tell more of the story.
Foster's autopsy was conducted by the deputy medical examiner for Northern Virginia, Dr. James Beyer. Beyer was 77 at the time. In 1996, Dr Cyril Wecht, one of the preeminent pathologists in the US, had this to say about Beyer. He was surprised that the elderly Virginia deputy medical examiner, Dr. James Beyer, is still conducting autopsies. And Wecht said this about the autopsy report: ""incomplete and insufficiently detailed." Wecht called for a second autopsy but of course the government had no interest in that.
Now let's look at the specifics of Beyer's work in the Foster case.
First there is the issue of the missing x-rays. Beyer's autopsy report indicates x-rays were taken of Foster. The X-ray box on the autopsy report was checked "yes." Furthermore, a U.S. Park Police incident record says "Dr. Beyer stated that X-rays indicated there was no evidence of bullet fragments in the head."
But in testimony before the Senate, Dr. Beyer said that he had been planning to take X-rays but never did ... or if he did, then they were totally black and unreadable. He claimed the equipment was broken and had been for weeks. However, the Knowlton Portion of the official report on the Foster death contains information which shows that there are maintenance records which indicate the X-Ray machine was, in fact, fully operable at the time the Foster autopsy was conducted. Starr knew this information but failed to investigate. Guess he liked Beyer's revised version.
Then there is the issue of the exit wound.
Beyer's autopsy report states the bullet exited the top of the back of the head. Here's a drawing from the autopsy: http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/cmn_img/a5.gif . It shows a very large exit wound. Beyer also stated that he found no additional wounds on the body. Fiske and Starr promoted this version of the wound in their reports which officially indicated the wound was 1 by 1 ¼ inch in size.
Now here is what suggests Beyer, Fiske and Starr are liars.
I mentioned in an earlier post that Fiske and Starr failed to tell the three judge panel and the public about an FBI memo to the Director of the FBI written two days after the death stating that the shot was fired into Foster's mouth without leaving an exit wound. Just a mistake?
The lead police investigator on the scene described the exit wound as a small hole. The medical examiner on the scene, Dr Donald Haut, in his original report, listed the cause of death as a "self-inflicted gunshot wound mouth to neck." And what a surprise. Dr. Haut’s report was not included in the documents released by the government. It was only discovered in June 1997 at the National Archives by Patrick Knowlton. Dr Haut also told the FBI the wound was consistent with a low-velocity weapon. (Note that according to Fiske and Star, Foster was found with a high-velocity .38-caliber revolver.)
The government claims the official 35 mm photos of Foster at the scene of the crime were "underexposed" and deemed useless. What a coincidence. In addition, a lot of polaroids were taken at the scene (based on statements to the FBI and other investigators). Apparently most of these polaroid photos just disappeared. What a coincidence. The rest have been tightly controlled by the government, with the government fighting every single attempt to get them released, even internally within the investigations.
One of the surviving polaroid photos shows Foster's head (or at least the neck). As I noted earlier, when Miquel Rodriguez (Starr's top investigator who resigned saying there was a coverup) finally got hold of the original of this polaroid, he had the Smithsonian institution blow it up. The blowups show a dime-sized wound on the right side of Foster’s neck about half way between the chin and the ear. A wound never mentioned by Fiske or Starr. A wound consistent with the report by Dr. Donald Haut, the only doctor to visit the crime scene. A wound inconsistent with the official autopsy report.
A friend of Foster's, Joe Purvis, claimed that he was told by a staff member of Ruebel's Funeral Home in Little Rock that Foster had an entry wound deep at the back of the mouth, and an exit wound "the size of a dime" close to the neck at the hairline. That claim was made before Foster's autopsy was released. Purvis' entry wound description seems to be accurate. But the exit wound description is nothing at all like Beyer/Fiske/Starr claimed. It agrees with the other evidence.
Fairfax County emergency medical technician Kory Ashford told the FBI that when he placed Foster's body in a body bag by grasping his shoulders and cradling his head, he did not see any exit wound. Now you'd think if there was a 1 by 1 ¼ inch exit wound in the back of Foster's head, he would have seen it and there would have been brain matter and blood all over the scene. But Ashford said he saw little or no blood, didn't need gloves, didn't get any blood on his white uniform, and didn't have to wash his hands after the task. He also said there was no blood on the ground underneath the body.
Roger Harrison, who helped Cory, didn’t see any blood either. No blood on the ground. No blood on the body. No blood on anybody who had touched it. As Tricky would say, it seems "obvious" that there would have been blood everywhere if what Beyer and Starr claimed about the size of the hole were true ... especially if Foster had been shot at Marcy Park and the body not moved ... as was claimed by Fiske and Starr.
Starting to experience a little doubt yet, DR?
But there's more.
There's a statement made by emergency medical technician Richard Arthur who told the FBI he noted "what appeared to be a small-caliber bullet hole in Foster's neck on the right side, just under the jaw line about halfway between the ear and the tip of the chin." In fact, four of the rescue workers testified in secret before the Whitewater grand jury that they saw trauma to the side of Foster’s head or neck. Trauma that Beyer, Fiske and Starr never mentioned even though this information was even submitted to Kenneth Starr in a memorandum from Miquel Rodriguez summing up the proceedings of the Whitewater grand jury.
At the FairFax County Morgue, the doctor on duty was Julian Orenstein. In his FBI statement it says he lifted the body in order "to locate and observe the exit wound on the decedent's head." Notice that it doesn't actually say he saw the exit wound ... but you might think he did reading that. But he didn't. Contacted later, he admitted "I never saw one directly." And a copy of the handwritten notes of the FBI interviews, which Christopher Ruddy obtained via a FOIA lawsuit against the Office of the Independent Counsel, does not mention Orenstein trying to locate an exit wound. Apparently, that was added to his statement after the fact ... more tampering by the FBI.
Given all of the above, you'd think the government would want the photos released to stop all these allegations of foul play that are circulating. Clear autopsy photos showing only a wound where the official report claims is a wound would likely do that. But in a recent FOIA ruling, the court has refused to release them, saying the privacy rights of the Foster family outweigh the public's interest in seeing them. Do you know that was the first time that the Supreme Court has ruled that a public figure's privacy rights under the FOIA can be extended after his death to members of his family? Do you know that the US government joined with the Foster family to prevent the release? It seems, they'd rather have these allegations floating about, discrediting the whole government, then clear the matter up by simply releasing a few photos? Any reason to be suspicious, DR?
Next we have the blood work. The drugs and alcohol analysis attached to Beyer's report indicated no drugs or alcohol were detected in Foster's blood. And that specifically included the anti-depressant that Fiske later claimed the FBI found in the blood in later tests. Fiske never released the blood work report detailing the screens employed in the analysis. Starr's office also refused to release the report. A homicide expert, Vernon Geberth, is quoted saying that "In a case like this I would want to test for all sorts of exotic drugs, ones not normally looked for." But did they? Certainly the blood work done by Beyer doesn't match the depression claim by Fiske/Starr. Are we simply to ignore the parts of Beyer's autopsy that don't, DR?
And what about the bullet? Well it was never found. In fact, there was no effort during Beyer's *autopsy* to recover fragments that experts say might identify the type of bullet that was fired to see if it is consistent with the alleged suicide weapon. There were also no bone fragments found at the location where the body was recovered, even though they reportedly sifted the soil. Yet, bone fragments would have to be there if the exit wound were at the top of the skull and 1 by 1 ¼ inch in diameter. Wouldn't you think, DR?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
And speaking of bullets ... where must a bullet come from? A gun. Now this goes beyond the pathologist's report but there are lots of serious questions regarding that gun. Let me just list some since you indicated a desire for a more concise format (I took items from here: http://www.prorev.com/foster.htm ):
You might want to check out the rest of that list, too. There are more than a few suspicious items that I haven't even mentioned so far in this thread. And here's another list: http://www.internet-grocer.net/vfoster.htm . How anyone, given all of that, could believe nothing criminal happened in the Vince Foster case is beyond me. Especially given the demonstrated inability of the doubters on this thread to successfully challenge even ONE of the facts I've listed so far. In my view, this case puts the lie to the claim that this forum is about skepticism and truth.
You might want to check out the rest of that list, too. There are more than a few suspicious items that I haven't even mentioned so far in this thread. And here's another list: http://www.internet-grocer.net/vfoster.htm . How anyone, given all of that, could believe nothing criminal happened in the Vince Foster case is beyond me. Especially given the demonstrated inability of the doubters on this thread to successfully challenge even ONE of the facts I've listed so far. In my view, this case puts the lie to the claim that this forum is about skepticism and truth.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
ROTFLOL!
Well first of all, its easy to claim something is a *conspiracy* website, but it would be far more effective for you to actually show that anything they state about the Foster case (certainly anything I've repeated) is false. I can't help but notice that you WON'T do that ... even when repeatedly challenged to do so.
Second, you obviously don't know ANYTHING about fbicover-up.com. Because if you did, you'd know the author of that website was an eyewitness at Marcy Park. You'd know that for the first time in history, a panel of three judges FORCED a special prosecutor to attach an addendum to his report, written by the author of that website, specifically accusing the OIC of witness intimidation and tampering with evidence. I bet you didn't even bother to glance at the site before making your comment. And I now challenge you to show that ANY claim made by Patrick Knowlton or his attorney on that website is false. Bet you run instead.
