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

[CORed]

Wall 'O Text snipped

So, you think the same pile of crap that failed to convince anybody the last 16 times you posted it will work this time?

 

[CORed]

Strange how you seem to now be ignoring the notes from Foster's doctor where he goes into more detail about the phone conversation he had with Foster and what the specific prescription dosage was. You certainly seemed to be accepting of those notes as authentic before.

Or did you suddenly realize that those notes from Dr. Watkins where he said "[Foster] did feel that he had some mild depression" kind of makes all your flailing denials above rather foolish?

Come on, BAC, tell us: who do you think first broached the topic of depression during that phone conversation - Watkins, or Foster himself?

(I predict BAC will totally dodge this question, and instead post another gigantic cut-and-pasted screed trying desperately to wave Watkins' words away)



Yes. Back when I was a college student, when the Foster suicide occurred. I was upset that Bush was defeated in 1992, and didn't trust Clinton. Most of my life to that point had been lived under Reagan and/or Bush, and I was not pleased at the time with the prospect of a Democrat coming in and upending everything. The military cuts under Clinton just made things worse. So I was prepared to believe the worst about Clinton.

I wised up and grew out of believing in conspiracy theories long before I graduated, however.

As far as I'm concerned, the "evidence" that Foster wasn't depressed enough to commit suicide is irrelevant anyway. If BAC wants to convince me it was murder, he needs to present convincing evidence that somebody other than Foster pulled the trigger of the gun that killed him. I haven't seen any yet.

 

[BeAChooser]

As far as I'm concerned, the "evidence" that Foster wasn't depressed enough to commit suicide is irrelevant anyway.

Well now you've got me curious. Do you think that "evidence" Foster was depressed is also irrelevant to this story?

If BAC wants to convince me it was murder, he needs to present convincing evidence that somebody other than Foster pulled the trigger of the gun that killed him. I haven't seen any yet.

So I have to name the killer before you'll even consider the possibility of murder?

Do you understand how absolutely illogical and unreasonable that is? That's just not the way homicide investigations work. If it were, we'd had a lot more murderers running around than we already do.

And I gather you don't accept Knowlton's analysis that Foster couldn't possibly have pulled the trigger, given the location of the gunshot residue on his hands?

Well how about if I just provide you with some material to suggest certain parties that might have had motive to want Foster dead?

Will you agree that Foster certainly would have known a lot about the Clintons, given that he'd been their friend, personal attorney and a business partner in various ventures (such as the Rose Law Firm) over the years? If the Clintons were involved in nefarious activities, isn't it likely their lawyer and business partner would have known? And if Foster was growing mentally unstable, unable to handle the pressure as your side of this debate insists, wouldn't he have posed a risk to the Clintons?

Now in an earlier post, I mentioned some Whitewater documents (they were billing records) found in the White House a considerable time after Foster's death. They were apparently originally in Vince Foster's office the night of his death, and then quickly disappeared, despite it being designated a possible crime scene by the Park Police. They were being sought under a subpoena, and here they finally turn up in the Clinton's White House residence, just after the statute of limitation of the crimes to which they pertained had elapsed. Documents that would have shown Hillary lied under oath during the Whitewater investigation. If Foster was growing unstable, his possession of those documents could have proven very inconvenient … especially since the Whitewater matter was still being investigated at the time. In fact, we know that Foster wrote a memo in which he stated “Whitewater is a can of worms that you should NOT open!” (The Washington Times, July 15, 1995). He probably knew more about the Clinton's involvement in Whitewater than anyone else. Which might be reason enough for the Clinton's to worry if he was starting to become unreliable.

