Bill Clinton made $75 million from speeches

BeAChooser said:
Now how can one argue against logic like that? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You do, of course, realize that in all future threads about the Clinton's murderous rampage you do not get to

A. Claim it was a suicide note

and

B. Claim it was forged
:D

What's next?
 
Biscuit said:
You do, of course, realize that in all future threads about the Clinton's murderous rampage you do not get to

A. Claim it was a suicide note

and

B. Claim it was forged
:D

What's next?
Click to expand...


Oh, he can still make the claim. He'll just have to do it with even less evidence than before. I have a feeling that doesn't bother him in the slightest.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Oh, he can still make the claim. He'll just have to do it with even less evidence than before. I have a feeling that doesn't bother him in the slightest.
Click to expand...

I would suspect that in the following days or weeks or if we are lucky months, when he starts yet another thread to go over the same material - that he will 'reset' and that evidence will 'disappear'. Does anyone expect him to rewrite his easily copied 'walls of canned text'? I don't.
 
Biscuit said:
You do, of course, realize that in all future threads about the Clinton's murderous rampage you do not get to

A. Claim it was a suicide note
Click to expand...

LOL! You continue to have difficulty with facts.

First of all, I didn't just call it a "suicide note". To imply I did is to deliberately misrepresent what I called it. I called it a "so-called suicide note". You left off the qualifier. I did this in this post, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7367286&postcount=17, which I believe was about the first mention of the note on the thread (the post was later moved to AAH).

I also called it a "so-called" suicide note in this post, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7367176&postcount=29 , which was also moved to AAH later on. And in this post, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7367298&postcount=34 . And in post #115, #118 and #126, which still remain in this thread.

In fact, before you asked your question about the "letter of resignation" in post #142, I'd not called it a "suicide note" without the qualifier.

Now why do you think I added the qualifier? Did you think the words "so-called" had no meaning? I suggest you consult a dictionary and you'll find that the phrase "so-called" is used to indicate something "falsely or improperly so named" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/so-called ).

And surely you aren't claiming that the "it was suicide" crowd and the mainstream media didn't refer to it as a "suicide note"? Because representatives of the government and media (Reuters, CNN, The Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Newsweek, PBS, etc) called it that MANY, MANY times. They must have harbored considerable doubt as to it being anything but a suicide note to do that. When did they actually start calling it a resignation letter? Even Wikipedia, as left leaning as it is, still calls the note "a suicide note of sorts". Even the Starr report didn't refer to it as a "resignation letter". In fact, the Starr report only mentioned the word resignation once. It just referred to the torn note as "a note". Doesn't sound like Starr was all that sure what the note was either.

And even after your post correcting me (actually trying to derail the thread into an irrelevant topic), I continued to refer to the note as "so-called". See post #143 and #163. Meanwhile, I went to the trouble to explain to you why I said it a "suicide note" in post #164.

Now in post #188, I referred to it as a "suicide note" with out the qualifier, but I put it in quotes. Why do you think I left the quotation marks, Biscuit? I certainly wasn't quoting you. Do you know what such quotation marks can mean? Here, let me help you understand English again: "Either of a pair of quotation marks used to emphasize a word or phrase or to indicate its special status, especially to express doubt about its validity or to criticize its use (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scare+quote ). So do you think I might have added quotation marks to indicate that the nature of the note was questionable? That it might not be a suicide note? That would be consistent with my use of the phrase "so-called". Right?

After that, and your refusal to even acknowledge the question of whether the note, regardless of what it was, was authentic or not, I stopped being so careful about the use of the words "suicide note", although generally I continued to add the phrase "so-called" or put the term in quotes. See posts #198 and #219, for example.

Bottom line, I think the verdict is still out on what the note was. If you want to call it a "resignation letter", fine. I don't care. But if that's how poor a writer Foster was, then Clinton should never have hired him as his attorney in the first place. Which leads to the question … was the note forged.

Biscuit said:
and

B. Claim it was forged
Click to expand...

So you don't think I can claim it was forged when

1) You seem to be 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:

2) The conclusion of three independent, well-known, handwriting experts was that the note was an obvious forgery? :rolleyes:

3) 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:

Yeah, Biscuit, by all means, you try that argument in the future. LOL! :D
 
Hans said:
I would suspect that in the following days or weeks or if we are lucky months, when he starts yet another thread to go over the same material - that he will 'reset' and that evidence will 'disappear'. Does anyone expect him to rewrite his easily copied 'walls of canned text'? I don't.
Click to expand...

Weird, I say. REALLY, REALLY WEIRD! :D
 
BeAChooser said:
2) The conclusion of three independent, well-known, handwriting experts was that the note was an obvious forgery? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They weren't independent.

3) 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:
Click to expand...

And the person who ran that blind test admitted that there were problems with the photocopies used in the test that may have misled the cop during that retest because they created and exaggerated differences in the handwriting used in the two test samples, and so the person who ran the test withdrew his conclusion that the note was a forgery in light of both that and after comparing the writing in the note to additional samples of Foster's writing.
 
BeAChooser said:
So you don't think I can claim it was forged when

1) You seem to be 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:
Click to expand...

You sure do love this "fact." Of course, it doesn't establish that the investigation was a sham. To do that requires more than Miguel Rodriguez's statement. How credible is Mr. Rodriguez? What evidence has he produced to show that the investigation was a sham? All you've got is a cut-and-paste from a far-right conspiracy site that couldn't even get his name right.

BeAChooser said:
2) The conclusion of three independent, well-known, handwriting experts was that the note was an obvious forgery? :rolleyes:

3) 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:
Click to expand...

And you're ignoring ANTPogo's post which pretty much demolishes this forgery "evidence."

So yes, you can continue to claim it's a forgery, and people who worship Bill Clinton as a god have looked at your so-called evidence will continue to dismiss your crackpot theories.

In your next Clinton conspiracy thread, be sure to insist that you proved your case and all the evil lefties ran away in fear.
 
BeAChooser said:
First of all, I didn't just call it a "suicide note". To imply I did is to deliberately misrepresent what I called it. I called it a "so-called suicide note". ....
Click to expand...
I heard a rumor the other day that Dancing with the Stars is looking for additional talent. You might want to give them a call.
 
BeAChooser said:
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?
Click to expand...

I read the OP several times and I tended to echo the people asking for more clarification on what's wrong with him making money. I didn't quite have the free time to reread through the entire thread (I'd read along as it went, but it did get somewhat diverged).

Interestingly, people who violate the law are still allowed to make money. If people want to hear him talk they are welcome to pay him to. If Charles Manson was released from prison people could pay to hear him talk if they wanted to. But considering that Clinton isn't exactly being prosecuted for anything, I find it hard to believe that people are really thinking "I want to hear the guy who violated every law he could talk".

Now let's address an older post that you quoted in this response:

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...

That is an, let's say, interesting way to look at it. What you're basically suggesting is that there could be nothing of value to hearing Clinton talk. He was president for two terms and had a good deal of Washington after his throat for some of it. He might be an interesting person to listen to.

And you just say it over and over again. You don't ever entertain the idea that he could be a good speaker, he could be entertaining and educational, and that some people may actually consider him worth the money. The only issue about any supposed broken laws is whether he is in prison or not - just for the record, he's not.

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".
Click to expand...

I would argue it is a derail. It isn't really relevant to whether Clinton can get jobs, but what you do want to make relevant, and I'll concede if you'd like, is whether or not he has is a (serial?) criminal. The legal system seems to disagree with you and, since you can't actually cite where he's been convicted of anything, you go off on another thread about the CT.

BS is my opinion of the matter, but I hardly want to involve myself in it (just as I don't like to involve myself in 9/11 threads). It is also, honestly, not as much about the claims as your actions that I labelled as BS. Your OP didn't really make that much sense, unless, I guess, you have an automatic hatred for the man, so it seemed, to me, that you were happy to spin off into conspiracy theory. Though I'm sure other posters were not faultless on that matter.
 
ANTPogo said:
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:

… snip …

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

Because I hadn't seen it before. I must have first read this link before the editor added the material at the very bottom. I never thought to read further after that. So thanks for pointing it out.

But I don't think it really resolves this issue. It only gives somewhat less weight to the handwriting reanalysis by Lockhart. The editor only admits that now there are "differences that might cause experts to disagree" on the authenticity. The three board certified handwriting experts that were consulted independent of AIM's efforts all used better copies of the materials … and they all came to the same conclusion opposite that of Lockhart's original assessment.