I invite you to try and show that the specific facts I stated regarding Starr are false. Bet you run instead.
I stated specifically why the Snopes article on Fosters death is flawed.
You are welcome to show what I said wrong. Bet you run instead.
I invite you to tell us specifically which evidence I've twisted. Bet you run instead.
If you did, you offered no specific criticism of the facts I brought out in that case either. Running?
That's your interpretation, but for the record I clearly didn't do that here.
This thread was specifically started by me to discuss whether the criminality of Hillary on three specific named scandals should be a factor in Obama making her Secretary of State. You could have accepted my statements of fact in the OP regarding those scandals. Statements I'm perfectly willing to defend and have on this thread with not one successful challenge to those facts. But you don't. If any expansion of the discussion has occurred, it's because with broad strokes the naysayers dismissed all allegations against the Clintons. Now I have tried my best to keep this thread focused on the three scandals named in the OP and provide verifiable facts to support my concerns. I've remained on topic. You are the one now waving hands and trying to derail the thread.
SO ... do you have anything SPECIFIC to challenge the facts I've laid out?
If not, I really question your reason for being on this thread.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
This is sounding more and more like it ought to be moved to Conspiracy Theories.
What are they going to find on Vince Foster next? Traces of thermite?
What are they going to find on Vince Foster next? Traces of thermite?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
So I gather you think that Hillary's conversations late at night with her Chief of Staff, Margaret Williams, immediately before and after Williams went to and searched Foster's office were innocent and unrelated to any criminal activity?
Care to explain why Williams then lied about what she did that night while under oath? Or do you believe her when she denied taking anything from Foster's office? In which case, are you accusing the Secret Service agent of lying? And your proof of that? And you believe her when she said that she didn't call Susan Thomases? Even though a senate committee proved otherwise?
Are you accepting the story put out years and years later that the Whitewater records that prosecutors were seeking at the time and which magically showed up in Hillary residence just after the statute of limitations on that case expired were removed from Foster's office several days after he died by Williams and taken to the residence? And even if that were true, do you really think that was done innocently and unconnected to criminal activity? Prosecutors were seeking those documents. Wasn't that obstruction of justice regardless of whether it occurred the night Foster died or several days later? And do you really think that Williams did that without orders from Hillary?
Or how about the memo that shows several of the Clinton staff lied when they claimed Hillary had no role in the handling of the torn *suicide* note? If it's true as suggested by the memo that Hillary's concern was the reason the note wasn't immediately turned over to the FBI, isn't that obstruction of an ongoing investigation?
And regarding Filegate, are you claiming that the witnesses who testified (under oath) that Hillary was the mastermind behind that illegal activity were lying? Any proof of that? Can you tell us why Hillary lied about hiring Livingstone? Because apparently she did since even Livingstone now admits this. Or do you think that Filegate was not a criminal activity, despite the fact that most of the files were republican and the information was being loaded onto Whitehouse and DNC computers?
And let's not forget Chinagate. Why was Maggie Williams, Hillary's Chief of Staff, accepting illegal campaign contributions in the Whitehouse? Or don't you think that was illegal ... even though Johnny Chung was prosecuted and convicted for doing it? And do you claim that Nolanda Hill was lying when she testified under oath that Ron Brown told her Hillary conceived of the illegal scheme to sell trade mission seats? Do you have any proof of that? Can you cite any instance where Hill was found to be lying in any of her other testimony?
It's time to show you are a skeptic, RandFan
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Now Tricky, you know full well that is not how I debunked the last person to make that claim. My posts have contained considerably more details. I know you are unhappy that I took your challenge regarding the depression claim apart, but must you misrepresent my statements on this forum?
Ed: Oh wait. I see you posted that before I debunked your challenge so I guess that makes your misrepresentation of the fact and source filled way I have dealt with naysayers ok.
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,955
Meteorites!!!!!! Gigantic balls of STEEEEEEEL!!!!!!!!What are they going to find on Vince Foster next? Traces of thermite?
random moment aside... *Ahem*
I'm not happy with the Clintonesque administration though, you can talk about policy for better or for worse but my position is if you promise to bring about change I don't see much change if the cabinet looking a lot like the Clinton era. It's starting to sound to me like same policies, different president. And it goes against that checklist Obama sat out as the criteria for applying for one of the cabinet spots... NY times article. (and for the record I don't expect anyone to be squeaky clean in politics, but some of his choices come across to me as relatively weak enforcement of those standards)
That's my take... include some people that have "must-haves" to work with policy, but the net change from Clinton to Bush and back to clintonesque seems at the surface anyway to be very little change
Last edited: