Bill Clinton made $75 million from speeches

[BeAChooser]

All these "facts", easily accessible to anyone with a computer. Ten years later how many attornies general, federal prosecutors, and district attornies have there been (of all political stripes)? Thousands. Yet not one has bothered with any of this despite how often we are told how obvious, frequent and horrible the Clinton's crimes were.

Next let's add the thousands of media types over the past ten years who also passed on exposing these crimes, despite the fact a significant percentage were not of Clinton's political leanings. I guess no one is interested in winning a Pulitizer anymore.

Lastly, let's add all the American-haters from other countries who could easily embarrass the United States with all these very easily proveable crimes. Yet none does.

I guess one of two things are going on here. There is a worldwide conspiracy to protect the Clintons from prosecution of the multitude of crimes they have committed, or a few right-wing kooks live in fear of a boogie man that just isn't there.

LOL! I see you are still struggling to deal with the actual facts. Like the existance of a note that even the government's own expert now calls a forgery. Like the expert opinion of every pathologist that hasn't been proven a liar in this case. Like the proven lies of the government to the families of the victims (the letter from Peters, for example). Like the statement of Starr's lead investigator about the Foster investigation being a sham. Like the photos and Park Police statements that proves the oven mitt evidence was fabricated by Starr. Like the fact that Starr lied about returning the FBI files to the FBI. And I could go on and on and on.

But there's no point doing so with you. Not with someone who has such a closed mind that, without spending even five minutes looking at the material and arguments that prove the government scenario is full of lies and unresolved questions, steps into threads and regurgitates the government's false claims and then simply refuses to debate any of the material that was provided showing their falsehood. Not with someone who when confronted with the facts, then runs from the thread.

Here, folks can watch you do just that in a previous Brown/Foster discussion: the exchange in posts #115, #119, #137, #141, #142, #144, #161, and #165 of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618. And that's not the only thread where you've has done that sort of thing. Here's another thread regarding the Ron Brown allegations where you did that: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90750 (read the exchange in posts #24, #45, and #46). You ran from my final response where I linked you to numerous sources on the Brown allegations … obviously not bothering to spend even 5 minutes studying them.

And in another instance (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3925899&postcount=161 ) you tried to claim I was disrespecting the dead when I observed that a few other passengers on the Brown plane were themselves implicated in illegal activities during the Clinton administration and that others were big time Democrats. I guess by your logic that made the expert opinions of the pathologists and photographer, the clear lies of the government (as in the Peter's letter and Dickerson's statements), and all the other facts in the case suggesting foul play, totally irrelevant. And you ran from that debate too when I responded.

Here's yet another post by you on the subject: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2902044&postcount=105 . One that makes a similar argument to your current one. And my response to you was this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2902147&postcount=106

Originally Posted by Alt+F4
Thousands of persons have served in the United States Congress over the past eleven years and has any of them used their power to investigate this matter?

You are still trying to avoid the heart of this issue ... what the pathologists and photographer said and what the photos of the x-ray show.

It doesn't matter what congressmen did or didn't do because NONE of them is a trained pathologist nor have any of them named a credible pathologist who advised them the evidence shows Brown died by blunt force trauma and didn't need an autopsy.

Congressmen ignore lots of things for lots of reasons. I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to guess the motivations of congressmen in this case. All I really need address in this case is what the REAL experts in this case had to say ... almost unanimously say, I should add.

By the way, here is what Congress had to say about Ron Brown at his death:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n25_v89/ai_18260213/

Notice there is not one word about the fact that he was under investigation by literally everybody at the time of his death. There is not one word about the fact that his wife and son had already been indicted. There is not word about the Special Prosecutor who was investigating him or the fact that he was about to be indicted for a long list of crimes which was only growing longer as time passed. So I wouldn't put much weight in whether congressmen did anything or didn't. Congressmen on the whole are basically interested in one thing. Remaining congressmen. In this case, clearly no one wanted to rock the boat. Some might even have had good reasons not to rock the boat. Perhaps skeletons in their own closet. Because one thing is for sure ... if this were pursued things would get very messy very fast. With a charge this serious, George Stephanopoulos' warning about Clinton employing a strategy of mutual assured destruction would have become fact. This could have brought the whole government down. And that's really why I don't think anyone wanted to go near it.

Now if you want the real story of Ron Brown's activities before his death, I suggest you read Cashill's book. You will be shocked at the corruption he was involved in up to his neck. But then most congressmen are corrupt in one way or another.

And you ran from responding to that post, too.

I hope everyone can see the pattern here.

And now you are trying another variation of that same argument.

Well I'd respond the same way.

It doesn't matter what attorneys, prosecutors, and media types did or didn't do because NONE of them is a trained pathologist nor have any of them named a credible pathologist who advised them the evidence shows Brown died by blunt force trauma and didn't need an autopsy. Furthermore, these people may ignore this for lots of reasons. More than half of them are democrats … which is all the reason they seem to need to defend Clinton and ignore the obvious. Some of them are move-on republicans like Bush Sr was. Some are just lazy. Some are so busy they don't have time to get the facts from the internet … they depend on the dishonest mainstream media. They depend on a false sense of authority being the voice of truth. I'm not going to spend time trying to guess the motivation of the rest. All I really need address in this case is what the REAL experts in this case had to say ... almost unanimously say, I should add. The experts you AND THEY are clearly still ignoring.

 

[A'isha]

BAC, I'm still having trouble finding where Gormley's December 11, 1997 interview on BET (the one where he backtracks on his views on Ron Brown's head wound) is mentioned before the transcript attached to Judicial Watch's Feburary 12, 1998 petition.

Since you've studied the Ron Brown case so exhaustively, can you help me out here? And for once, I'm not being sarcastic...I'm honestly curious to know, since so far it hasn't appeared in places where it would seem like it ought to have been mentioned, but obviously it had to come from somewhere.

Even I don't believe Klayman and Judicial Watch invented it out of whole cloth, and I find it hard to believe that it was never talked about in the month between the date of the interview's broadcast and the date Judicial Watch mentioned it in their petition filing. EDIT: Especially given the amount of attention the African-American activist and political communities gave to the Ron Brown case during that time period.

 

[BeAChooser]

Hmm...I'm running into a problem regarding that Gromley interview.

Maybe it would help if you spelled his name right?

However, I'm looking over Newsmax's archive of Ruddy stories, WND stories, press releases, and other articles related to the Ron Brown case, and I'm unable to find any contemporaneous mention of this interview.

Then you must be blind.

Here's a Ruddy story, dated December 17, 1998, that mentions it:

http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/17/32921

Last week, appearing on BET Tonight, a national black cable network show hosted by Tavis Smiley, Gormley admitted that a photograph and lateral X-ray of Brown's head - both of which have been published in the Tribune-Review - indeed prove the skull had been penetrated and that Brown's brain was visible.

Here's another article, this by Carl Limbaucher, dated January 12, 1998:

http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/12/220457

But still, the press managed to keep a lid on all this by confining reports to their gossip pages - or more often, not reporting the news at all. Reluctant to pursue the story in the first place, reporters and editors seemed only too happy to take their cue from White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, who on Dec. 17 angrily warned reporters he'd answer no further questions about the Brown case.

But that particular media strategy began to unravel last Monday, when Rev. Jesse Jackson finally addressed the concerns of Waters, Mfume, Dick Gregory and others. When asked by WLIB's Gary Byrd if he supported their efforts, Jackson stated emphatically: "Indeed we do. There is everything to be gained from pursuing an investigation." Jackson also explained that he'd seen a television debate on the Brown case which only heightened his anxiety.

The program Jackson likely viewed was one broadcast on BET three weeks ago, hosted by Tavis Smiley. During the show, Chris Ruddy and Washington radio host Joe Madison had argued the case with Col. William Gormley and Col. Michael Dickerson, two top AFIP officials who insist the Brown death was properly investigated. Dickerson and Gormley were apparently less than convincing. An unscientific poll taken after the debate showed 75% of those responding believed Brown had been murdered. No wonder Jackson could hold his tongue no longer.

And, ultimately, you're still ignoring the fact that the JW petition was submitted to a court and that it's a violation of law to knowingly provide a court with false information. Perhaps you are suggesting that the submittal in question is bogus. That there was no submittal. Is that what you are claiming? Because if not, then logically JW submitted a transcript of the interview and it said what he claimed. Otherwise the court would have reprimanded him. But they didn't, not as far as I can tell. Neither did Pearson. You're free to provide some proof they did.

 

[A'isha]

Thank you. Is there any mention anywhere of when the interview was recorded, as opposed to when it was broadcast? As I noted earlier, if Gormley gave the interview the same day it was broadcast, he'd have run afoul of the gag or instituted that day, and I'm curious if he avoid any penalties whatsoever, was reprimanded at all, or actually gave the interview before the gag order.

Though you're barking up the wrong tree when you suggest that a lawyer can get into big trouble by providing a court with false information. Or else Orly Taitz has just been extremely lucky.

EDIT: Though in your second link, it states that Ruddy was also on the same BET show that Gormley was. He didn't exactly make hay from Gormley's admission in his later articles. In fact, Gormley's admission is barely mentioned at all, in favor of focusing on what the other pathologists and Janowski had to say.

 

[BenBurch]

Should be easy enough to prove, BAC. Contact BET and ask for the air check.

 

[A'isha]

I'm not actually doubting that the BET interview exists. I do, however, doubt that it was as dramatic and backtrack-y (is that a word?) as it's made out to be. For instance, in the two pre-2/12/98 links BAC provided, Ruddy stated specifically that while Gormley was thrown off a bit, he nevertheless reiterated his stance that Brown's wound wasn't caused by a gunshot (and noted Gormley said it had been a while since he'd examined the body). Limbaucher didn't even mention Gormley's backtracking, however slight, saying only "Chris Ruddy and Washington radio host Joe Madison had argued the case with Col. William Gormley and Col. Michael Dickerson, two top AFIP officials who insist the Brown death was properly investigated. Dickerson and Gormley were apparently less than convincing."

Further reinforcing the lack of a "smoking gun" revelatory nature of Gormley's words during the interview is the fact that neither Ruddy nor Limbaucher seemed to attach any big significance to Gormley's words at the interview (nor, indeed, to the interview itself), in later articles, and in later months focused on how Hause, Wecht, Cogswell, and Janoski all contracted Gormley and the "official findings", with nary a mention of Gormley's BET "backtracking".

In the interests of honesty, let me state that I'm more curious about the historiography of this particular conspiracy theory, rather than in arguing with BAC about the details of his favored version.

 

[BeAChooser]

Even I don't believe Klayman and Judicial Watch invented it out of whole cloth, and I find it hard to believe that it was never talked about in the month between the date of the interview's broadcast and the date Judicial Watch mentioned it in their petition filing. EDIT: Especially given the amount of attention the African-American activist and political communities gave to the Ron Brown case during that time period.

Well, what can I say? At this point in time, almost 15 years later, it's a wonder that anything is left on the internet regarding the Brown matter. So it's hard to say how much the BET interview was discussed and by whom during that time frame. Like I've noted, many sources that were available (and I wasn't aware of everything there was) have gone down the black hole of time. Or been deliberately removed.

It's sad when I can't even link a video clip of the whistleblowers talking to a news reporter any more. And not even BET's website provides access to the transcripts of Tavis Smiley's shows from that time period. Of course, why would they want to, being as liberal and protective of democrats and Brown's image as they now are.

Tavis Smiley and BET had a falling out and BET appears to have completely excised his work from their website. Part of the reason for that falling out may have been the content of his shows. He asked uncomfortable questions ... questions that didn't follow the approved script. And likely as not they have some form of copyright on the content he did for them, so they can now prevent anyone else from re-posting it should they try.

But I tell you what, if you are really curious about this, why don't you contact Tavis Smiley and see if he'll confirm the details that JW mentioned in their submittal. If you get a reply from him to the contrary, let me know. I'd be most interested. But if he confirms the details, well, be sure to let me know too.

By the way, here's a fairly recent WND article that mentions Gormley's BET interview:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=24570

How Monica buried Ron Brown and saved the Clinton presidency

May 11, 2004


By Jack Cashill

… snip …

Wecht was not the only problem for the White House. Although the mainstream media were still largely avoiding the subject, the story, like some rogue salmon, made an unusual jump from the conservative media stream to the black-oriented one. To head off the unrest, Col. Gormley appeared on "BET Tonight." As Gormley unwittingly admitted to host Tavis Smiley, he had chosen not to pursue an autopsy based "on discussions at the highest level from in Commerce (sic), at the Joint [Chiefs of Staff], and the [Department of Defense], the White House."

… snip …

Meanwhile, the pressure from the black community was growing more insistent, and there was one black leader neither the media nor the White House could ignore. That was Jesse Jackson, and he came forward on Jan. 5, 1998. A week later, Kathleen Janoski went public in her support of Cogswell and Hause. On Jan. 17, the Washington Afro-American ran a lengthy front-page focusing on Janoski's claims. At this moment in time, the story had enough substance and enough biracial support to breach the walls of the mainstream media and shake Washington to its foundation, but this was not to be.

In one of the great ironies of modern media, a separate stream of "conspiracy commerce" had been simultaneously gathering force. On the same day and in the same city that Kathleen Janoski was talking to the Pittsburg Tribune-Review, Linda Tripp was talking to Ken Starr. Six days after Janoski went public, so did Matt Drudge. So powerful was this stream, the major media had no choice but to open the floodgates. By Jan. 21, the Monica tale had inundated the land and left every other news story gasping for breath.

And maybe that's precisely what Ken Starr intended.

 

[Hans]

Further reinforcing the lack of a "smoking gun" revelatory nature of Gormley's words during the interview is the fact that neither Ruddy nor Limbaucher seemed to attach any big significance to Gormley's words at the interview (nor, indeed, to the interview itself), in later articles, and in later months focused on how Hause, Wecht, Cogswell, and Janoski all contracted Gormley and the "official findings", with nary a mention of Gormley's BET "backtracking".

In the interests of honesty, let me state that I'm more curious about the historiography of this particular conspiracy theory, rather than in arguing with BAC about the details of his favored version.

Yes it would be interesting to see the actual words - if they were as 'backtracky' as claimed they should have been reproduced by the alternative thinkers.

Maybe Gormley knew that Ron Brown was still alive and was really giving hints that he was -that would explain the lack of an easy to find original! LOL

 

[A'isha]

BAC, WND and "reliable" aren't anywhere near close to each other at the best of times. Throw in the fact that nine years separate the event from Farah's report on the event, and I trust it about as far as I can throw it.

This is the website that uncritically repeated Cashill's hysterically stupid nonsense regarding the photo of Obama with his grandparents, after all, and is still doubling down on Corsi's utter fail regarding Obama's birth certificate.

So a cite from WND is about as reliable as David Icke talking about Adolf Hitler and HRH Prince Albert Victor being the same person.

Pick an actual reliable source, please!

 

[BeAChooser]

Is there any mention anywhere of when the interview was recorded, as opposed to when it was broadcast? As I noted earlier, if Gormley gave the interview the same day it was broadcast, he'd have run afoul of the gag or instituted that day

December 11, 1997 was a Thursday. According to this article, http://www.dickgregory.com/dick/11_ronbrown4.html , the gag order on AFIP staff went into effect on Wednesday, the 10th. So the interview must have occurred before that if AFIP management wasn't to violate the gag. Perhaps you can ask Tavis Smiley that question too. I do know this, however. His show was named "BET Talk", and later renamed "BET Tonight". Various sources on the web indicate that both BET Talk and BET Tonight were LIVE broadcasts. For example, this one, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364787/ , states that the 1998 show was LIVE. And this one, http://www.inbaseline.com/project.aspx?project_id=4725956 , also states that the show was a "LIVE late-night talk show." So if that's true, Gormley and Dickerson were interviewed while the gag was in place. Meaning that they either were allowed to violate the gag, or perhaps management wasn't included in the 20 staffers who were ordered to shut up.

That article also confirms a lot of the other details I've noted about the case … for example, Cogswell being escorted to his home where they seized all Brown materials in his possession. Where they required all staffers to turn over any materials relating to the Brown case. Where they even required these professionals to seek approval to leave the building for lunch. But yet somehow they managed to lose the original photos and x-rays of Brown's head that were in a locked safe to which only upper management had access. Go figure.

 

[nvidiot]

Any chance we can stay on topic here? I'm sure this is all very fascinating and all, but shouldn't a thread about this conspiracy theory be debated separately from this one?

Oh, and I asked previously but received no answer from BAC, any reason I should be unhappy that Clinton made 75m from speeches? Which is supposedly the point of the thread. Isn't it?

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm not actually doubting that the BET interview exists. I do, however, doubt that it was as dramatic and backtrack-y (is that a word?) as it's made out to be. For instance, in the two pre-2/12/98 links BAC provided, Ruddy stated specifically that while Gormley was thrown off a bit, he nevertheless reiterated his stance that Brown's wound wasn't caused by a gunshot

Actually, what Ruddy said is that

Gormley noted it has been a year and half since the Brown crash, and said he had simply forgotten what the wound looked like. Still, he said, the wound definitely wasn't caused by gunshot, primarily because X-rays showed no slug or metal fragments in the head consistent with a bullet, and there was no sign of an exit wound.

First, let me ask you this. Do you seriously believe that Gormley went on live TV without having reminded himself before hand what the wound looked like? This wasn't being discussed out of the blue. This controversy had been weeks in the making before that interview took place. So why in the middle of the interview would he suddenly claim he'd forgotten what the wound looked like? It doesn't pass the smell test.

Second, you overlook what else Ruddy noted happened during that BET interview in his various articles. He stated that Gormley immediately declared that one could rule out a bullet wound because "no brain matter was visible in the wound." Since Gormley said this exact thing on other official occasions, it's not unlikely that he repeated this at the start of the BET interview. Ruddy said it was only when confronted with the photo of the wound that Janoski took, that show brain matter instead of bone in the wound, that he suddenly started pleading memory lapse. So that claim appears to be act of desperation.

Now ask yourself, ANTPogo, is it remotely credible that even if Gormley hadn't refreshed his memory of such an important case for such an important occasion, that he could have forgotten the details? What did he even mean when he said he forgot what the wound looked like? Because he didn't forget what the wound looked like. He completely misrepresented it in the reports he did immediately after the examination of the body. He LIED in official reports … the ones given to the family and press … when he claimed then that there was no penetration … that there was just an indentation of the skull … that there was only bone visible in the hole and no brain matter visible. That is clear as day and surely you can admit this if you are at all honest? Surely you can see that claiming he forgot what the wound looked like was the act of a desperate man caught in a clear lie that night.

And when Gormley claimed that X-rays showed no slug or metal fragments in the head consistent with a bullet, he is again lying. In fact, Ruddy stated in his articles that Gormley first claimed a bullet wound could be ruled out because x-rays taken during the examination showed "no trace" of a bullet injury. But when confronted with the photos of the x-rays, that show evidence of metallic density particles above the eye socket (a lead snowstorm), he didn't refute that and suddenly pleaded memory lapse. Meaning what? That he just forget that he forgot immediately after the examination that there were metallic density flecks above the eye sockets?

Seriously, what did you expect Gormley to say when his story collapsed in such a dramatic fashion, with his boss who to this day maintains the coverup, sitting there watching? With him knowing that he lied in a very important case where a senior official in the government may have been murdered along with 32 others? It would have place him in serious legal trouble to admit that is what happened. So he came up with the only thing he could think to say on the spur of the moment. I forgot.

Ruddy also noted in his articles that Gormley initially denied that two sets of x-rays existed. Again, only Janowski's photos from the first set changed his tune. He'd then tried to fool the audience … lie to them again. He claimed that the first set of x-rays had been made but were "lost" so that a second set was required. But that's not what sworn testimony (which I think has a little more weight than Gormley's TV lies) would suggest. Janoski swore under oath that Major Sentell told her that Gormley made a second set of x-rays to eliminate signs of the lead snowstorm. And Major Sentell has remained silent. Now if I were falsely accused of saying something like that, I'd have denied it. How about you?

Now, just for the fun of it, here's another mention of the BET interview in Ruddy's contemporaneous articles that you overlooked:

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/13/173306

Fourth Expert Claims Probe of Brown's Death Botched

January 13, 1998

… snip …

Gormley, who has approximately 25 years of experience in pathology, has said that he, too, identified the wound as a "red flag" and that he consulted with other pathologists present, including Hause and Navy Cmdr. Edward Kilbane. "They agreed it looked like an entrance gunshot wound," Gormley recalled in a recent television interview.

But you go on claiming this never happened, if you keeps you out of trouble with YOUR superiors. I completely understand. So does Dickerson.

 

[A'isha]

But you go on claiming this never happened, if you keeps you out of trouble with YOUR superiors.

Yes, my masters in the Illuminati appreciate your kindness in this matter, BAC.

Or is it the Rothschilds? Damn, I can never remember who's pulling my strings when I make message board posts!

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Yes, my masters in the Illuminati appreciate your kindness in this matter, BAC.

Or is it the Rothschilds? Damn, I can never remember who's pulling my strings when I make message board posts!

A murderous Osaka is my best guess.

 

[BeAChooser]

This is the website that uncritically repeated Cashill's hysterically stupid nonsense regarding the photo of Obama with his grandparents, after all, and is still doubling down on Corsi's utter fail regarding Obama's birth certificate.

... snip ...

Pick an actual reliable source, please!

LOL! Like the LA Times perhaps? That seems to be a source that you on the left trust implicitly. Yet the LA Times failed to even tell it's readers there were rape allegations against Clinton during the impeachment. No, that event was never even mentioned until a few years ago when George Wills provided them an article to publish that mentioned it (It said ... "It is reasonable to believe that [Clinton] was a rapist 15 years before becoming president, and that as president he launched cruise missiles against Afghanistan (a nearly empty terrorist camp), Sudan (a pharmaceutical factory) and Iraq to distract attention from problems arising from the glandular dimension of his general indiscipline.") and they took it upon themselves to remove mention of the rape from the article without even consulting him and then publish it. Eventually, they had to apologize and mention the rape, but, of course, they buried that apology well back in the paper. Is that what you mean by a reliable source?

Or how about the Washington Post. I know you leftists love that source. In http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032002556.html , the WP claimed the man who Congressman Cleaver said spit on him, in an incident that seized the nation's attention for several days, was taken into custody and that Capital Police had "to usher him [Cleaver] into the building out of concern for his safety." But that's a lie, because video from that day (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmP4Gb2pEsY ) clearly shows that didn't happen. The police officer standing right next to Cleaver when Cleaver exchanged words with the man doesn't appear at all fazed or concerned, and allows Cleaver to stand there confronting his alleged *attacker* for many seconds, then continue on his way at the same leisurely pace. And then later in the video, it shows Cleaver return to the scene of the supposed *crime* with a policeman in tow, and the policeman doesn't take the man into custody even though the man is standing right in front of Cleaver and the policeman. Is that what you mean by a reliable source?

Here's another example from the *reliable* Washington Post. The WP was one of two papers that gave extensive coverage to the so-called suicide note *discovered* by Clinton Whitehouse lawyers in the Foster case. But when that note was judged by three noted handwriting experts (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/foster-suicide-note-was-a-forgery-say-experts-1579504.html ), plus the police officer the government initially used to proclaim the note authentic (http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/1995/08a.html ), to be a likely forgery, the WP simply ignored the story. Indeed, it continued to regurgitate the "official" line, and write about the Foster case as though the three handwriting experts and the government's own witness had never concluded that a primary piece of evidence in the case was an obvious fake. Is that what you mean by reliable?

Here's still another example of the vaunted Washington Post's *reliability*: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...-sons-own-path/2011/03/26/AFD3Fh5B_story.html. Compare what they say about Ron Brown, his legacy and his death, to the facts that I've presented in this thread. It proves the WP is not at all reliable. But yet you still believe it, don't you?

 

[BeAChooser]

I asked previously but received no answer from BAC, any reason I should be unhappy that Clinton made 75m from speeches?

Well don't you think that depends on whether there's veracity to the allegations against him in Brown's death, Foster's death, Chinagate, Filegate, CampaignFinancegate, Pardongate and Rapegate?

 

[Hans]

Which is supposedly the point of the thread. Isn't it?

Ah but you see the whole point of the thread was BAC wishing to go over his failed conspiracy theories just_one_more_time.......this time everyone will believe him, and he will be the hero of the republic....

GUYS, Guys, guys we work for an accountant in the basement of the Langley building, I met him once, name of Jarrod.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Ah but you see the whole point of the thread was BAC wishing to go over his failed conspiracy theories just_one_more_time.......this time everyone will believe him, and he will be the hero of the republic....

GUYS, Guys, guys we work for an accountant in the basement of the Langley building, I met him once, name of Jarrod.

Basically every time I see a thread with the name "Clinton" posted by BaC I know the real subject is either the Vince Foster or Ron Brown CT. Tide comes in, tide goes out...you really can't explain it.

 

[A'isha]

Didn't you start a whole thread about this once, in a vain attempt to try and defend your reasons for relying on crackpot websites like WND? In fact, almost the entire post I'm replying to was copied from this post of yours in that very thread.

LOL! Like the LA Times perhaps? That seems to be a source that you on the left trust implicitly.

Done exhaustive polling on the issue, have we?

Yet the LA Times failed to even tell it's readers there were rape allegations against Clinton during the impeachment. No, that event was never even mentioned until a few years ago when George Wills provided them an article to publish that mentioned it (It said ... "It is reasonable to believe that [Clinton] was a rapist 15 years before becoming president, and that as president he launched cruise missiles against Afghanistan (a nearly empty terrorist camp), Sudan (a pharmaceutical factory) and Iraq to distract attention from problems arising from the glandular dimension of his general indiscipline.") and they took it upon themselves to remove mention of the rape from the article without even consulting him and then publish it. Eventually, they had to apologize and mention the rape, but, of course, they buried that apology well back in the paper. Is that what you mean by a reliable source?

Unlike everything below, you don't include any links about this. Can you provide some, so I know what you're talking about here?

Or how about the Washington Post. I know you leftists love that source. In http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032002556.html , the WP claimed the man who Congressman Cleaver said spit on him, in an incident that seized the nation's attention for several days, was taken into custody and that Capital Police had "to usher him [Cleaver] into the building out of concern for his safety."

No, actually, the Post didn't "claim" anything. They were repeating the statements issued by Congressman Cleaver and the Congressional Black Caucus, and were very careful to attribute the descriptions of what happened to those sources. Never once in that article do they say the spitting incident was a reported fact. The bit in quotes you provide above is even explicitly noted as coming from a statement issued by Cleaver, and in the next paragraph quotes Danny Rotert, a spokesman for Cleaver about it.

[EDIT: The Post doesn't even say the supposed spitter was "taken into custody". It notes, in a correction from Cleaver's press release which said the man was arrested but that Cleaver declined to press charges, that he was merely detained and then released (though it does repeat the "declined to press charges" part of Cleaver's issued statement.]

Unless you think the whole "Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) issued a statement late Saturday saying that he was spit upon while walking to the Capitol to cast a vote" thing is a big giant smokescreen, and that such a statement never actually existed but was instead made up by the Post so they could directly lie about something.

Is that what you mean by a reliable source?

They were certainly a lot more diligent than you were about getting who actually said what correct.

Here's another example from the *reliable* Washington Post. The WP was one of two papers that gave extensive coverage to the so-called suicide note *discovered* by Clinton Whitehouse lawyers in the Foster case. But when that note was judged by three noted handwriting experts (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/foster-suicide-note-was-a-forgery-say-experts-1579504.html ), plus the police officer the government initially used to proclaim the note authentic (http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/1995/08a.html ), to be a likely forgery, the WP simply ignored the story. Indeed, it continued to regurgitate the "official" line, and write about the Foster case as though the three handwriting experts and the government's own witness had never concluded that a primary piece of evidence in the case was an obvious fake. Is that what you mean by reliable?

Here's still another example of the vaunted Washington Post's *reliability*: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...-sons-own-path/2011/03/26/AFD3Fh5B_story.html. Compare what they say about Ron Brown, his legacy and his death, to the facts that I've presented in this thread. It proves the WP is not at all reliable. But yet you still believe it, don't you?

And here, your only criteria for the Post's reliability (or lack thereof) is that they disagree with your pet conspiracy theories. Meanwhile, you prefer to rely on websites with such hard-hitting journalistic standards as this.

 

[Hans]

almost the entire post I'm replying to was copied from this post of yours in that very thread.

What evidence of reuse of, 'canned' posts, I tell you and I'm sure the myriad of shell shocked lurkers would agree, that we are stunned by this revelation - what BAC is just repeating (over and over) the same conpsiracy tripe...............LOL

So a question for BAC Clinton/Brown/Foster conspiracy theory thread survivalists - how do these threads end? I'll start the count and on 'ten' everybody shout out the answer...
LOL