Keep in mind that Lockhart wasn't a board certified handwritting expert. Senate documents later revealed that he used only one document written by Foster for comparison purposes, which he himself admitted wasn't good procedure. The Senate documents also revealed that Fiske sent the note, with the same known sample that Lockhart had used, along with several canceled checks bearing Foster's signature, to the FBI lab. The note wasn't signed so it's not clear what use Foster's signature would have been. But in any case, using only this evidence, the FBI lab also pronounced the note authentic, with no explanation as to how this was determined.

Finally, did you note the observation in the editor's notes that Lockhart also expressed surprise that the note did not have Foster's fingerprints, or the fingerprints of Nussbaum and Neuwirth who found and assembled the note. You see, in addition to the doubts about the handwriting, there are many other reasons to be skeptical of the story about the finding and handling of this note. Questions that were apparently never addressed by Starr and which have not been answered to this day. Only ignored.


ANTPogo said:
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
2) The conclusion of three independent, well-known, handwriting experts was that the note was an obvious forgery?

They weren't independent.
Click to expand...

They were in that they arrived at their conclusions independently from one another. Here's what the report put out by the paper that paid for their work stated (http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/NOTE/note.html ):

The panel's conclusions were collected over a three month period. Each panelist worked independently and came to their own conclusions without interference.
Click to expand...

Now in comparison, you can't begin to claim that Lockhart did an *independent* assessment. He worked for Starr. And as the story of Rodriguez shows, Starr put pressure on his investigators to reach the conclusion he wanted to see.

ANTPogo said:
Quote:
3) 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?

And the person who ran that blind test admitted that there were problems with the photocopies used in the test that may have misled the cop during that retest because they created and exaggerated differences in the handwriting used in the two test samples, and so the person who ran the test withdrew his conclusion that the note was a forgery in light of both that and after comparing the writing in the note to additional samples of Foster's writing.
Click to expand...

I'll admit that AIM's test must be given less weight as a result of what the editor's note says. The editor did withdraw his conclusion that the note was a certain forgery, but neither, as he stated, could he rule out a forgery. And remember, the editor was not an expert. All three of the other board certified experts appear to have used good practice and all three came to the same conclusion. The note was bogus. Perhaps, like an autopsy of Brown's skull, we need a new independent and trustworthy examination of this note. Because if it's a forgery, it's a smoking gun.
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
I'll admit that AIM's test must be given less weight as a result of what the editor's note says. The editor did withdraw his conclusion that the note was a certain forgery, but neither, as he stated, could he rule out a forgery.
Click to expand...

Wow. Such ironclad, solid evidence of murder. I shall get the cuffs right now and arrest the former president myself. :rolleyes:
 
I'll admit that AIM's test must be given less weight as a result of what the editor's note says. The editor did withdraw his conclusion that the note was a certain forgery, but neither, as he stated, could he rule out a forgery.
Click to expand...

The real problem of course is that the researcher knew this already - does anyone doubt that? Yet he hid the information in hopes no one would find it. Unless of course this 'researcher' is now claiming his 'research' is less than complete? Just another in a long line of common garden variety liars who try to boister a CT by withholding, or ignorning contrary information.

So the new CT is, did the researcher lie or is he just an incompetent researcher?

I think the researcher should add 'T' to his name, for acting like a truther
 
Last edited:
elbe said:
I read the OP several times and I tended to echo the people asking for more clarification on what's wrong with him making money.
Click to expand...

I never said there was anything wrong with Clinton making money. It's the American way. As far as he goes.

What I said, clearly and now almost a half dozen times (do you folks have trouble reading?), is that the people idolizing and giving huge sums of money to him ... a man who broke just about every oath he could break (from marriage vows to the oath to tell the truth during depositions to his oath of office as President) and who by all appearances was involved in criminal act after criminal act (some QUITE serious) ... is disgusting, IMO. It says volumes about those people.

Are you clear now? Ears unplugged?
 
Hans said:
I think the researcher should add 'T' to his name, for acting like a truther
Click to expand...

Careful, Hans, or we might start talking about who the REAL truthers when it comes to allegations against Clintion really are again.

And of course, because you have me on ignore, you wouldn't even know it. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom