Bill Clinton made $75 million from speeches

More on the original topic:
http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/sportspeakers/searchfee.php?fee=6

Larry the Cable Guy earns $200,000 and above for speaking engagements.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=352433

John Glenn gets $100,000.

That offends me more than any money Bill Clinton may earn as a speaker, but as I said earlier if someone is willing to pay it...

Also,
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/..._1_rudolph-giuliani-private-sector-gulfstream
Giuliani reportedly received more than $200,000 for another speech, given to benefit an Australian research hospital in 2003. When it was disclosed two years later that the hospital netted only $15,000, the revelation sparked widespread criticism in Australia. Months later, after The New York Observer picked up the story, Giuliani threw his own fundraiser for the hospital.
Click to expand...
 
elbe said:
I don't really want to reread 7 pages but has BaC ever actually explained what the problem was in the OP?
Click to expand...


Two possibilities:

  1. Liberals aren't allowed to make money, or
  2. Those unlawfully judged guilty of murder in the opinions of an extreme and potentially mentally unwell minority of citizens aren't allowed to make money.
 
BeAChooser said:
Sure, is it bogus or not? I've already cited my reasons for believing it was forged. Do you wish to counter those reasons or agree it's bogus?
Click to expand...

I would like you to answer the question I have asked twice now.

In which government investigation of the Foster suicide did they determine the letter of resignation was a forgery?

I have read the Starr report that mentions concerns about chain of custody and possible obstruction of justice charges but no where does it question the authenticity. Perhaps I missed it?

As far as the OOJ charges no evidence was found to charge anyone.
 
elbe said:
Sorry, I don't remember seeing it in the thread and, since it's actually the relevant topic, I thought you might want to be a bit more helpful.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

You asked "has BaC ever actually explained what the problem was in the OP?" Then you asked "So what was the reason Clinton can't earn money from speeches?"

Both questions suggest you didn't even read the OP, since the OP states the nature of the "problem". My complaint was about those who gave such huge sums of money ($75 million for just his speeches, alone) to "a man who has probably violated just about every law that could be violated." Is that really not clear?

When that bolded assertion was challenged by eeyore1954, I responded with more detail, and again restated "the problem".

Very few are aware of the facts surrounding Bill Clinton. They know next to nothing (and in many cases nothing) about Travelgate, CampaignFinancegate, Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate, Rapegate, Pardongate, Monicagate, Fostergate, Browngate, etc. etc. etc. If they did, they might agree with me. Then they would know about evidence suggesting perjury, obstruction of justice, blackmail, intimidation of witnesses, evidence tampering, witness tampering, bribery, sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape, illegal campaign funding, abuse of the IRS, abuse of the military, abuse of the FBI, abuse of the DOJ, violation of drug laws, treason, national security violations, and even involvement in a murder or two (or at least their coverup). Certainly the democrat who wrote the articles of impeachment against Nixon agrees with me. Certainly the democrat who worked for the House Managers as the chief Clinton impeachment prosecutor agrees with me.

Like I said, the fact that people shell out a lot money to hear such a man speak, and then idolize him, says a lot about those people. Perhaps, if nothing else, that they are totally ignorant of the facts.
Click to expand...

Is the problem I'm complaining about clear yet?

Now you made your first post to the thread after the above response, so I know you read, or should have read, both the OP and that response. Which makes your lastest questions more than a little odd.

I restated the problem a third time in post #66. When CptColumbo wrote "If people are willing to pay that much to hear a person speak...who cares?", I responded:

Like I said in the beginning, it's says something about the people willing to pay that much ... if the person has the sort of past Clinton does.
Click to expand...

I tried again, in post #110, when I stated:

My point from the very beginning ... as clearly stated in the OP and repeated several times … is that the act of people heaping accolades and millions of dollars on someone like Bill Clinton (or Hillary) … given what appears to be his (their) extensive past criminal activities ... says a lot about the people doing the giving. Either that they are ignorant of the facts surrounding the Clintons' past or they don't care if the Clintons are criminals. Either is not very flattering.
Click to expand...

NOW, do you understand what I'm saying is a problem?

And I added this, following that last attempt, since the *debate* (or what passes for it around here) made it a natural extention of the OP topic:

And I've also objected to distortions and lies that certain posters have made regarding the Clintons' past and present statements. They do not give most of their earnings to charity as one poster claimed. Let's deal in fact, not wishful thinking. And I'm more than willing to back up my assertions regarding the various 'gates' and specific types of crimes that I claim Bill (and Hillary) committed with respect to those scandals. Now if you wish to challenge something specifically, regarding the above, go ahead.
Click to expand...

So how about it? Want to challenge something specifically, that I've claimed to show how unscrupulous … how undeserving of acolades and millions in speaker fees ... Bill and his wife are? Hmmmm?

elbe said:
I remember seeing a lot of people ask what the problem was and I saw you perfectly happy with jumping right into more of that Brown CT BS.
Click to expand...

As I showed above, that's not what happened at all. I tried four times to make "the problem" clear. So when you came along whining about the length of the thread, I asked myself whether I wanted to waste some more time trying again.

The Brown allegation is not a derail. Whether or not Bill Clinton is guilty in the various "gates" is integral to the "problem" I identified in the OP. Hence, a discussion of those "gates" is completely on-topic. And neither you or any of the other posters on this thread have proven the Brown accusation, or any of the the other allegations I mentioned, to be "BS".

I'm happy to discuss any of those subjects with you, elbe, IF you will discuss the actual facts, rather than do what FFM did, which is lie and try the same sort of tactics noted here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7372259&postcount=163 . But are you really any different than FFM and the rest of the posters that have shown up so far? There's only one way to prove it, elbe. :D
 
Biscuit said:
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Sure, is it bogus or not? I've already cited my reasons for believing it was forged. Do you wish to counter those reasons or agree it's bogus?

I would like you to answer the question I have asked twice now.

In which government investigation of the Foster suicide did they determine the letter of resignation was a forgery?

I have read the Starr report that mentions concerns about chain of custody and possible obstruction of justice charges but no where does it question the authenticity. Perhaps I missed it?
Click to expand...

LOL!

So you're claiming it's not bogus because an investigation, whose own lead investigator stated was a sham, authenticated the note as being written by Foster? :rolleyes:

So you're just going to note the conclusions of three independent, well-known, handwriting experts who concluded the note was an obvious forgery. :rolleyes:

And you're just going to ignore the evidence I presented that shows the cop, who Starr and Fiske relied on to authenticate the note, when given a blind test where he didn't know he was looking again at the same note, concluded the note was "very possibly" or "probably" a forgery. :rolleyes:

I see. And you call yourself a *skeptic*?

:jaw-dropp
 
BeAChooser said:
LOL!

So you're claiming it's not bogus because an investigation, whose own lead investigator stated was a sham, authenticated the note as being written by Foster? :rolleyes:

So you're just going to note the conclusions of three independent, well-known, handwriting experts who concluded the note was an obvious forgery. :rolleyes:

And you're just going to ignore the evidence I presented that shows the cop, who Starr and Fiske relied on to authenticate the note, when given a blind test where he didn't know he was looking again at the same note, concluded the note was "very possibly" or "probably" a forgery. :rolleyes:

I see. And you call yourself a *skeptic*?

:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

I haven't made any claims about the authenticity of the letter of resignation I was just wondering if any of the official investigations into the Foster suicide concluded it was a forgery. Did they? If so where?

I will go back in this thread and look for the evidence you are speaking of but I just want to address one claim at a time. Right now its the authenticity of the letter of resignation. Is that ok with you?
 
BeAChooser said:
Is the problem I'm complaining about clear yet?
Click to expand...

Yes. I know I get it. You have a serious, uncompromising hyperpartisan dislike of Clinton, people who like Clinton, and anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% that Clinton is some kind of murderous psychopath.

You seem to think that having anything to do with Clinton, or not thinking he is a criminal mastermind, reflects badly on people. But I think you've got that completely backwards.

Its nothing I didn't know before this thread, but it is amusing to see how far you take the hatred.
 
Bac,

I have combed over this thread again and can not find the link to the government expert that claimed the note was a forgery. I could google this but it's your claim so I would like to use your source, that makes sense right?

I am guessing that the authenticity of the note was not questioned in any of the official investigations of the Foster suicide. If it was it would be interesting to read how this was dealt with.
 
kookbreaker said:
Its nothing I didn't know before this thread, but it is amusing to see how far you take the irrational hatred.
Click to expand...

Howdy Kookbreaker

I think you accidently left out one word which I have added in using strike out
 
Biscuit said:
I have combed over this thread again and can not find the link to the government expert that claimed the note was a forgery. I could google this but it's your claim so I would like to use your source, that makes sense right?
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7370163&postcount=143

I already linked a post on this forum that specifically dealt with the so-called suicide note issue. Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6467666&postcount=655 . And in that link you will find an article by Reed Irvine of AIM, http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/1995/08a.html , that describes the conclusion of Sgt Larry Lockhart, the handwriting expert that the government originally used to authenticate the "suicide" note as having been written by Foster, after Lockhart was shown (in a blind test) better images of characters from the note in question than what the government provided and asked to compare it with samples from another source. And he concluded that the note and samples were "very possibly" or "probably" written by different persons. Thus contradicting his original conclusion.

Also in my previous post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6467666&postcount=655 , I linked a source that provides the statements of the three widely recognized, board certified handwriting experts who evaluated the so-called "suicide" note authenticity. Here's that linK again, http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/NOTE/note.html . And as noted in my post, the conclusion from their work was reported by Reuter's and published in a UK paper. Here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/foster-suicide-note-was-a-forgery-say-experts-1579504.html

26 October 1995

Washington (Reuter) - Someone forged the torn-up suicide note that was discovered after White House lawyer Vincent Foster was found with a fatal gunshot wound, a group of handwriting experts said yesterday.

Three handwriting specialists presented analysis at a news conference of the note found in Foster's briefcase after the deputy White House counsel was found dead on 20 July 1993 in a park near Washington. They said it appeared the note was not written by Foster but was a forgery.

… snip …

The handwriting specialists, former New York police department homicide expert Vincent Scalice, Oxford University manuscript expert Reginald Alton, and Boston private investigator Ronald Rice, said comparisons with a letter Foster had written had enough differences in style and letters to conclude the suicide note was not written by Foster.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

:D
 
BeAChooser said:
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.
Click to expand...

As usual....it's the evil and lazy vs. YOU with the facts, the experts and the obvious, absolute truth (cause you got the internets on your side!). I didn't used to, but now I feel sorry for you, alone in the dark, wondering if maybe there is a Clinton outside your door.
 
BeAChooser said:
I already linked a post on this forum that specifically dealt with the so-called suicide note issue. Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6467666&postcount=655 . And in that link you will find an article by Reed Irvine of AIM, http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/1995/08a.html , that describes the conclusion of Sgt Larry Lockhart, the handwriting expert that the government originally used to authenticate the "suicide" note as having been written by Foster, after Lockhart was shown (in a blind test) better images of characters from the note in question than what the government provided and asked to compare it with samples from another source. And he concluded that the note and samples were "very possibly" or "probably" written by different persons. Thus contradicting his original conclusion.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...so, I clicked on that link, and read the "lead story" there at AIM's website. But at the bottom of the story, it says to see the Editor's Notes. So, I click on the notes for this story, and was interested to read the following:

THE LEAD STORY IN THIS ISSUE, ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF THE MISLABELED "suicide" note allegedly found in Vincent Foster's briefcase being a forgery, was set and ready to go to press last week when additional samples of Foster's handwriting fell into our hands. Rather than try to make space for the rest of the story in the body of the report, I decided to tell it here. Please read the story "Was Foster's 'Suicide' Note Forged?" before reading these Editor's Notes.

