The Death of Vince Foster - What Really Happened? (1995)

[TraneWreck]

Why? Do you honestly think Starr was above being coopted by the Clintons? ...

And this is why I don't give a crap about the rest of your babble. I have a good feel for your capabilities based on the many threads about economics in which you've majestically disgraced yourself. You're welcome to think that my desire to avoide engaging you on point by point issues is evidence that you're position is strong, but someone would have had to be 1) unborn or 2) in a coma in the 90's to make the claim you made above.

If this is the launching point of your conspiracy theory, you might want to start paddling back to shore. That's one hell of a leaky boat.

 

[BeAChooser]

Ostensibly, the Republicans had a far greater motive for finding Clinton guilty of murder than they had for covering it up so presumably the conspiracy theorist has to come up with a reason.

Here again, you aren't thinking like a real skeptic. You certainly aren't thinking like a politician. Ask yourself why Obama isn't going after Bush, given all the crimes it's claimed he committed? Perhaps because Obama didn't want to hold accomplishing his agenda hostage to the divisiveness that would result if he had? The same logic applied to Bush and the republicans. In fact, Bush told the American public he was going to "move on" even before he was elected. His supporters (like those at Free Republic) agreed, saying that mainstream media, as high as they regarded (and still regard) their idol Clinton, would have attacked Bush no end had he gone after the "gates". And he wouldn't have gotten any of his conservative agenda passed. Even so, I think he should have investigated and prosecuted because if he had, we might not have been saddled with Obama and so many Clinton administration members that are in positions of power right now.

And who knows, as cosy as Bush and the Clintons have seemed at times since then, perhaps there is even more to the story. James and Mochtar Riady, Indonesian billionaires and ex-employers of John Huang of Chinagate fame, were longtime friends and financial supporters of Clinton and had a long relationship with Chinese military intelligence. They were implicated in massive campaign finance violations here in the US, giving millions illegally to the Clinton and DNC campaign coffers. James Riady visited the White House over a dozen times. His visits were scheduled through Mark Middleton. 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. Nevertheless, Riady still got a "deal" from Bush. In fact, Riady stood up in a court of law in California after the plea bargain was agreed, and told the judge, under penalty of jail if he lied, that he had not gotten the millions in illegal campaign contributions he made to the Clintons and DNC back even though Clinton and DNC officials had publically claimed they had returned the contributions. The judge asked the prosecutor if this was true and he replied that to the best of his knowledge it was. Yet the Bush administration never investigated or prosecuted what would appear to have been a slam dunk against Clinton and the DNC.

Then there is the fact is that in 2001, Chairman Dan Burton of the Committee on Government Reform wanted to examine Mark Middleton's bank records with regards to Chinagate. Recall that Middleton took the 5th when questioned about this by Judicial Watch, and the Reno DOJ let him skate. He was the highest Clinton Administration official to plead the 5th in Chinagate. Well Burton wanted to review the Janet Reno DOJ documents explaining why she chose to not prosecute Middleton. President Bush invoked executive privilege to prevent that. For whatever reason, you really have to wonder what's going on inside our government and inside our two major political parties.

It's fine to question the legitimacy of certain conspiracy theories and for Aaronovitch to highlight the tactics Truther's use, but it is wrong to lump all accusations in the same pot and use Truther techniques yourself to dismiss what appear to be valid conspiracy concerns. If you continue doing that, you may eventually see the Truther's fears about government realized because corruption in government will be allowed to increase to some critical point. I just pray we haven't already reached that point.

 

[BeAChooser]

I have little doubt that there are some details which the investigative team got right - unsurprisingly BAC doesn't mention anything about that

You are free to point those details out. That's not my job. I'm not the one defending the investigative team. And I'm sure they were honest about some details. But clearly not the ones that matter.

, nor about how all the details, not just these discrepancies, are accounted for in a theory involving murder.

LOL! I'm not quite sure what you are claiming?

If an exhumation and autopsy of Ron Brown's body were to find evidence of a bullet wound (and it could, given modern forensics, even after a nearly two decades in the ground), then NOTHING you could say would dispute the fact that Brown was murdered … whatever the details of how it occurred or who was involved. So it seems to me that since half a dozen, highly skilled pathologists (some of the best in the country) concluded that the wound and x-rays had the characteristics of a bullet wound and that Brown should have been autopsied, he should have been autopsied. Everything that has been speculated about or demanded in the way of evidence by the "it was just a accidental plane crash" side of this ongoing debate is just spin and noise intended SOLELY to keep that autopsy from happening.

Now in Foster's case, his body was cremated. But there are supposed to be photos of Vince Foster's head and upper torso. Unsuccessful attempts have been made to get those photos released to the public. If a photo were released, say the one that Starr's top investigator claimed existed, which clearly showed a bullet wound in Foster's neck, rather than in the back of his head as claimed in the official story, it would be a fair conclusion that Foster was murdered and a coverup ensued. The truth is the government could make all these allegations go away … place them in the same trashbin as 911 Truther allegations, if they'd just release the photos and they didn't show a neck wound. So I can see absolutely no justifiable reason they haven't done that. It's certainly not reasonable to claim that's because Lisa Foster doesn't want it to happen, when she is clearly implicated by the known evidence in a possible coverup. Nor can allowing these allegations to persist be good for the country or reputation of the United States.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Draw your own conclusion from this ... but be careful because the conclusion you draw will say a lot about your skepticism. This is a litmus test.

Just as a side note - statements like this aren't helping your argument at all.

LOL! Does it make you nervous to hear it put that way?

Intelligent people can disagree about facts and their interpretation

But that's the point. You aren't disagreeing about the facts. Your side is ignoring and even distorting the facts. And people like Aaronovitch have been caught trying to discredit the allegations by taking a small fraction of the facts and then misrepresenting them. Your side is acting like 9/11 Truthers, if you ask me.

Besides which, if you really have such strong evidence on your side, why even bother saying such things? If it's really true, it'll be obvious from your argument, and nothing further will be necessary.

Oh I think they are more than obvious. The unwillingness and inability of those who dispute the Foster and Brown allegations to actually debate the facts in an honest manner points to that obviousness. And the more you act like Truthers, the more obvious it becomes.

 

[BeAChooser]

And what makes this Foster thing doubly bizarre is that Kenneth Starr was monomaniacally focused on destroying Clinton.

I think a lot of people forgot that the whole Lewinsky debacle began during an investigation of "Whitewater." What did the chubby BJ-machine have to do with a decades old land deal in Arkansas that the Clintons lost money on?

Yet Starr, who forced Clinton to answer questions about his sex life under oath in that same Whitewater query, is somehow covering up a murder for him?

It's baffling.

Already addressed above.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Why? Do you honestly think Starr was above being coopted by the Clintons? ...

And this is why I don't give a crap about the rest of your babble.

Bet you didn't read anything beyond that.

You're welcome to think that my desire to avoide engaging you on point by point issues is evidence that you're position is strong, but someone would have had to be 1) unborn or 2) in a coma in the 90's to make the claim you made above.

Notice how they run, when they decide to run, folks?

I can't tell you how many times I've watched this happen in these debates.

Clearly TW is yet another who is failing the Ron Brown/Vince Foster skeptic's litmus test.

He's in the wrong forum.

 

[dudalb]

I only made it through the first three.

It's interesting that a professional athlete, a member of the Denver Broncos, recently commited suicide because of depression. He was at practice the day before and no one knew anything was wrong.

If, at any point, you evince "people around him didn't notice he was depressed," your position is destined for ridicule.

In general, it seems that almost all of your points---I scanned a few more---rely on eyewitnesses. I immediately ignore any conspiracy theory that relies on the observational skills of humans.

To be fair, the signs of depression are often pretty damn subtle.

 

[Lyrandar]

You are free to point those details out. That's not my job. I'm not the one defending the investigative team. And I'm sure they were honest about some details. But clearly not the ones that matter.

I don't think so. Your argument would be much more convincing if you bothered to take note of what the other side says.

You don't seem to care how the other side regards these discrepancies or how they explain them. You don't necessarily have to, but right now, from a quick look of your posts, I get the strong sense that I only have one side of the argument. On top of that, that's one side of an argument coming from a poster who gives a strong sense of being very devoted to a particular ideological view, possibly to the point of distorting their view of literally everything. I'm not going to commit to any belief based on that.

I will say this though - I'm not willing to commit to the opposite belief, that this is just another crazy theory with no evidence, either. I simply don't know enough; the only major source of information I have besides you is a brief blurb off Wikipedia.

LOL! I'm not quite sure what you are claiming?

Mostly, I'm saying that proving the official story false and proving that a murder occurred are not necessarily the same thing. And both are quite a distance away from proving a specific person or group was behind murdering someone.

LOL! Does it make you nervous to hear it put that way?

No, not really. I don't really care what you think of me. I'm just informing you that making stupidly arrogant statements like that just makes everything you say seem that much more suspect.

Oh I think they are more than obvious. The unwillingness and inability of those who dispute the Foster and Brown allegations to actually debate the facts in an honest manner points to that obviousness. And the more you act like Truthers, the more obvious it becomes.

That doesn't seem to actually address my point that if that's true, then you wouldn't need to actually say it.

 

[TraneWreck]

To be fair, the signs of depression are often pretty damn subtle.

I agree 100%, that was why I discussed the Broncos' receiver that committed suicide. He was deeply depressed and no one around him realized it.

That's why submitting evidence of the form, "None of Foster's family said they noticed anything wrong," is so misguided.

BAC wants to argue, among other silly stuff, that because his family saw no signs of the depression Foster must have been murdered.

 

[TraneWreck]

Bet you didn't read anything beyond that.



Notice how they run, when they decide to run, folks?

I can't tell you how many times I've watched this happen in these debates.

Clearly TW is yet another who is failing the Ron Brown/Vince Foster skeptic's litmus test.

He's in the wrong forum.

The aimless vapidity of your arguments as well as your track record is more than enough to satisfy me that there's no reason to discuss this issue.

 

[BeAChooser]

To be fair, the signs of depression are often pretty damn subtle.

Not when it's "clinical" depression as Starr and company insisted. This link gives the symptoms and diagnotic criteria of "clinical" depression, what it also refers to as "Major Depressive Disorder":

http://counsellingresource.com/distress/mood-disorders/depression-symptoms.html

It requires in a "Major Depressive Episode". And here, according to the same source, are the DSM criteria for Major Depressive Episode:

http://counsellingresource.com/distress/mood-disorders/depressive-episode.html

A. Five (or more) of the following symptoms have been present during the same 2-week period and represent a change from previous functioning; at least one of the symptoms is either (1) depressed mood or (2) loss of interest or pleasure.

Note: Do not include symptoms that are clearly due to a general medical condition, or mood-incongruent delusions or hallucinations.

1. depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day, as indicated by either subjective report (e.g., feels sad or empty) or observation made by others (e.g., appears tearful). Note: In children and adolescents, can be irritable mood.

2. markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities most of the day, nearly every day (as indicated by either subjective report or observation made by others)

3. significant weight loss when not dieting or weight gain (e.g., a change of more than 5% of body weight in a month), a decrease or increase in appetite nearly every day. Note: In children, consider failure to make weight gains.

4. insomnia or hypersomnia nearly every day

5. psychomotor agitation or retardation nearly every day (observable by others, not merely subjective feeling of restlessness or being slowed down)

6. fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day

7. feelings of worthlessness or inappropriate guilt (which may be delusional) nearly every day (not merely self-reproach or guilt about being sick)

8. diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, nearly every day (either by subjective account or as observed by others)

9. recurrent thoughts of death (not just fear of dying), recurrent suicidal ideation without a specific plan, or a suicide attempt or a specific plan for committing suicide

The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Now Foster admittedly had insomnia but he doesn't come anywhere near meeting ANY of the other criteria according to the statement made by his closest business associates, friends and family in the days and week after his death. They ALL said they saw none of these symptoms, except for insomnia which only his wife mentioned.

It was a full week after the death, following a meeting in the Whitehouse where Lisa Foster and Sheila Anthony were present (along with their lawyers), that Lisa, Sheila and Sheila's spouse started claiming Foster had been depressed. Given all the above facts, only the most gullible, non-skeptical person could be convinced that Foster had "clinical" depression.

 

[BeAChooser]

Your argument would be much more convincing if you bothered to take note of what the other side says.

I think this thread and all the other Foster threads on this forum (see links below) very clearly show I have taken note of what the other side says. It is my opponents who have been consistently playing the game of ignoring fact after fact after fact in debates. And they've done it in the Ron Brown case as well.

You don't seem to care how the other side regards these discrepancies or how they explain them.

You don't know me very well, do you. Go look at the threads I link below and you will find that I address every single claim made by my opponents about every single piece of evidence they offer. And you will find sources backing up the claims of fact I've made. And responses each time someone challenges those claims (just like I'm doing here on this thread). In comparison, I'm still waiting for ANY of my opponents to rationally explain the facts I've supplied without a mountain of handwaving and dishonesty. Or often even with a mountain of such gunk.

And go ahead. Let's see you try in the examples I've supplied already or that you'll find on the threads I link below. I'd love to hear your "innocent" explanations. But don't insult my intelligence by trying to suggest they are all just mistakes and incompetence. Because I've already pointed out here why that is silly … in a post, by the way, that is apparently being ignored just like all the rest. Also, don't hand wave and just ignore the facts because you don't like the media outlet that brought them to our attention. It's dishonest.

And I actually know how the other side regards these discrepancies (and, by the way, I consider that a dishonest description since many of them are clearly lies) … with great fear. Because a simple act … an exhumation and autopsy of Ron Brown's body, or the release of the photos of Foster's head and neck, could bring down the whole democrat house of cards. And discredit some republicans too.

right now, from a quick look of your posts, I get the strong sense that I only have one side of the argument.

Perhaps you should do more than take a "quick look" at what I've posted here and in all the other threads concerning Foster and Brown? Because I have indeed provided what both sides claim as evidence … and shown that one side has been wholly dishonest. I'm not going to spend the time repeating everything that's already been discussed repeatedly. Now I've already linked some other threads in the Brown matter. Below are similar links for the Foster case:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140659&page=4 (starting at post #132)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129329

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125813

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618

You might also want to read what you find here:

http://www.fbicover-up.com/

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-the-independent-counsels-final-report/

http://www.aim.org/publications/special_reports/2003/jul15.html

That ought to be enough get you started and see what's really going on here.

I'm not going to commit to any belief based on that.

That's fine. Go read the many threads where I've gone over this issue time and time again … with sources listed … and come back and tell me what you find. And if you want to challenge one of the points or claims you encounter on one of those threads, by all means do so. I'll respond, like I always have on this issue.

Mostly, I'm saying that proving the official story false and proving that a murder occurred are not necessarily the same thing.

Well I gave you two simple events that could indeed prove the official story not only false but make it almost a certainty that murder, and a cover up, was involved.

And both are quite a distance away from proving a specific person or group was behind murdering someone.

True. But every murder investigation starts by determining first that a murder occurred. And determining that one did is often the result of looking at inconsistencies … discrepancies … in the stories of the various people surrounding the event. Then once murder is confirmed, you focus on who exactly was involved, their roles, how exactly they did it, and who helped them try to hide it.

I'm just informing you that making stupidly arrogant statements like that just makes everything you say seem that much more suspect.

Hopefully my smilies don't bother you too?

That doesn't seem to actually address my point that if that's true, then you wouldn't need to actually say it.

Why that sounds like a "truism".

 

[BeAChooser]

That's why submitting evidence of the form, "None of Foster's family said they noticed anything wrong," is so misguided.

LOL! And which doctors can you name that agree that Foster had clinical depression? Certainly his personal physician disagrees. Show us ANY evidence that Foster met the criteria defined for clinical depression. List the 5 symptoms he was experiencing and prove it with sourced material. I bet you can't do it.

BAC wants to argue, among other silly stuff, that because his family saw no signs of the depression Foster must have been murdered.

First, you are continuing to argue dishonestly. I haven't only maintained the family saw no signs. I've argued neither did anyone else, citing more than dozen examples of associates who certainly would have been in a position to see some signs. The ONLY people to claim they saw signs of significant depression only did so after a meeting they attended in the Whitehouse a week after the death. I wonder if anyone has noticed yet that none of you want to go anywhere near a discussion of that meeting. You are all avoiding it like it's poison. As you well should.

You also have things turned around. It is your side who is dependent on depression. Foster could still have been murdered even if were depressed. Indeed, depression might cause others concern that he might let some cat out of the bag (and, God knows, Foster knew lots of cats because he was not only a Whitehouse attorney but the personal lawyer of the Clintons). Starr's entire case for claiming Foster committed suicide rests on the claim he was clinically depressed. Which is clearly untrue.

 

[BeAChooser]

The aimless vapidity of your arguments as well as your track record is more than enough to satisfy me that there's no reason to discuss this issue.

See how they run, Lyrandar?

 

[angrysoba]

Here again, you aren't thinking like a real skeptic...


It's fine to question the legitimacy of certain conspiracy theories and for Aaronovitch to highlight the tactics Truther's use, but it is wrong to lump all accusations in the same pot and use Truther techniques yourself to dismiss what appear to be valid conspiracy concerns. If you continue doing that, you may eventually see the Truther's fears about government realized because corruption in government will be allowed to increase to some critical point. I just pray we haven't already reached that point.

As it happens Be A Chooser, and as I said, I am not that familiar with the Foster case so I am not commenting on that one except to repeat that what Aaronovitch is doing in his book is showing how conspiracy theorists form their theories and that they are inherently weak because they imagine the less likely to be more likely or are completely unable to discern the difference between degrees of likelihood making every assertion to be just as likely as the next and they do so usually without evidence but with lots of intriguing, maybe even ingenious, speculation.

From what I have scrolled through it appears you are displaying a lot of the characteristics of those conspiracy theorists because your theory seems to assume that:

Bill Clinton had his (best?) friend killed and co-opted his most bitter enemy Ken Starr! in covering it up.

is just as likely, if not more so, than:

Vince Foster killed himself because he was depressed.

Your theory also seems to employ birther tactics of, "Why don't they just release the autopsy photos for anyone and everyone to see?" as if there were some duty to satisfy the curiosity of any and every person who entertained musings of a highly unlikely nature. What's more, when it is apparently pointed out that his wife understandably doesn't want them to do something like that, you pull the classic conspiracy theory maneouvre of surmising that she could be in on it too.

Anyway, you most certainly have not piqued my curiosity in the case but rather killed it in utero.

And I should point out that you seem to have completely missed the boat if you are saying Aaronovitch is on a mission to defend Clinton. That remark about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" is probably being used ironically given that he mocks the Clintons earlier in the book for using that phrase.

I also seem to remember that one of Aaronovitch's mates, particularly Christopher Hitchens, who went out of his way to mount a vitriolic campaign against Bill Clinton accusing him of being a war criminal and a rapist and various other things but, unless I am much mistaken, I don't think even he accused Clinton of murdering Vince Foster.

I must admit I haven't actually read most of what you've written so I may have misrepresented you. Please be sure to point out where I have if that's the case.

 

[Lyrandar]

Perhaps you should do more than take a "quick look" at what I've posted here and in all the other threads concerning Foster and Brown? Because I have indeed provided what both sides claim as evidence … and shown that one side has been wholly dishonest. I'm not going to spend the time repeating everything that's already been discussed repeatedly. Now I've already linked some other threads in the Brown matter. Below are similar links for the Foster case:

I admit I deserved that; I assumed a bit more than I should have. I remain unconvinced that you have conclusively proved one side dishonest, but that is primarily based on my opinions of the debaters involved in this thread which LashL put us in, since I lack the time to check all the sources. If you wish to castigate me for that, go ahead.

If it's any consolation, I'm not going to argue for or make any claims about either side of this debate any longer until I'm prepared to do it properly.

Hopefully my smilies don't bother you too?

I don't recall ever saying I was bothered. I could care less how you express yourself or what you use to do so. I'm just telling you what impression I'm getting from what you say.

 

[BeAChooser]

To angrysoba …

I'm going to start by quoting what you said at the end your post to me:

I must admit I haven't actually read most of what you've written

I would never dream of responding to a poster without having read their posts. But Truther's seem to do that all the time.

You say conspiracy theorists

form their theories and that they are inherently weak because they imagine the less likely to be more likely or are completely unable to discern the difference between degrees of likelihood making every assertion to be just as likely as the next and they do so usually without evidence but with lots of intriguing, maybe even ingenious, speculation.

Well contrary to what you seem to think, I don't fall in that category. I fully understand the meaning of "likelihood". I even dealt with it for a living. I also understand the importance of presenting evidence (facts) that are supported by sourced material. That's why you'll find in most of my posts I include links. And you will find that is not I who is now speculating but YOU. For example, you next write …

From what I have scrolled through it appears you are displaying a lot of the characteristics of those conspiracy theorists because your theory seems to assume that:

Quote:
Bill Clinton had his (best?) friend killed and co-opted his most bitter enemy Ken Starr! in covering it up.

Go back and read my posts. You will find that I never have said that "Bill Clinton" had anyone killed. I've only stated the evidence suggests SOMEONE associated with the Clintons killed Foster. And that the Clinton administration, for whatever reason, then covered up that murder. And I've presented a mountain of facts to support those assertions. In contrast, you haven't proven that Ken Starr was really a bitter enemy or a best friend of Bill Clinton. You are simply speculating because you can't directly deal with the many actual facts I've pointed out. Or their clear implication.

Quote:
Vince Foster killed himself because he was depressed.

Like the fact that there is no reliable evidence that Foster was depressed. Again, you are merely regurgitating what Starr claimed, which I've already proven is absolutely false.

Your theory also seems to employ birther tactics of, "Why don't they just release the autopsy photos for anyone and everyone to see?" as if there were some duty to satisfy the curiosity of any and every person who entertained musings of a highly unlikely nature.

LOL! It's patently dishonest to try and discredit this case by linking me with another that is far less credible … just like Aaronovitch was trying to link it with the silly Clinton Body Count. You do that because you can't actually deal with the facts that have been brought out about the wound and it's location. In Truther-like fashion, you are the one ignoring 95% of eyewitnesses and cherry picking to believe only what 5% say, even after I've presented evidence suggesting they are liars and not reliable at all … evidence you've then just ignored, too. So don't point your fingers and think you will get away with claiming *I'm* the one acting like a birther or Truther. I'll throw it right back at you and go on demanding you deal with the facts.

What's more, when it is apparently pointed out that his wife understandably doesn't want them to do something like that, you pull the classic conspiracy theory maneouvre of surmising that she could be in on it too.

By all means, explain to us the innocent explanation for her changing her story about her husband's depression a week after his death … after a meeting in the Whitehouse where she and her lawyer were in attendance. It is quite conceivable that for one reason or another, she might now be cooperating with the coverup. You simply don't know what occurred at that meeting or what pressure was put on her and her sister at that time or since. Or what threats were made. We do know however that the Clintons were not above putting pressure on people and issuing threats. I suggest you go read what David Schippers had to say about that subject. You do know who he was, don't you? Or are you ignorant about that as well?

And I should point out that you seem to have completely missed the boat if you are saying Aaronovitch is on a mission to defend Clinton.

LOL! Well all I see him doing in the book is defend Clinton and his administration. Point out a case where that's not true?

That remark about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" is probably being used ironically given that he mocks the Clintons earlier in the book for using that phrase.

Actually, it's not. There's a whole section on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy where Aaronovitch says things like:

The phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy" was widely ridiculed in the media, some of whose members doubtless felt themselves accused by Mrs. Clinton. But was she right?

And then he goes on to make the case she was, pointing out what he claims was the role of Richard Mellon Scaife, AIM, Reed Irvine, Ruddy, the Arkansas Project, The American Spectator, and others in attacking the Clintons and what he claims were their connections to one another. His only "mocking" of the term is that it wasn't really a conspiracy because these people operated out in the open. He said "this is a dark art at work, but hardly a conspiracy."

 

[angrysoba]

So in short, someone murdered Vince Foster and the Clinton Administration, Ken Starr and Vince Foster's wife covered it up.

Okay, it might be true.

 

[CORed]

So in short, someone murdered Vince Foster and the Clinton Administration, Ken Starr and Vince Foster's wife covered it up.

Okay, it might be true.

Apparently Ken Starr covered up the murder so it wouldn't interfere with his efforts to nail Clinton for lying about a blow job.

 

[CORed]

....
Does that change the fact that the handwritten interview form shows that Lisa Foster said her husband was "fighting prescription" (other testimony indicates he was afraid of becoming addicted to regular sleeping pills) but the typewritten version of that form in the Starr report quotes her saying he was "fighting depression"? A fact you avoid discussing. The implications of which you won't discuss.
....

The most logical implication, since "fighting prescription" doesn't even make sense is that "fighting prescription" was a mistake in the original transcript which got corrected later.

 

[BeAChooser]

The most logical implication, since "fighting prescription" doesn't even make sense

LOL! You're failing the litmus test. You only display the typical signs of D. E. S. P. E. R. A. T. I. O. N. that I always encounter at this stage of the debate. You are only acting like a Truther, CORed, in your inability to deal with the facts.

The phrase "fighting prescription" makes perfect since Lisa Foster and Vince's doctor both said at the time that Vince was concerned about becoming addicted to the prescription sleeping pills he had been taking. Here's what the FBI interview notes said she said: "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. FOSTER would get up in the morning and say to LISA FOSTER that he had not slept at all."

What doesn't make any sense is your claim the agent meant to write down "fighting depression". Lisa had told the investigators the night of his death (when the "fighting prescription" notation was made) that her husband showed no signs of depression. Here are some specific quotes from the Senate depositions and testimony of the Park Police regarding those interviews:

One of the last things I got from Mrs. Foster - I asked her was he - did you see this coming, was [sic] there any signs of this. ... everyone said no, no, no, no, he was fine. This is out of the blue. … snip … 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."

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

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.

Here's a portion of what Dr. Watkin's told the FBI shortly after Foster's death, according to FBI interview notes:

He did not think that Foster was significantly depressed nor had Foster given the impression that he was 'in crisis.' From what Foster told him, Foster's condition sounded mild and situational. . . . Foster was not one to come to Watkins with stress-related problems. . . . Lisa [Foster's widow] told him that they had gone away and had a nice weekend on July 17-18. . . . He had the distinct impression . . . that Lisa was taken completely by surprise by this."

NOTHING suggests Lisa thought Vince was "fighting depression". So from this, we can conclude that you need to fight DESPERATION, rather than succumb to Truther-like behavior.