The FBI found various fingerprints on the billing records. Vince Foster's. Those of Carolyn Huber, the White House official who discovered the documents. Marc Rolfe, an employee of the law firm that took custody of the documents after they were discovered in the White House. Sandra Hatch, a secretary in the Rose Law Firm, where the documents were first produced. And Millie Alston, a White House official who had also worked at the Rose Law Firm. Oh … and also Hillary's. Michael Chertoff, the counsel for the Senate Whitewater Committee's republicans stated that only the President and Mrs. Clinton and one or two of their friends would have been interested in the documents and would have had access to the Book Room [where they were found]. Of that small group, only Mrs. Clinton's fingerprints were found. Hmmmmm….

Isn't it amazing that Vince Foster could leave the White House without leaving a video record or log entry showing that he left the White House? Isn't it amazing that Park Police would search his body at Fort Marcy Park and not find the keys to his car. They would only show up ... in the same pocket police had searched earlier ... after Craig Livingstone visited the morgue to supposedly identify a body that had already been identified earlier that evening ... the same Livingstone that was involved in Filegate (a illegal effort that was also traced back to Hillary by sworn testimony) … the same Livingstone that Hillary denied knowing but who multiple people, including Livingstone himself, said was hired by Hillary. And to add one more mystery to the mix, when emergency workers first examined Foster's car in the Fort Marcy Park parking lot, they found the car doors locked. Yet when police checked it, less than an hour later, the doors were unlocked.

I mentioned earlier that despite her denials, Hillary's Chief of Staff, Margaret Williams, was observed by the Secret Service removing thick folders full of material from Foster's office just a few hours after his death. Williams had no official duties in that office. So what was she doing there? Do you think she went into that office without orders from Hillary? Don't be ridiculous. A Congressional committee found that Hillary called Maggie Williams at 10:13 pm the night Foster died and that right after talking with Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Williams proceeded to the White House and Mr. Foster's Office. The committee also discovered that after searching Foster's office, Williams called Hillary back and they talked for 11 minutes. Yet when Fiske investigated the Foster death, guess who he didn't depose? Neither Williams or Hillary.

Now Williams denied under oath that she took anything from Foster's office. She stated "I took nothing from Vince's office. I didn't go into Foster's office with anything in mind concerning any documents that might be in his office. I did not look at, inspect, or remove any documents." But Henry P. O'Neill, a Secret Service agent who was on duty that night, also testified under oath. He said "I saw Maggie Williams walk out of the suite and turn to the right in the direction that I was standing. She was carrying, what I would describe, in her arms and hands, as folders." Who should we believe? Maggie Williams, a proven liar about regarding not having made phone calls to Hillary, or a Secret Service agent?

I think it's rather clear who was lying here. Especially since later on, Williams admitted to Whitewater investigators that Hillary ordered her to take sensitive documents from Foster's office two days after his death and store them in Hillary's White House residence. Of course, isn't it logical that given the fact that she'd already testified under oath that she took nothing out of Foster's office the night of his death, she couldn't very well admit to doing so that night during later questioning. That could have put her in jail for perjury. So she claimed to have removed them two days later instead, to explain their discovery in the Clinton residence.

But in any case, what would be so urgent as to require the removal of the documents at all, other than documents that might have put someone in jail? Obviously, Whitewater is one example where documents could have done this, documents that Foster possessed. The above clearly indicate there was certainly a lot more to the story than the nice tidy fiction that Fiske and Starr concocted.

Witnesses also saw Patsy Thomasson, director of the White House's Office of Administration, in Foster's office during the same timeframe. Again, she had no duties in that office. She was observed sitting at Foster's desk and going through his files, reportedly looking for the combination to Foster's safe. Coincidently, two envelopes reported under oath to be in the safe by Foster's secretary, Deborah Gorham, addressed to Janet Reno and to William Kennedy III, disappeared. When asked the next day about the safe opening, Mack McLarty, White House Chief of Staff, told reporters that Foster's office did not have a safe. But that claim was proven false in the final IOC report.

So who sent Patty to Foster's office? Hillary? Bill? Who told McLarty to lie about there being a safe? And what sort of envelope would have been addressed to Janet Reno, head of the Department of Justice? Or to William Kennedy III, associate White House Counsel and former Rose Law Firm partner? Something perhaps that would have incriminated someone in Whitewater crimes or perhaps Filegate (remember, William Kennedy is the person who told FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene that Craig Livingston was a Hillary Clinton hire)?

And let's talk about Craig Livingstone a little more. Secret Service memos indicated he was one of the first to be notified about Foster's death. He claimed he was told around 9 pm, then went to the morgue to identify the body, then went to Foster's home where he (and Kennedy) stayed until 2 am. Livingstone said he went home, got some sleep, then arrived back at the Foster home at 6:30 am. But he didn't go in. He stayed in his car til 8 am, then he drove to the Whitehouse and logged in (at 8:14 am). He admitted to visiting the White House Counsel's suite several times that morning but claimed he didn't go in Foster's office or remove any documents. But a Secret Service agent (Bruce Abbot) said he observed Livingstone exiting the West WIng carrying a “leather or vinyl-type briefcase, opening from the top, much in the fashion of a litigator’s bag or lawyer’s briefcase.” He returned, then later, accompanied by an individual not known to agent, left the building again. “I observed that [unknown] individual carrying one or perhaps two boxes with what appeared to be, looked to me to be loose-leaf binders,” he told Senate investigators. Just what was Livingstone moving around, CORed?

And speaking of Foster's materials possibly being moved, do you know that there were witnesses (two paramedics and two motorists) who testified they say a briefcase in Foster's car at Fort Marcy Park. But the Fiske report (and Starr report) did not list a briefcase as among the items found in the car. How very curious. A briefcase certainly is something Fiske and Starr should have noted.

Now besides Whitewater, what other motivations might someone have to silence Foster?

Well, there's the Clinton's blind trust, which all Presidents establish when they enter office. If the Clinton's were involved in shady business, that trust might reflect it. Foster was in charge of getting it completed and he was running 6 months behind schedule. Why did it take so extraordinarily long to get it finished (far longer than any previous President), when the Clintons came into office supposedly not even owning a house? Might it have had something to do with 1000% cattle future investments or some other shady dealings?

One way it could be a problem is if the list of assets was incomplete … fraudulent. For example, the Clinton's claimed to own no house. Yet Carolyn Huber later testified that a file cabinet in the private residence contained paperwork on the Clinton's "condo". What else wasn't listed? Obviously, inconsistencies like these would have caused Foster a great deal of problems. Were fraud every revealed, he could face jail. Others could face jail.

Both Web Hubbell and Marsha Scott, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Correspondence, testified to having long meetings with Foster before his death. I mentioned earlier what Hubbell said about Foster's state of mind during his trip with Foster the weekend prior to the death. Web Hubbell also said Bill Clinton called Foster for the first time in weeks the night before the death and spoke to him for 20-25 minutes. I seem to recall that according to Hubbell, Clinton invited Foster to a meeting with Bruce Lindsey and Hubbell … and Foster said no. Now if Foster was looking unreliable at the time, saying no to the Clintons might have been the last straw.

Marsha Scott's meeting was the day before Foster's death and behind closed doors in Foster's office. According to Linda Tripp it was 1-2 hours long and "highly unusual, both her coming to see him and anybody taking up that much time with Foster." Marsha at first told the FBI she couldn't remember what topics they talked about but in a second FBI interview told them she stopped by to ask how the weekend in Maryland (with Hubbell) had gone. Later, Marsha told the press that Foster was struggling with a decision, then refused to explain the nature of the decision. She also told them she saw no sign of depression at that meeting.

The night of Foster's death, Marsha went to the Foster's house then went to the White House residence and stayed there most of the night with the President and others. And do you know one of the people who was at that gathering in the White House just before Lisa Foster and Sheila Anthony changed their story about Foster's depression? Marsha Scott. She sure gets around and it's all a matter of public record. I think there was obviously a lot more going on here than meets the eye. Perhaps motive for murder (without saying exactly who pulled the trigger).

Speaking of which, isn't it curious that Nussbaum admitted that among the material removed from Foster's office after Foster's death were "personal files" (he refused to be more specific) "belonging to a client" (he refused to be more specific) that Foster was using to complete the Clinton blind trust? Now who might that be?

And isn't it curious that after all those months and months of delay, the blind trust was suddenly finished three DAYS after Foster's death, with Foster's "signature" supposedly on the documents? Aren't you the least bit skeptical about that timing, CORed?

Foster was involved in other matters. He had access to information on Travelgate. And on what really happened at Waco (about which he was reportedly quite upset). We also know that Foster made a number of overnight (i.e., one day) trips to Switzerland between 1991 and 1993. On July 1, 1998, just weeks before he died, he purchased another ticket to Switzerland. But he never used this one and received a refund on July 8th. Can you tell us why he made all those brief trips to Switzerland? It obviously was business. And why did he cancel the one just before his death? Maybe it had something to do with the stress you folks say he was experiencing? Maybe it had something to do with a motive for murder.

In any case, there are all sorts of possible motives for Foster's death. He's just a man who knew more than was good for him. A man at the center. Much like Ron Brown was focal point for the Clintons and Clinton administration's criminal activities. And you just don't want to look any deeper than surface deep, because that's what Truthers do … or perhaps you have your own concerns about knowing too much.

 

[TraneWreck]

I think BAC is operating under the theory that if he types enough words, at some point a few of them will find themselves organized into a coherent argument.

So far it hasn't worked, but keep trying!

 

[Random]

I find the entire discussion about whether or not he was depressed to be pointless. Any scenario where Foster was murdered eventually brings you to a couple of people carrying a dead or prone man around a public park in broad daylight. It's unworkable and silly.

 

[angrysoba]

I find the entire discussion about whether or not he was depressed to be pointless. Any scenario where Foster was murdered eventually brings you to a couple of people carrying a dead or prone man around a public park in broad daylight. It's unworkable and silly.

Ah! But that's just what THEY wanted you to think. A plan so crazy and incoherent that no one would believe it. Except a few dogged warriors for the Truth!

 

[A'isha]

Isn't it amazing that Vince Foster could leave the White House without leaving a video record or log entry showing that he left the White House?

I think this is my favorite crackpotty part of BAC's whole crackpotty theory. If there's no record of Foster leaving the White House, how did he get to the park where his body was found? Does BAC think he was actually killed in the White House, and then his body smuggled out, Goodfellas-style, in the trunk of a car or something?

 

[Random]

I think this is my favorite crackpotty part of BAC's whole crackpotty theory. If there's no record of Foster leaving the White House, how did he get to the park where his body was found? Does BAC think he was actually killed in the White House, and then his body smuggled out, Goodfellas-style, in the trunk of a car or something?

Wait, has BaC actually presented a theory? Most conspiracy nuts usually like to focus on complicated, irrelevant or confused details surrounding the case rather than presenting an alternate theory of events. An alternate theory of events can be evaluated and picked apart, while you can dither around lost photographs and conflicting memories of events forever.

The moon landing hoaxers like to talk about mislabled film canisters and funny shadows, but try to get them to talk about who would have had to have been involved in a hoax and who would have had to stay silent and the whole thing is quickly revealed as lunacy. When I think about all the manpower and resources that would have had to go into a fake moon landing, it seems that it would be easier to actually go to the moon.

The Holocaust deniers like to talk about finding no human soap, and confused recollections about who was working at what camp. Simple, direct questions like "where did those millions of Jews go?" usually get you a bunch of runaround about some people moved to Israel, and some to Miami and hey, did you know Hitler never wrote down anything where he specifically said he was going to kill millions of people?

A conspiracy theorist doesn't make a fire. He makes lots and lots of smoke and lets people infer the existence of a fire.

 

[BeAChooser]

I find the entire discussion about whether or not he was depressed to be pointless.

LOL!

How can a discussion of the assumption at the very heart of the government scenario be pointless? Because if Foster was not depressed, then the whole scenario concocted by the FBI, Clinton Administration, Fiske and Starr to explain his death falls apart. Because then they don't have an explanation at all.

How can can proving that the key witnesses for the government's scenario changed their stories 180 degrees a full week after the death, after a meeting in the Whitehouse, be pointless? That and many other facts I've presented in this thread (which haven't been been effectively been disputed) show witness and evidence tampering by the authorities who promoted the bogus notion that Foster was depressed. How can that be pointless?

I think it's rather illuminating to suddenly see so many posters show up on this thread saying the depression issue is irrelevant or pointless after the "it was suicide" crowd invested so much time in promoting that claim. I think what that shows is you've realized the evidence actually shows that Foster was not depressed, that the government and their *witnesses* lied about that, so now you are scurrying to find some way of making it unimportant.

Any scenario where Foster was murdered eventually brings you to a couple of people carrying a dead or prone man around a public park in broad daylight. It's unworkable and silly.

LOL! So how did he die if you can't show it was a suicide, Random?

How did he drive to the park when a search of his body at the site of his death found no car keys? When they only turned up in a pocket that had been searched, after a visit to the morgue by the infamous Craig Livingstone?

How did he shoot himself when the pattern of residue on his hands appears to make that *theory* "unworkable"? Isn't claiming suicide in that case, "silly"?

How do you explain the lack of soil on Foster's shoes if he walked to the site where his body was found? It must be YOUR theory that he levitated through the park.

How do you explain the failure to find a bullet or skull fragments at the site of his *suicide*, even after repeated extensive searches of the area? Perhaps it's your theory that a crow flew off with them.

How do you explain the various witnesses saying the body was in a different position than shown in the photographs in the IOC report? They were adament about this and there seems to be no reason to doubt their statements. Why do you?

How do you explain the pathologist lying about the x-ray machine and the fact that pathologist is the ONLY person, out of over two dozen who witnessed, examined or moved Foster's body, who says there was an exit wound in the back of Foster head. Many of the others said they saw a wound on the neck, instead? But your pathologist specifically ruled out the presence of any other injuries besides that big hole in the back of the head. You're faced with quite a quandry, aren't you?

How do you explain the big Green Oven Mitt and it's sudden appearance in the government scenario in an unsuccessful attempt to explain away the lack of fingerprints on the gun, after 2 other investigations had failed to even mention it and the Park Police inventory of the car listed no oven mitt? How do you explain the clear inconsistency between the photo of the oven mitt offered by Starr as proof of it's existance and what the other photos prove given the Park Police timeline for when they processed the evidence in the car?

You see, Random, I'll tell you what is totally silly. It's the desperation you and the others on this thread are now showing … your desperation not to address any of the verifiable facts in this case. What's silly is you making ANY comment when you apparently know so little about the case … and apparently don't want to know anything about it. What's silly ... or perhaps I should say funny ... is you and the others behaving like 9/11 Truthers in so very many ways.

 

[funk de fino]

Hows about BAC starts a poll thread to see who agrees?

Then we can see a real fact filled thread.

 

[BeAChooser]

fdf, I see you still don't want to talk about the oven mitt.

 

[kookbreaker]

is you and the others behaving like 9/11 Truthers in so very many ways.

You still trying this? Seriously, whatever your case may be throwing this out every post makes you look like a fool, no matter what pathetic little lists you make.

When you call people who criticize you 'truthers' you remind me of a kid I 'knew' back in middle school who heard the words 'slut' and though it was a cool insult. So he used them when talking about people he didn't like. Problem is, he didn't know that word actually meant so he was calling everyone, regardless of gender, a slut. (mind you, this was well before the term 'manslut' came into being). The gym teacher; 'slut'. The 60 year old (male) English teacher who handed out a lot of homework; a 'slut'. He really had no clue how much of an idiot he was making himself out to be. I don't know if someone clued him in or what but he stopped using it after a while. Right now, your constant laughable calling everyone else in this thread 'truthers' has me thinking you are that clueless 6th grader.

But hey, I could be wrong. Why don't you ask the people who actually deal with truthers on a daily basis: You know where the 9/11 Conspiracy forum is, I say you post a poll over there with a link back to this thread. Heck, you can even add your 'list' to make your case. I won't say a word in the thread so you can make your case without my opposition.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong and make that poll. I dare you. Don't forget the Planet X option - remember that should actually be funny, and that adding smileys doesn't actually make things funny.

 

[BeAChooser]

You still trying this? Seriously, whatever your case may be throwing this out every post makes you look like a fool, no matter what pathetic little lists you make.

Like I said and proved, kb, you started it.

I'm sure you don't like having the truth pointed out so plainly, but that doesn't change the reality.

You and your buddies are acting like Truthers.

In at least 10 identifiable ways.

All because you won't/can't debate the actual facts.

Now if you ever change you mind and actually want to discuss that green oven mitt. Or the wound in Foster's neck. Or the statement of the eyewitness who found Foster's body. Or that meeting in the Whitehouse a week after Foster's death. Or the *suicide* note. Or the blind trust and the behavior of Hillary's staff the night of the death. Or any of the other facts you currently are avoiding. Give me a ring.

 

[kookbreaker]

Like I said and proved, kb, you started it.

I'm sure you don't like having the truth pointed out so plainly, but that doesn't change the reality.

You and your buddies are acting like Truthers.

In at least 10 identifiable ways.

So go ahead. Prove it to everyone. Make the poll in the 9/11 subforum.

You've chosen to speak for other so often, are you afraid your opinions might not mean anything to them? Go on. Put up your 10 points in a poll and prove I am a truther. What is stopping you?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

It doesn't matter. The fact is that he is well aware that he looks ridiculous calling everyone who doesn't buy into is CT a truther.

It is done as a slimy way to get around the rules of conduct on this forum. Simply put it is an ad hom that should be ignored. Paying attention to it plays into his game, and makes the thread longer. Personally I find a great way to shorten the length of this thread is to simply put him on ignore and discuss the issue of CT'ist so invested in longed debunk Arkansas Project nonsense that they simply can't let go of it.

 

[BeAChooser]

The fact is that he is well aware that he looks ridiculous calling everyone who doesn't buy into is CT a truther.

I'm not calling you Truthers because you don't buy into the allegation of foul play in the Foster case.

I'm calling you Truthers because of the way you go about not buying into the allegations.

You behave like Truthers when presented with facts that disprove the *it was just suicide* theory.

You display most or all of those 10 characteristics I noted that 911 Truthers show.

 

[kookbreaker]

I'm not calling you Truthers because you don't buy into the allegation of foul play in the Foster case.

I'm calling you Truthers because of the way you go about not buying into the allegations.

You behave like Truthers when presented with facts that disprove the *it was just suicide* theory.

You display most or all of those 10 characteristics I noted that 911 Truthers show.

You posted gibberish screed like many a kook and claim it makes us something we are not. If you had the courage behind your convictions you would not hesitate to post that poll I suggested. You are afraid to put your petty insult in front of people experienced in dealing with truthers because you know it is an empty insult.

 

[BeAChooser]

You posted gibberish screed like many a kook and claim it makes us something we are not.

I direct our reader's attention once again to

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6405371&postcount=490

 

[kookbreaker]

I direct our reader's attention once again to

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6405371&postcount=490

All screed and gibberish you don't have the conviction to stand behind.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

All screed and gibberish you don't have the conviction to stand behind.

Because like I have written way back in this thread, BAC doesn't actually debate. He puts out large walls of text in an attempt to filibuster. Like many conspiracy theorists he uses this technique so that even if you are able to answer 99% of the wall of text, there will always be one or two sentences that you miss and he will jump on has if you are avoiding it.

Just see his partisan obsession with the Clintons for what it is.