THE NEWLY ACQUIRED SAMPLES OF FOSTER'S HANDWRITING ARE ALL NOTES written on lined paper, as was what we will call the "torn-up note" to distinguish it from the rest. The new material shows that the letter written by Foster, which was used by the police and by us as the exemplar to determine whether the torn-up note was in his handwriting, was written with greater care than his notes. What first led us to think the note might be a forgery was the marked difference in the overall appearance of the writing.

THESE SAMPLES ALSO SHOW THAT FOSTER WAS NOT ALWAYS CONSISTENT IN THE way he wrote words. The test we gave Lockhart and our other expert relied on differences in the way Foster wrote the few words that appeared in both the letter and the torn-up note, mainly the word "the." The three "the's" found in the letter were all quite similar. It was apparent to the experts and others that the "the's" in the torn-up note differed from those in the letter. There are two "the's" in the new samples, and in my opinion they are closer to those in the letter than to those in the torn-up note, but there are differences that might cause experts to disagree. I must also point out that we now have a better photocopy of the torn-up note than the one we copied from The Wall Street Journal. Seemingly minor distortions in the old photocopy were a factor in persuading me that the note was not written by Foster.

THE CASE FOR FORGERY IS CONSIDERABLY WEAKENED BY THE NEW SAMPLES AND the improved photocopy of the note. They have convinced me that I made a mistake in thinking that Lockhart and the other expert we consulted were too conservative in saying only that it was "probable" that the two documents were written by different people. I concluded that the note was a hoax and I said so on TV, radio and in one of our syndicated columns. I should have recognized that the available evidence was not adequate to support such a serious charge. This was a mistake, and we have corrected it on our TV and radio program and in our column.
Click to expand...

Huh. How come you never mention that when you repeatedly cut-and-paste this AIM story, BaC?
 
ANTPogo said:
Hmmm...so, I clicked on that link, and read the "lead story" there at AIM's website. But at the bottom of the story, it says to see the Editor's Notes. So, I click on the notes for this story, and was interested to read the following:

Huh. How come you never mention that when you repeatedly cut-and-paste this AIM story, BaC?
Click to expand...

Wait, am I reading this right? They were using a copy of a copy printed in a newspaper?
 
ANTPogo said:
Hmmm...so, I clicked on that link, and read the "lead story" there at AIM's website. But at the bottom of the story, it says to see the Editor's Notes. So, I click on the notes for this story, and was interested to read the following: Huh. How come you never mention that when you repeatedly cut-and-paste this AIM story, BaC?
Click to expand...

Now, now there you go thinking BAC values truth and evidence, in BAC world:

1. Only that which supports his own ideas are worthy of mention all else is discarded.

2. He has god like powers to ascertain what us, poor deluded and evil 'Clinton lovers', are allowed to know.

3. If one questions his 'evidence' you are obviously a lower form of life.

4. Evidence against Clinton always remains evidence against Clinton even if the experts change their minds or new evidence contradicts it.....

PS good find ANTpogo - cue the lying, denial and personal attacks from BAC!
 
ANTPogo said:
Hmmm...so, I clicked on that link, and read the "lead story" there at AIM's website. But at the bottom of the story, it says to see the Editor's Notes. So, I click on the notes for this story, and was interested to read the following:



Huh. How come you never mention that when you repeatedly cut-and-paste this AIM story, BaC?
Click to expand...

DAMN!!!! I was hoping his source would give me some more info but I never dreamed it would be this awesome! Nice job.

BaC,

So now that the "forged suicide note" is no longer forged or a suicide note what is the next aspect you would like to talk about?

For those of you keeping score of the challenge issued by BaC at home

BaC - 0
Skeptics - 2
 
And, for the record, the three other handwriting experts, the ones mentioned in the Reuters article reprinted by the Independent, were all directly commissioned and provided handwriting samples by James Dale Davidson (their statements are all addressed back to him).

Davidson is an investment writer who is an investor in Newsmax, was a participant in the Arkansas Project, and produced a Christopher Ruddy video titled "Unanswered-The Death of Vincent Foster".

Just so everyone's clear on the biases and political positions of the players involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom