Bill Clinton made $75 million from speeches

[Jrrarglblarg]

Oh, do you think black men have black bone? Or black brains?

Or can you tell a black man by the shape of his skull? Is that what you are claiming?

It's called craniofacial anthropometry.

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&context=totem

See table 1 on pg 4 of the above pdf for a chart.

 

[000063]

Non-sequitor. You didn't address the question. Are you having some problem doing that?

Because the question is irrelevant. I don't know what the hole was. And, as you admit below, neither do your experts.

As noted in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority ),

Yes, my point would be just because an authority thinks X doesn't mean they're right. In this case, they don't even think it was a bullet hole. They think it looked like one.

But that doesn't apply here. The forensic pathologists in question were recognized as some of the best in the country or the military, when it came to gunshot. They did have the relevant expertise and knowledge.

But they didn't examine the body, did they? The guy who actually did examine the body apparently didn't think it was a gunshot. Like most conspiracy theorists, you're saying opinions are more valid than actual conclusions arrived at from actual evidence, because you want to believe the official conclusions are compromised, or corrupt, or something.

The other type of fallacy is to assert that the conclusion of the expert "must" be true. And I'm not doing that either. I'm simply saying what the pathologists themselves stated … that the evidence suggests the strong possibility of a bullet wound … so Brown should have been autopsied.

Which leads into Argument from Ignorance. Arguing, or in this case implying, that because the hole being from a bullet was not disproven to your satisfaction, some skullduggery must be going on. Say, what are the other signs of ballistic trauma to the head, especially at close-range such as in a small aircraft? Such as stippling near the entrance wound? If he was killed outside the plane, why not just come up with some plausible way for him to be killed in the actual accident, instead of taking the chance that the evidence survived, as you're strongly implying happened here?

In fact, as noted here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

And the military photographer and all of the pathologists whose authority I'm appealing to in this case meet all six of those conditions. They are all individuals with extensive training and experience when it comes to evaluating bullet wounds and aircraft accidents. They are all making claims within their area of expertise. There is adequate agreement among them (indeed, only Colonel Dickerson is now claiming Brown died by blunt force trauma and I can prove he's repeatedly lied in this case). None of the pathologists has been shown to be biased (indeed, I've shown that some of them are democrats). The area of expertise is a legitimate discipline. And they are all identified by name.

Did they personally examine the body?

In short, 000063, you don't know what you are talking about when you throw out the phrase "appeal to authority" as if it's a bad thing.

Yes I do. I note that these experts aren't drawing conclusions on what it was, only what it looked like.

Doctors look at test results and x-rays all the time and then tell you what disease you have and what treatment you need. If you think all you need is for the doctor to lay eyes and hands on you to diagnose serious ailments …

Most tests and X-rays require physical samples and X-ray machines, sooo...

Also, your response to my analogy is now indicating that it's possible to conclusively determine whether or not it was a bullet hole without physical. Yet your claim is that the experts have offered their opinion on what it looked like.

So what? I've never suggested there is definitely a bullet wound.

Of course not. You've merely made strong implications, so when called on it, you can back off and go "I've never suggested there is definitely a bullet wound."

Only that the experts said that was distinct possibility.

So you claim that other people claim that it could have happened.


That's about three qualifiers away from any actual evidence.

That there are other facts in the case that might point to motive, means and opportunity for a murder.

Qualifier highlighted.

And that Brown's body should still get the autopsy it was deserved to lay this controversy to rest. Are you afraid of exhuming his body and taking a look? Hmmmm?

Deserved in the opinion of some pathologists, but apparently not in others.

Pretty sure? So you are placing your *expertise* above all the named pathologists?

I missed this on the first go-round, but you claimed that what the pathologists in question think the hole looked like is credible in court. In other words, their opinion. Yet you also claim that the only way to be sure is to crack open the skull in question. In other words, their testimony from just looking at the hole wouldn't be conclusive.

Damned out of your own mouth.

I'm not placing myself above anyone. Just offering other "possibilities", like your experts offered the "possibility" of a gunshot wound.

Well that must be your *expert* opinion, because no one in government, the military or the DOJ said that was the reason for not autopsying Brown's body. And what resources would they have been *wasted* anyway? Could you be more specific?

Time and money are the usual two.

LOL! So that's what you call expert opinion?

An expert on logical fallacies and sophistry, maybe.

Now wait? I thought you just got done assuring us there are ways to identify a bullet hole without opening the skull?

I did nothing of the sort. I said I was "pretty sure". That indicates the statement in question was open to questioning, or retraction in light of contrary evidence. But if you'd like to present evidence the only way to identify a cranial bullet hole such as this one might be is opening the skull, please, go right ahead.

Are you telling us in your *expert* opinion rolleyes

I never claimed to be a forensic expert. I've repeatedly tried to qualify my statements, in fact, to point out my lack of knowledge on the subject. Your attempt to imply that I claimed to be an expert is a lie.

that trained pathologists can't identify material of "metallic density" in an x-ray? And distinguishe it from … say … bone?

Does anything besides lead from a bullet have metallic density? Say...other metals?

So what? Your side of this debate is claiming that there was NO penetration of the skull.

There was a hole in his head. I don't speak for anyone else's arguments, but that counts as "penetrating the skull". An exit wound, however, is a different matter.

Possible, but then the forensic pathologist at the crash site didn't find a metal part with the right shape and many of experts expressed the view that it would be very difficult for debris to make the type of wound that they saw in person, or in the photos. All in all, they could not rule out a gunshot wound.

They also "could not rule out" the metal from the aircraft.

And, by law, if there were any indications of foul play in the death of a Secretary level government official, the FBI was supposed to be called in to investigate. They weren't.

Which law? Chapter and verse.

Yet pathologists saying "that's looks like a bullet wound" at the examination of the body without resolution that it wasn't, certainly would seem to quality as meeting the requirements of that law. Particularly in an individual being investigated for numerous crimes who was telling the special prosecutor he'd be willing to turn make a deal (which would have possibly implicated many important people).

Supposition, and I'd still like that law.

Release what info? The photos and pathologists' statements? Haven't you been paying any attention to the discussion in this thread and past threads?

This thread, yes I have been paying attention. I've never read the past threads. I assumed the photos were released. My apologies.

This wasn't a willing disclosure of the government. This was revealed by military whistleblowers, some of whom had their careers destroyed by the government. The government in fact made every attempt to keep a lid on this once it became public. They issued gag orders against all the pathologists and the photographer (while allowing their pet pathologist, Gormley, to talk to the press). They seized all the original photos and files that Cogswell/Janoski had on the topic (including Cogswell's talk on "Mistakes In Forensic Pathology"). Only the fact that photos had already been released to the public is the reason I can link those photos to you on this thread.

Source for the leakers?

Still having trouble dealing with the actual evidence?

Argument-type Six from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7372259&postcount=163 .

I'm asking why the implied theory of a crime involves killing a man in a way that might not be, and apparently was not, necessarily concealed by the crash. If you want to make a man look like he died in a plane crash, you kill him in a manner consistent with a plane crash, not shoot him, stuff him in a plane, and hope his head is smashed to a pulp. If you have to shoot him, fake a mugging gone bad. Give a crackhead $20 and a cheap gun and point them at the guy.

Oh, wow, a list! Persuasive! I believe in the official story of 9/11 and are not part of the 9/11 Truth movement. I am not a truther. Your attempt to redefine the word is kookier than femr's rebranding of MIHOP.

Like I said, you don't know what you are talking about.

Shall I tell you how this whole thing came to light?

I know, I already admitted I made an incorrect assumption.

So why don't you learn a bit more about the case before weighing in with your *expertise*?

The expertise I repeatedly admitted I don't have, and have never claimed to have?

 

[Hans]

I will sign a sworn statement that I saw ron brown at bed bath and beyond last weekend.

Yep, I think we can construct a far more plausible conspiracy that whats_his_faces imaginary one.


"this hole in the skull" is obviously a diversion from the real issue which is was it Ron Brown's body - you see this is what they did they pay some shills like BAC to push the issue and wallah no one is asking if the body was even his!

So it would seem BAC is nothing more than a wolf in sheeps clothing, a Clintonist believer or paid minion who is pushes this issue over and over again, always failing but the 'noise' allows Ron Brown to go into deep cover after a faked plane crash....brilliant... こうたん

 

[CptColumbo]

I will sign a sworn statement that I saw ron brown at bed bath and beyond last weekend.

Maybe you were in the "Beyond" section.

 

[BeAChooser]

Judicial Watch filed this submission before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Division for the Purpose of Appointing Independent Counsels on February 12, 1998. How did that court rule on their petition to order continuation of the Independent Counsel's investigation of Ron Brown's death?

We both know the courts by that time wanted nothing to do with the Ron Brown matter, or anything further to do with Clinton's nefarious activities. The impeachment trial was over. It failed. It was "move on" time everywhere. In the courts. In the press. In Congress. In law enforcement agencies. Amongst most top republicans (Bush even ran for President saying "move on"). In the mood of the public. People like you did your job, ANTPogo. Congratulations. You obfuscated, distorted, ignored, lied ... did all the types of things I noted in post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7372259&postcount=163 . And you won. Allowed all the crimes committed during the Clinton administration to pass without justice ever being served. You won. I don't deny that.

And given that 15 years or so has now passed, it's asking a lot for me to even find material related to the Brown matter on the internet where I can link it to this forum. Once there was much more more proof of these crimes. Like that video clip of Gormley and Cogswell being interviewed that I posted you and that you surely watched (and yet still didn't even know that CPO Janoski was standing beside Brown's body at Dover during the examination ). You watched it, unless even back then you were so closed minded that you wouldn't even look at the opposing side's presentation.

But in any case, in the end what that specific court ruled is irrelevant. It's still a violation of law for an attorney to knowingly submit something to a court that is false. That submission indicated there was evidence, a transcript of the interview, proving that BET television interviewed Colonel Gormley and that he admitted specific things. So if that transcript was fabricated by JW or someone else, then surely his opponents in the case would have pointed that out and JW would have been embarrassed ... and probably been sanctioned by the court. But that didn't happen.

The contents of the BET interview were described in numerous sources ... including websites and articles hosted by blacks, like Dick Gregory. Surely you aren't trying to claim that interview never occurred? Surely, if Judicial Watch, Ruddy, and all those other sources that reported this got it all wrong … they lied … you'd be able to link at least one media source proving that. But you can't. Because not one source ever claimed that never happened. Not one media source ever claimed that Gormley didn't say what JW and the other sources stated he said. And the mainstream media and folks like you would have liked nothing better than to embarrass Klayman and people like me. But they didn't … and you didn't … because what the link I supplied said happened, did in fact happen.

Gormley admitted he was wrong about his "official" conclusions. Gormley admitted that "the hole in the crown of Ron Brown's head looked like an entrance wound from a gunshot." Gormley admitted that Brown's body should have been autopsied for that reason. And Gormley admitted that the Whitehouse, Commerce Department and JCS ordered there be no autopsy … just like they decided to skip the first phase of the normal Air Force crash investigation.

You know, the exact same three-judge panel that just four months before ordered that Knowleton's statement be attached to the Starr Report that you put so much weight on.

Yes, the three-judge panel whose rulings you lied about in our earlier discussions. Remember? You claimed that "Legally, Starr had to let anyone mentioned in the report submit their own statement." That was demonstrably false. There was no legal requirement that Starr attach submittals by those mentioned in the report to the report. I even cited the US Code to prove it. See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4698241&postcount=159 . You claimed that "The judges on the IOC panel ruled that Knowlton had not been given that opportunity, and so Starr had to include Knowlton's statement as an addendum." That was demonstrably false. That is not what they ruled. I even linked the judges "order to attach" and it says nothing of what you claimed. See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4698241&postcount=159 . You lied then, and you're still lying as evidenced by some of your claims on this thread so far.

What did they have to say about all the evidence Judicial Watch presented?

Why don't you tell us, since you think you know so much about this case.

But then we might discover you lying yet again. So let's not embarrass you further. Let's just tell folks what happened.

First, Dick Gregory and Mark Thompson, Chairman of the Political Action Committee of the NAACP in DC, filed documents in support of the Judicial Watch's petition (http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/2/12/21211 ). Now what motivated Gregory and the NAACP to take such an position? Perhaps facts like these:

http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/19/223017

January 19, 1998

Black Activists Protest Department of Justice Actions in Brown Death Investigation

… snip …

A 5 foot by 6 foot photo of Brown's body as it was discovered at the scene of the crash was left on the steps of Justice. Madison and Gregory noted that Brown's body was wholly intact, and suffered no outward signs of lethal injury. X-rays of Brown showed only a broken pelvic ring, a survivable injury, and the suspicious head wound. They said the picture reinforced the need for an autopsy to determine what caused Brown's death, and rule out the possibility of a gunshot wound.

And then the three judge panel declined to decide the matter (that's not the same as saying it had no merit) and referred it to Special Prosecutor Daniel Pearson for action (why would they do that if they felt it had no merit?). No, the panel just felt it was outside their pervue.

And then Pearson did nothing. Why? There are lots of possibilities other than his finding no merit in the allegations.

For example, perhaps Pearson did nothing because the charter of his investigation was to look at Brown's financial dealings and he had no interest in looking any further? According to http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/F7B5EF776F8B9B0285256F180065C6F3/$file/95-0002b.txt :

The Order appointing Pearson as IC authorized him to investigate "whether Ronald H. Brown, Secretary of the Department of Commerce, committed a violation of any federl criminal law ... in connection with: (1) accepting money and other things of value from Nolanda Hill or First International, Inc."

… snip …

The Order further gave IC Pearson the "jurisdiction and authority to investigate whether Nolanda Hill violated federal criminal law ... through or in connection with the operations of her organizations, including, but not limited to First International, Inc., and related organizations."

So perhaps Pearson simply felt the allegations being leveled by Judicial Watch were outside the scope of his charter?

Or perhaps Pearson was good at reading the mood of Congress, the press, his superiors and the public ... and decided that any further investigation of crimes by the Clinton administration would destroy his career? He'd be as vilified as Starr. Lawyers aren't above looking out for #1.

Indeed, the moment Brown died Pearson began to close up shop. He seemed eager to do it. Here was his stated reason:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9611/14/ron.brown/index.shtml

The final report by independent counsel Daniel Pearson, released today in federal court, says, "My office's investigation of Secretary Brown ended unfinished with his death. The unfinished state of the investigation and considerations of fairness preclude our office from drawing conclusions about the allegations regarding possible criminal conduct by the Secretary."

And here is what he did with what he'd learned during the investigation (from the same source):

Pearson closed his investigation of Brown shortly after the plane crash, but handed the investigation of Hill and other Brown associates back to the Justice Department.

Apparently, Pearson felt that "fairness" extended to letting Clinton's DOJ deal with those he'd already indicted for crimes … Michael Brown, Alma Brown, Nora and Eugene Lum, and Trisha Lum. Which of course they did … they terminated their prosecutions or gave them a sweet plea bargain.

Of course, someone could also have *influenced* Pearson's decision to turn matters over to Clinton's DOJ. If someone like Ken Starr can be induced to lie publically about the status of the Filegate files and help coverup what happened in the death of Foster (by literally fabricating evidence like the oven mitt, which I think I proved on Foster threads), is it inconceivable they could have influenced Daniel Pearson?

And regardless of the reason, if Pearson wasn't willing to finish the job he'd started where Brown's financial matters were concerned, do you honestly think he'd have had the least interest in pursuing the allegations by Judicial Watch about the circumstances surrounding Brown's death? So perhaps he also handed those allegations over to Clinton's DOJ to handle? And what would have happened? You know full well how far that would have gone under Janet Reno, given that she'd already *investigated* the whistleblowers' allegations … without even bothering to interview any of the whistleblowers.

See, ANTPogo? I can again easily come up with plenty of plausible reasons why a specific *investigation* went nowhere where Brown was concerned. While you're still struggling to explain the facts I've noted. Like the note. Like the pathologists' experts opinions. Like the lies of Acting Secretary of the Air Force Peters.

 

[NotJesus]

Textbook "dog ate my homework" CT excuse-making. Nothing more to see here.

 

[A'isha]

We both know the courts by that time wanted nothing to do with the Ron Brown matter, or anything further to do with Clinton's nefarious activities. The impeachment trial was over. It failed. It was "move on" time everywhere. In the courts. In the press. In Congress. In law enforcement agencies. Amongst most top republicans (Bush even ran for President saying "move on"). In the mood of the public. People like you did your job, ANTPogo.

So, Judicial Watch filed a pointless petition, then?

But in any case, in the end what that specific court ruled is irrelevant.

Ah, so when that three-judge panel made a decision that you think supports a conspiracy, you see that as highly significant, but when that very same three-judge panel makes a decision that doesn't support one of your conspiracy theories only four months later, suddenly you're full of excuses and "it's irrelevant" handwaves.

It's still a violation of law for an attorney to knowingly submit something to a court that is false. That submission indicated there was evidence, a transcript of the interview, proving that BET television interviewed Colonel Gormley and that he admitted specific things. So if that transcript was fabricated by JW or someone else, then surely his opponents in the case would have pointed that out and JW would have been embarrassed ... and probably been sanctioned by the court. But that didn't happen.

So why, then, didn't the Appeals Court panel extend the Independent Counsel's authority to encompass an investigation of Ron Brown's death? Were they in on the mass coverup of all the Clinton's murderous misdeeds too? But if they were in on that, why did they, four months before the Judicial Watch petition, rule that Knowleton's statement had to be attached to the Starr report?

And then the three judge panel declined to decide the matter (that's not the same as saying it had no merit) and referred it to Special Prosecutor Daniel Pearson for action (why would they do that if they felt it had no merit?). No, the panel just felt it was outside their pervue.

So, when the lawyers at Judicial Watch stated in their petition that "the Court has ample reason and authority, as well as the responsibility to the public, to order the resumption of the Independent Counsel's investigation and to expand the investigation into matters connected with Secretary Brown's death", they were actually wrong?

And then Pearson did nothing. Why? There are lots of possibilities other than his finding no merit in the allegations.

For example, perhaps Pearson did nothing because the charter of his investigation was to look at Brown's financial dealings and he had no interest in looking any further? According to http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/F7B5EF776F8B9B0285256F180065C6F3/$file/95-0002b.txt :
So perhaps Pearson simply felt the allegations being leveled by Judicial Watch were outside the scope of his charter?

So, the decision to extend the Independent Counsel's investigation to encompass Brown's death is both outside the purview of the three-judge panel (contrary to Judicial Watch's own assertions), and outside the scope of Pearson's own charter?

Though let's say Pearson could determine that on his own (despite Judicial Watch claiming in their petition that the Court "retain full authority to expand the mandate of the Independent Counsel to investigate matters related to the original appointment"). Why, then, did Judicial Watch petition the three-judge panel to order him to extend his inquiry? And if he could do that on his own authority but refused to, why did Judicial Watch think that the Court's order would do any good, since they asked for Pearson's investigative mandate to be extended, not that a new, less Clinton-influenced Independent Counsel be appointed? Weren't they afraid that he'd cover up Brown's murder the same way Starr covered up Foster's murder?

Or perhaps Pearson was good at reading the mood of Congress, the press, his superiors and the public ... and decided that any further investigation of crimes by the Clinton administration would destroy his career? He'd be as vilified as Starr. Lawyers aren't above looking out for #1.

Wait, so now Starr is "villified" because he pursued the investigation of Crimes by the Clinton administration? I thought he was a Clintonite who helped cover up Vince Foster's murder.

Of course, someone could also have *influenced* Pearson's decision to turn matters over to Clinton's DOJ. If someone like Ken Starr can be induced to lie publically about the status of the Filegate files and help coverup what happened in the death of Foster (by literally fabricating evidence like the oven mitt, which I think I proved on Foster threads), is it inconceivable they could have influenced Daniel Pearson?

And regardless of the reason, if Pearson wasn't willing to finish the job he'd started where Brown's financial matters were concerned, do you honestly think he'd have had the least interest in pursuing the allegations by Judicial Watch about the circumstances surrounding Brown's death? So perhaps he also handed those allegations over to Clinton's DOJ to handle? And what would have happened? You know full well how far that would have gone under Janet Reno, given that she'd already *investigated* the whistleblowers' allegations … without even bothering to interview any of the whistleblowers.

So, Judicial Watch was either dumb and/or naive not to have realized this when they pushed the Court to place Pearson in a position where he could do all that and thus torpedo any chance at an "unbiased" investigation of Brown's death?

I'm beginning to suspect that Judicial Watch are secret Clinton supporters, since according to you, had the three-judge panel ordered what they asked for in their petition, they'd have been playing right into the Clinton's hands!

 

[kookbreaker]

We're no longer in a heat wave thanks to all of BAC's handwaving

 

[BeAChooser]

It's called craniofacial anthropometry.

I know an expert can do it.

I'm asking Biscuit if he's that expert since he seems to doubt that is an image of Ron Brown skull x-ray.

Of course, he might say yes, since he's already admitted above that he'd lie under oath.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I know an expert can do it.

I'm asking Biscuit if he's that expert since he seems to doubt that is an image of Ron Brown skull x-ray.

Of course, he might say yes, since he's already admitted above that he'd lie under oath.

Bullhockey. The original question flippantly asked if black men have black bones. You were asserting, wrongly, that there are NO observable differences between a black man's skull and a white man's skull. There are, and yes, experts can tell the difference.

You might think your lack of knowledge can be handwaved away by moving the goalposts . . . .

 

[Alt+F4]

I can again easily come up with plenty of plausible reasons why a specific *investigation* went nowhere where Brown was concerned. While you're still struggling to explain the facts I've noted. Like the note. Like the pathologists' experts opinions. Like the lies of Acting Secretary of the Air Force Peters.

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.

 

[Biscuit]

I know an expert can do it.

I'm asking Biscuit if he's that expert since he seems to doubt that is an image of Ron Brown skull x-ray.

Of course, he might say yes, since he's already admitted above that he'd lie under oath.

I am just asking you to prove that's a black male skull. Once you do that we will discuss if it is Ron Browns.


I would not lie under oath... unless William J. Clinton asked me to. I would do ANYTHING for him.

 

[Biscuit]

So let me get this straight. All the evidence that Gromley changed his mind has disappeared except for a brief mention in a judicial watch filling with the court. Otherwise all references to it are gone.

However everything that Gromley said that indicates it was not a bullet wound from his initial reports to later statements can be found with ease in multiple sources.

Is the internet in on Ron Browns murder? Is that how deep this rabbit hole goes?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I am just asking you to prove that's a black male skull. Once you do that we will discuss if it is Ron Browns.


I would not lie under oath... unless William J. Clinton asked me to. I would do ANYTHING for him.

Ew. I draw the line at the cigar thing.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Non-sequitor. You didn't address the question. Are you having some problem doing that?

Because the question is irrelevant.

The question is quite relevant since you seem to be putting your opinion up as equal to that of military and civilian pathologists. And you just did it again.

Yes, my point would be just because an authority thinks X doesn't mean they're right.

But you misused the term "appeal to authority". It does not mean that an authority's opinion has no value, as you CLEARLY implied.

In this case, they don't even think it was a bullet hole.

FALSE. You think they went public and literally put their careers at risk without thinking it might indeed be a bullet wound?

Quote:
But that doesn't apply here. The forensic pathologists in question were recognized as some of the best in the country or the military, when it came to gunshot. They did have the relevant expertise and knowledge.

But they didn't examine the body, did they?

FALSE. Hause was there and did examine the body. He stated that he looked and saw no bone in the wound, only brain matter … directly contradicting what Gormley originally claimed.

And forensic pathologists look at photos and x-rays all the time and express their expert opinion … in court, no less. They even point to the features shown in photos of bodies and x-rays, when explaining to the jury their conclusions so that the jury can see the features. You act like these features are *vampirish* and thus wouldn't be recorded on film.

The guy who actually did examine the body apparently didn't think it was a gunshot.

FALSE. He's now on record saying that it looked like a bullet wound and that the reasons he gave for concluding it wasn't were wrong.

Like most conspiracy theorists, you're saying opinions are more valid than actual conclusions arrived at from actual evidence, because you want to believe the official conclusions are compromised, or corrupt, or something.

LOL! I'm the only one dealing with the actual evidence here. Not you. You are showing all the characteristics I noted in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7372259&postcount=163 .

Quote:
The other type of fallacy is to assert that the conclusion of the expert "must" be true. And I'm not doing that either. I'm simply saying what the pathologists themselves stated … that the evidence suggests the strong possibility of a bullet wound … so Brown should have been autopsied.

Which leads into Argument from Ignorance.

LOL! Now, having scored a big F on "Appeal to Authority", you are going to teach us about another type of fallacy?

You should have checked out the article at Wikipedia on Argument From Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance ) before opening your *mouth*. As noted there, this a fallacy where one "asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false". But that doesn't apply here either. I'm not asserting that Brown definitely died by gunshot. Never have. Neither did the pathologists. I'm simply saying what the only real experts in this case … the pathologists … stated. Which is that the evidence suggests the strong possibility of a bullet wound … so Brown should have been autopsied.

Now also you should note that Wikipedia says "Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does." Well, I think that describes you to a T.

Quote:
In fact, as noted here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html

And the military photographer and all of the pathologists whose authority I'm appealing to in this case meet all six of those conditions. They are all individuals with extensive training and experience when it comes to evaluating bullet wounds and aircraft accidents. They are all making claims within their area of expertise. There is adequate agreement among them (indeed, only Colonel Dickerson is now claiming Brown died by blunt force trauma and I can prove he's repeatedly lied in this case). None of the pathologists has been shown to be biased (indeed, I've shown that some of them are democrats). The area of expertise is a legitimate discipline. And they are all identified by name.

Did they personally examine the body?

Yes. Some of them did. Haven't you paid attention?

And like I said, pathologists may not have to view a body to still render an expert opinion about whether a wound might be caused by a bullet or not. Photos of the body and x-rays are often sufficient. Often all that defense expert witnesses (pathologists) have to work with in countering the state's pathologists are the photos and x-rays. Yet they are still allowed to testify as to cause of death. And when pathologists reopen a cold case and have to draw new conclusions based on new evidence, what do you think they look at … photos and x-rays, not the original body.

Now let me ask you this? Did they do an autopsy? Because unless they did, they can't be definite as to cause of death. Not like you seem to be.

Quote:
In short, 000063, you don't know what you are talking about when you throw out the phrase "appeal to authority" as if it's a bad thing.

Yes I do.

No, you don't. You clearly did not know what the literature said about "appeal to authority", just as you clearly didn't know what the literature says about "argument from ignorance".

Most tests and X-rays require physical samples and X-ray machines, sooo..

So did the images that CPO Janoski recorded of the body and the x-ray machines that Gormley used to make the x-rays that CPO Janoski recorded. Sooo..

Quote:
So what? I've never suggested there is definitely a bullet wound.

Of course not. You've merely made strong implications, so when called on it, you can back off and go "I've never suggested there is definitely a bullet wound."

I'm not "backing off" at all. I'm saying exactly what I said from the very beginning and throughout these debates. I'll say it again, SO LISTEN THIS TIME. I've merely restated what the pathologists said. That Brown had what looked like (in their expert opinion) a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied for that reason. And he wasn't because of orders from above … orders by people who did not, as you insist is necessary, see the body. In fact, they made that decision before even the photos of the wound and x-rays were available to look out. So what sort of decision making is that? Hmmmmm?

Quote:
Only that the experts said that was distinct possibility.

So you claim that other people claim that it could have happened.

Sigh. You want to play word games or pretend like you didn't understand what I posted the first ten times I posted it? Be my guest. And if that tactic is not already on this list, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7372259&postcount=163 , it should be added.

Quote:
And that Brown's body should still get the autopsy it was deserved to lay this controversy to rest. Are you afraid of exhuming his body and taking a look? Hmmmm?

Deserved in the opinion of some pathologists, but apparently not in others.

What others? Colonel Dickerson, who told the public that all the pathologists at AFIP agreed death was due to blunt force trauma? Obviously that's not true, so why would you believe anything else he had to say? And what other pathologists are there at this point saying it was due to blunt force trauma. Name them.

Also, your response is again a non-sequitor. Are you afraid to exhume Brown's body? Hmmmm?

I missed this on the first go-round, but you claimed that what the pathologists in question think the hole looked like is credible in court. In other words, their opinion. Yet you also claim that the only way to be sure is to crack open the skull in question. In other words, their testimony from just looking at the hole wouldn't be conclusive.

Like I said, you want to play word games, go right ahead. I'll stand by what I've actually said … not your distorted interpretation of it.

Damned out of your own mouth.

You are the one putting foot-in-mouth over and over.

I'm not placing myself above anyone. Just offering other "possibilities", like your experts offered the "possibility" of a gunshot wound.

So again, you place your opinion on the same level as that of the real experts in this case, the pathologists. Like you said … "damned out of your own mouth."

Quote:
And what resources would they have been *wasted* anyway? Could you be more specific?

Time and money are the usual two.

LOL! How much time and money would an autopsy have consumed?

More than they *wasted* damaging the careers of the military photographer and several of the pathologists who blew the whistle on this?

More than they wasted sending press spokespersons, Gormley and Dickerson out to talk to the press?

More than they wasted sending Gormley and Dickerson to try and lie to the BET audience?

More than they wasted having the Acting Secretary of the Air Force write a letter and lie to the families?

More than they wasted when Reno *investigated* the matter (but didn't question the whistleblowers)?

More than they wasted getting everyone (well everyone but the key whistleblowers and those knowledgeable about gunshot) together in a meeting at DOVER so they could assure the public that AFIP had investigated the matter and still judged it to be death by blunt force trauma?

More than they wasted going to the home of Cogswell to seize all his materials on Brown?

More than they wasted investigating how the original photos and x-rays of Browns head disappeared from a locked safe at Dover? Oh wait, they didn't spend any time trying to find out where those critical materials went or who stole them from the safe, so maybe this is the ONE instance where an autopsy would have wasted more time and manpower.

An expert on logical fallacies and sophistry, maybe.

I bow down to your expertise in that.

Quote:
Now wait? I thought you just got done assuring us there are ways to identify a bullet hole without opening the skull?

I did nothing of the sort. I said I was "pretty sure".

Oh … is that what you mean by "back[ing] off"?

Quote:
Are you telling us in your *expert* opinion ()

I never claimed to be a forensic expert.

Haven't you? You've put your opinion on the same level as theirs. I pointed out an instance of you doing that above when you said "Just offering other 'possibilities', like your experts offered the 'possibility' of a gunshot wound." Apparently, you think your "possibilities" are just as significant as theirs. So you might as well be claiming you're a forensic expert.

Quote:
that trained pathologists can't identify material of "metallic density" in an x-ray? And distinguishe it from … say … bone?

Does anything besides lead from a bullet have metallic density? Say...other metals?

So you are suggesting there were other metals inside Brown's skull? But how do you reconcile that with your claim that Gormley's original conclusion about the wound … that it was just an indentation … is the one that counts because Gormley was the only pathologist to see Brown's body first hand (which, by the way, is false)? Hmmmmm?

Quote:
So what? Your side of this debate is claiming that there was NO penetration of the skull.

There was a hole in his head. I don't speak for anyone else's arguments, but that counts as "penetrating the skull".

Good. We agree on something. Yet you said above that Gormley is the only expert whose opinion counts becuase he was the only expert who personally looked at Brown's body. And Gormley in his official capacity said there was no penetration and that the skull only had an indentation. So which is it? Is Gormley the only trusted expert or not? And if he is, then how do you reconcile your statement and his? And if he isn't, then why did you suggest he was? Hmmmmm? Your positions seem a mite contradictory.

An exit wound, however, is a different matter.

In what way? Are you claiming there was an exit wound? If so, then explain why CPO Janoski, who was standing beside Gormley during the examination photographing it, stated under oath that Gormley did not look for an exit wound. Explain why Gormley would even look for an exit wound in the first place given that his official conclusion was that the skull was not penetrated? He must have come to that conclusion before looking for an exit wound. Don't you think? Or are you claiming he looked for an exit wound before even being suspicious about an entry wound? Your position is sounding more and more inconsistent and illogical, 000063. That by the way is one of the characteristics noted here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7372259&postcount=163 .

Quote:
All in all, they could not rule out a gunshot wound.

They also "could not rule out" the metal from the aircraft.

So in other words, there was no way to know the cause of death without an autopsy. So why didn't they perform one? And try to think up an excuse better than *it would have been a waste of time and resources*.

Quote:
And, by law, if there were any indications of foul play in the death of a Secretary level government official, the FBI was supposed to be called in to investigate. They weren't.

Which law? Chapter and verse.

LOL! Don't you know that after the death of JFK, Congress passed a law that put the investigation of the death of federal officials within FBI jurisdiction. It not only made the death of such officials a federal capital offense, it gave the FBI jurisdiction over state and local authorities, and the military, in such cases.

The chapter and verse are 18 U.S.C. § 351 and 18 U.S.C. § 1751 .

Look them up, particularly 18 U.S.C. § 351.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/18/351

18 U.S.C. § 351 : US Code - Section 351: Congressional, Cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping, and assault; penalties

… snip …

(g) Violations of this section shall be investigated by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistance may be requested from
any Federal, State, or local agency, including the Army, Navy, and
Air Force, any statute, rule, or regulation to the contrary
notwithstanding.

In other words, once there was any suspicion of foul play (and the words, "that's looks like a bullet wound" were uttered at the examination"), the FBI should have been called in … by law. But they weren't. They were kept out of the loop.

Quote:
Yet pathologists saying "that's looks like a bullet wound" at the examination of the body without resolution that it wasn't, certainly would seem to quality as meeting the requirements of that law. Particularly in an individual being investigated for numerous crimes who was telling the special prosecutor he'd be willing to turn make a deal (which would have possibly implicated many important people).

Supposition

It's not supposition, that's a statement of fact. It's a fact that a pathologist at the examination, while bending over Brown's body to take a look, uttered those words. Even Gormley has admitted that. It's a fact that it was unresolved whether Brown died by gunshot or blunt force trauma. Even you as much as admitted that above. And it's a fact that Brown was being investigated, had told the press and Whitehouse of his intent to make a deal, and that doing so would have likely implicated many people.

I've never read the past threads.

Then maybe you should … so that you don't continue to "argue from ignorance".

Source for the leakers?

I don't know what you mean by that? I provided you with a detailed description of how the material that was *leaked* came into the "leakers" hands and the chronology for that.

I'm asking why the implied theory of a crime involves killing a man in a way that might not be, and apparently was not, necessarily concealed by the crash.

What you are doing is getting the cart before the horse. You insist on knowing the how before you even know the *if*. Talk about wasting time and resources?

Most law enforcement experts will tell you to first find out if a murder was committed. If expert pathologists are telling you that based on what x-rays and their visual examination show, there may be a bullet wound in the victim's head, you ask for an autopsy. You do this regardless of how difficult you might think it would have been to shoot that victim. You do this regardless of how expensive and time consuming it might be. And then, if your experts find it was a bullet wound, you start asking how it happened.

So I'm not going to play this game with you other than to suggest it just didn't go as planned. Other than to suggest that if the plane was caused to crash, whoever was responsible did the logical thing and made sure someone could verify the result and deal with it, if it was less than optimal. You have the A plan and the backup plans and you don't leave anything to chance.

All of this, the plausible scenarios, have been discussed in previous threads. A credible scenario is that the plane was spoofed into the mountain to provide a reasonable cover for Brown's death. Aviation Week has stated that the flight path of the plane is consistent with this possibility. Plus, a portable airport beacon that would be used in such a scenario went missing before the crash and the person in charge of that beacon died (coincidently?) after the crash before investigators could interview him. In this scenario, they could not be sure the crash would kill him so they would have someone go to the site before the rescuers and make sure he was dead. Remember, they would know where the plane was coming down. We know that the search effort was misdirected initially so that it took hours for rescuers to reach a crash only a few miles from the airport. The AP reported that the first rescuers arrived and found several Americans already at the site (even though officially US personnel arrived after the Croatians). A crash in Croatia also would make it possible to control access to the site (i.e., keep American journalists away). And that's what they did … keep camera crews and journalists away the site. That's one of the things that Ira Sockowitz (implicated in Chinagate) was at the site doing. Coincidently, Ira was supposed to be on the ill fated flight … but *missed* it. And then he reported back to Commerce that two people survived the crash (the government has never admitted that more than one did). We know the military didn't follow the usual approach to investigating the crash at the orders of the White House. And we know they punished those officers who went public about the suspicious activities at Dover. This isn't all that complicated, 000063. So don't get the cart before the horse. Before we waste a lot of time on scenarios, let's find out if Brown was murdered. Exhume and autopsy his body.

If you want to make a man look like he died in a plane crash, you kill him in a manner consistent with a plane crash, not shoot him, stuff him in a plane, and hope his head is smashed to a pulp.

Oh you do? Are you an expert on assassinating people too?

I am not a truther.

I'm not accusing you of being a truther. I'm simply noting the characteristics of the way 9/11 Truthers debate and comparing them to yours.

I know, I already admitted I made an incorrect assumption.

Oh, is that what it was … an "assumption"?

 

[Biscuit]

Ew. I draw the line at the cigar thing.

Ron Brown and Vince Foster also refused to be the presidential cigar cutter.

 

[A'isha]

Hmm...I'm running into a problem regarding that Gromley interview. According to Judicial Watch's February 12, 1998 petition, it supposedly took place on December 11, 1997, on the African-American-targeted cable channel BET.

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.

For instance, this article, written by Ruddy himself and dated the exact same day as the BET interview, talks about a gag order placed by Dr. Jerry Spencer, the chief medical examiner for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. Did Gormley break that order by giving the BET interview, and if so, was he reprimanded or punished in any way?

Side note: a Department of Defense press conference also held on December 11, 1997, makes no mention of Gormley's interview or his backtracking, and instead reiterates that Gormley considered the possibility of a gunshot by ruled it out.

This December 19, 1997 Reuters article talks about how the NAACP wants an answer on Ron Brown's death. It mentions Cogswell and Hause's statements regarding how Brown suffered a possible gunshot wound, but the only mention of Gormley is down at the bottom, and again talks about how he ruled out a gunshot wound.

This December 20, 1997 article for the Washington Afro-American mentions that "local and national" black leaders are calling for an investigation into Brown's death, but while it mentions Cogswell, Hause, and Wecht's statements, it has no mention of either Gormley or his December 11 interview on BET.

This fragment of a December 23, 1997 WLIB Radio ("The Voice of Black Radio") interview with Al Sharpton quoted as saying "Well, I think the first thing that one must say is that, clearly, if there is evidence that showed differences to what was publicly reported, why was that evidence overlooked or stifled?" But no mention of Gormley or his December 11 BET interview.

This December 24, 1997 press release talks about how actor and activist Dick Gregory was arrested during protests outside the Armed Forces Institute Of Pathology's main office. Despite mentioning Cogswell, Hause, and Wecht's statements and quoting Mr. Gregory as saying There was evidence that Ron Brown was murdered and they decided to not do an autopsy and destroy his head X-rays," once again neither Gormley nor his December 11th BET interview are mentioned.

In this January 11, 1998 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article written by Ruddy himself, titled "Pathologists Dispute Military Claims in Brown Probe", the statements of Parsons, Cogswell, and Hause about Brown's wound being a gunshot wound are repeated, but Gormley's "retraction" (and, indeed, the December 11, 1997 BET interview) are not mentioned at all. Instead, the three pathologist's statements are contrasted with Gormley's "official" finding, described in the article as "The Post article quoted Gormley as stating that 'there is no doubt in anybody's mind' that Brown died of blunt force injuries and that he had not been shot."

Curiously, the article entitled

Finally, in this April 26, 1998 Washington Weekly article, parts of an April 14 interview with Kathleen Janoski on WOR Radio's Bob Grant show are reproduced. The only mention of Gormley is that Janoski doesn't think he intended to rely on what Cogswell found at the plane crash site that might have explained the headwound (instead of it being a gunshot wound). And despite Janoski mentioning she's retained Judicial Watch (who, just two months before, had attached a transcript of Gormley's DEcember 11, 1997 BET interview as an exhibit in their petition) as her counsel, and the Washington Weekly writer saying stuff like "The American press, which hangs on every manipulative word belched forth by Susan McDougal and her lawyers, only compounds their disgrace by pretending Kathleen Janoski and her cohorts are not to be believed," there's again no mention of Gormley's retraction or his December 11, 1997 BET interview.

 

[BeAChooser]

Yep, I think we can construct a far more plausible conspiracy that whats_his_faces imaginary one.

"this hole in the skull" is obviously a diversion from the real issue which is was it Ron Brown's body - you see this is what they did they pay some shills like BAC to push the issue and wallah no one is asking if the body was even his!

So it would seem BAC is nothing more than a wolf in sheeps clothing, a Clintonist believer or paid minion who is pushes this issue over and over again, always failing but the 'noise' allows Ron Brown to go into deep cover after a faked plane crash....brilliant... こうたん

Would the above qualify as Arguing WITH HIMSELF From Ignorance? LOL!

Remember when Hans posted that it's "weird you guys actually talk to [BAC]" (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7365226&postcount=1 )? But what's really weird is that Hans has now made post after post, yet hasn't introduced a single sourced fact, or even a claim of fact regarding the case, or answered any of the questions posed to him about the facts. What is JREF about if not that?

And now he's just spouting sheer nonsense in a clear effort to derail the thread (not that the powers that be care). It's almost like he just wants to talk about me to himself. Is he obsessed with me? Is he planning to stalk me now? Did I do something in the past to anger him?

I'd much rather talk about the facts surrounding the Brown death with him. But he apparently doesn't want to ... I'm on his ignore list. Seriously, isn't it "weird" to keep posting about someone you claim is on your ignore list?

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
We both know the courts by that time wanted nothing to do with the Ron Brown matter, or anything further to do with Clinton's nefarious activities. The impeachment trial was over. It failed. It was "move on" time everywhere. In the courts. In the press. In Congress. In law enforcement agencies. Amongst most top republicans (Bush even ran for President saying "move on"). In the mood of the public. People like you did your job, ANTPogo.

So, Judicial Watch filed a pointless petition, then?

Perhaps. But hope springs eternal. Even against overwhelming odds. Someone has to fight the good fight. It certainly isn't going to be the likes of you.

Quote:
But in any case, in the end what that specific court ruled is irrelevant.

Ah, so when that three-judge panel made a decision that you think supports a conspiracy, you see that as highly significant, but when that very same three-judge panel makes a decision that doesn't support one of your conspiracy theories only four months later

Prove they made a decision. If they passed it on to Pearson as the sources seem to indicate, then they didn't make any decision. But they didn't discard it either. Just as they passed on Knowlton's addendum to Starr (ordering Starr to include it in his report). If the felt it was sheer garbage, I doubt they would have done either.

suddenly you're full of excuses and "it's irrelevant" handwaves.

What? You going to just ignore my proof that you LIED the last time we discussed the three judge panel?

Quote:
It's still a violation of law for an attorney to knowingly submit something to a court that is false. That submission indicated there was evidence, a transcript of the interview, proving that BET television interviewed Colonel Gormley and that he admitted specific things. So if that transcript was fabricated by JW or someone else, then surely his opponents in the case would have pointed that out and JW would have been embarrassed ... and probably been sanctioned by the court. But that didn't happen.

So why, then, didn't the Appeals Court panel extend the Independent Counsel's authority to encompass an investigation of Ron Brown's death?

If you're trying to imply that the court found the transcript was bogus and that's the reason they didn't extend the authority, then prove it. Surely the court would have sanctioned JW in that case and published the fact. So prove they did. No, your response is really is a non-sequitur. It doesn't address the substance of my statement … which is that the submittal proves Gormley retracted his earlier claims during the BET interview. And you know it.

Were they in on the mass coverup of all the Clinton's murderous misdeeds too?

Growing desperate, ANTPogo, because this just isn't going away like it should?

Quote:
And then the three judge panel declined to decide the matter (that's not the same as saying it had no merit) and referred it to Special Prosecutor Daniel Pearson for action (why would they do that if they felt it had no merit?). No, the panel just felt it was outside their pervue.

So, when the lawyers at Judicial Watch stated in their petition that "the Court has ample reason and authority, as well as the responsibility to the public, to order the resumption of the Independent Counsel's investigation and to expand the investigation into matters connected with Secretary Brown's death", they were actually wrong?

No, I believe Klayman was right. And if the court passed this on to Pearson to do "something", they obviously must have decided that the decision was outside their pervue. But I also believe, as I stated at the beginning, that by the time this petition was filed the court had already decided to move on where allegations of involvement in criminal activities by the Clinton administration were concerned. The court had lost it's will, along with the rest of the country, to see justice done. So they didn't ORDER Pearson to investigate and report back. They left it up to him and then dropped it. They put him on the spot, not themselves. Politics (and exhaustion) was now guiding everyone.

Quote:
For example, perhaps Pearson did nothing because the charter of his investigation was to look at Brown's financial dealings and he had no interest in looking any further? According to http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/F7B5EF776F8B9B0285256F180065C6F3/$file/95-0002b.txt :
So perhaps Pearson simply felt the allegations being leveled by Judicial Watch were outside the scope of his charter?

So, the decision to extend the Independent Counsel's investigation to encompass Brown's death is both outside the purview of the three-judge panel (contrary to Judicial Watch's own assertions), and outside the scope of Pearson's own charter?

Sure, why not? I'm not saying that's true, I'm simply saying that's the rationalization that each body used to wash their hands of what was sure to be more trouble for them … a can of worms.

Though let's say Pearson could determine that on his own (despite Judicial Watch claiming in their petition that the Court "retain full authority to expand the mandate of the Independent Counsel to investigate matters related to the original appointment"). Why, then, did Judicial Watch petition the three-judge panel to order him to extend his inquiry?

Well if, as you say, JW said that the court retained FULL authority to extend the mandate, why wouldn't JW petition the court? Why would JW then just go to Pearson and ask him to do it?

And if he could do that on his own authority but refused to, why did Judicial Watch think that the Court's order would do any good, since they asked for Pearson's investigative mandate to be extended, not that a new, less Clinton-influenced Independent Counsel be appointed?

Well first, what was the likelihood of a new IC being appointed? ZERO. Even members of the three judge panel were questioning the efficacy of independent counsels by that time.

And second, hope springs eternal. Perhaps JW hoped that the three judge panel would ORDER an investigation and that Pearson report back to them on it. But they didn't. The simply passed the matter on to Pearson and let him decide. They washed their hands, just like everyone was doing. Justice be damned.

Wait, so now Starr is "villified" because he pursued the investigation of Crimes by the Clinton administration?

You don't think he was villified? Where were you?

I thought he was a Clintonite who helped cover up Vince Foster's murder.

And he did. But that's not the way the mainstream portrayed it.

The media ignored all the things Starr did that make it clear he was acting in the Clintons' interest all along.

They ignored the fact that he lied about the FBI Filegate files being returned to the FBI.

They ignored that he fabricated evidence in the Foster case (the oven mitt) and ignored the sudden change in his key witnesses statements (the ones he used to claim Foster was depressed) after they met in the Whitehouse with Clinton and his staff.

They ignored how badly he mishandled the investigations he chose to pursue, and how he gave those he *managed* to convict such sweet plea agreements. Hubbell, for instance, admitted to committing a felony by misleading federal investigators and Starr let him out on parole with no jail time. Hubble didn't even pay a fine. Starr didn't even seek his cooperation as a condition for the agreement … which violates the most fundamental procedure of prosecutors.

They ignored that his lead investigator in the Foster case quit in total disgust, claiming there was a coverup underway.

They ignored that he spent all of ten minutes deposing Hillary Clinton in a scandal (Filegate) where she was implicated by sworn testimony as the mastermind.

And they ignored that with all the resources at Starr's disposal, he found out less about the Filegate scandal, and several other scandals, than little ol' Judicial Watch armed only with the power to depose folks in civil cases.

They ignored that Starr was closing down the investigation, and then the Brown allegations surfaced, and suddenly the Monica came to light. Then rather than use the semen covered blue dress to catch Clinton in a lie under oath, as most prosecutors would have done, he told Clinton about the dress beforehand and gave up that opportunity.

They ignored the fact that during the time Starr was investigating the Clintons, he was working for a company owned by China's Peoples Liberation Army and the arms dealer Wang Jun. Bill Clinton and Ron Brown met with Jun in the White House escorted by Charlie Trie, who laundered more than a million dollars from Chinese sources into the Clinton Defense Fund and DNC coffers. And that meeting with Jun occurred just days before Clinton signed a waiver allowing Loral to sell previous restricted satellite technology to the Chinese (a waiver Loral CEO Bernard Schartz probably earned by pumping another million plus into the Clinton and DNC coffers). You see, if Brown had talked about what he knew regarding the illegal campaign contributions and the selling of formerly restricted technology for campaign contributions, there were lots of very important and powerful people who would have been directly implicated.

And they ignored all that … and more.

Just like you've been doing from our first *meeting*.

Quote:
Of course, someone could also have *influenced* Pearson's decision to turn matters over to Clinton's DOJ. If someone like Ken Starr can be induced to lie publically about the status of the Filegate files and help coverup what happened in the death of Foster (by literally fabricating evidence like the oven mitt, which I think I proved on Foster threads), is it inconceivable they could have influenced Daniel Pearson?

Well, are you going to answer that question or not?

[Quote:]
And regardless of the reason, if Pearson wasn't willing to finish the job he'd started where Brown's financial matters were concerned, do you honestly think he'd have had the least interest in pursuing the allegations by Judicial Watch about the circumstances surrounding Brown's death? So perhaps he also handed those allegations over to Clinton's DOJ to handle? And what would have happened? You know full well how far that would have gone under Janet Reno, given that she'd already *investigated* the whistleblowers' allegations … without even bothering to interview any of the whistleblowers.

So, Judicial Watch was either dumb and/or naive not to have realized this when they pushed the Court to place Pearson in a position where he could do all that and thus torpedo any chance at an "unbiased" investigation of Brown's death?

More non-sequitur. You seem to be having great difficulty actually addressing the points I made in response to your first challenge. Now you want to move on to something else without actually responding to my point. But then that's par for the course around here. It's one of the tactics I noted in these folks: http://www.internationalskeptics.co...m/forums/showpost.php?p=7372259&postcount=163 .

 

[BeAChooser]

Bullhockey. The original question flippantly asked if black men have black bones. You were asserting, wrongly, that there are NO observable differences between a black man's skull and a white man's skull.

LIAR. I did no such thing.

Apparently, you don't know what it means when a poster puts a smiley with rolling eyes after a statement ... like I did in my response:

Originally Posted by Biscuit
That doesn't even look like a black man's skull to me.

Oh, do you think black men have black bone? Or black brains?

Or can you tell a black man by the shape of his skull? Is that what you are claiming?

But I guess it's much easier for you to focus on trivia and nonsense like this, than address the heart of my allegations regarding Brown's death?

Focusing on irrelevant trivia is a hallmark of these folks: http://www.internationalskeptics.co...m/forums/showpost.php?p=7372259&postcount=163