• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Vince Foster and Ron Brown conspiracies

BeAChooser said:
It's remarkable how many of those who make your claim show up to defend the Clintons against accusations of impropriety while attacking Republicans day in and day out. :D


:D
Click to expand...

It amazes me how many people were all over every Clinton "conspiracy" and rumor of corruption, who got their news from Conspiracy Planet and even Prison Planet, who now get their news from Fox News and can see no possibility of corruption and conspiracy in the Bush administration.
 
BeAChooser said:
Excellent. And are you calling for an exhumation and independent autopsy of Brown's body to see if he was shot or not?



In point of fact, I've already addressed these questions you list on multiple occasions. If you'd bothered to even read this thread, you'd have seen some of them answered. That you won't do that makes me doubt your sincerity in your above acceptance. That you want to focus on them is nothing but a distraction. Your time would be better spent taking your new found acceptance of the possibility that Brown was murdered and joining me in convincing the others on this thread.

But take your time, no rush ... :D
Click to expand...

BaC the NWO is way ahead of you. We already have a fake body buried.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
It amazes me how many people were all over every Clinton "conspiracy" and rumor of corruption, who got their news from Conspiracy Planet and even Prison Planet, who now get their news from Fox News and can see no possibility of corruption and conspiracy in the Bush administration.
Click to expand...

That argument doesn't work against me, scg. Here's why.

First, you should have noticed that I didn't get my information from CP or PP. I'm getting it from military pathologists and a military photographer who were intimately familiar with what happened in the Brown crash and from eyewitnesses at the Foster death scene. And other equally credible sources. Which is perhaps why your side doesn't actually want to debate the veracity of those accusations.

Second, I noted the possibility of corruption and conspiracy in the Bush administration probably long before you did. I was posting about that concern back in 2000. It worries me greatly that the Bush administration never did ANYTHING about the crimes committed by the Clinton administration. But if you want to compare the two, then I've challenged folks like you before to come up with a list that's anywhere near as serious and verifiable, and not subject to personal *opinion*, as the one I have. Here's mine:

Perjury (by nearly everyone defending Clinton!), Obstruction of Justice (so many instances that one can hardly list them all), Witness Tampering (Betty Currie, Sid Blumenthal, the Talking Points, etc), Intimidation of Witnesses (of Willey and Tripp, for starters), Bribery (Vernon Jordan's "Missions", Monica's Condo Offer, Betty Currie's Brand New House), Sexual Harassment (Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, etc.), Sexual Assault Of Women (nearly a dozen women that we know of), Rape (of Jane Doe #5 and possibly 3 other women), Fraudulent Campaign Funding Practices (including money laundering via Buddist monks, selling U.S. Trade Mission seats, the White House coffees, making illegal telephone calls, etc), Corruption Of The IRS (audits of anyone who challenges Clinton), Corruption of the Department Of Justice (Reno's refusal to appoint an IOC to investigate Campaign Finance and Filegate, as well as FBI complicity in Travelgate and the Vince Foster coverup), Drug Use In the White House (why was there cocaine on the dress? why won't Clinton release his medical records? Clinton's brother stated on videotape during a police drug sting that Bill was a cocaine user. What are all these rumors about Mena?), Blackmail (what do you think Filegate was all about), Mean-Spirited Smearing (Carville, Flynt, Blumenthal, Cliff, etc), Perjury DURING An Impeachment Trial (definitely Blumenthal and probably Jordan), TREASONOUS Selling Of Secrets And Restricted Technology To Countries That Threaten the United States (as detailed in the Cox Report and many other sources), Lax Security Practices (for example, Monica's Top Secret clearance with NO background check), Security Violations (Stuffing secret documents down pants and socks), A Non-Free Press (NBC and FOX News were THREATENED not to report rape by Clinton of Jane Doe #5), A Controlled Press (NBC doesn't report the rape), A Biased Press (CNN and others conduct fraudulent polls to support Clinton, the media misrepresents or doesn't report facts that harm Clinton ... such as the Blumenthal perjury and the Broaddrick story), Jury Nullification (that's what democratic senators did in the trial), Mob Rule (what's left if the rule of law means nothing), Trashing The Constitution (excessive use of executive privilege and executive orders in order to escape justice and bypass our government's critical system of checks and balances), Corruption Of The Military (the coverup surrounding the apparent murder of Ron Brown ... who threatened to testify against the White House only days before he died. the Sudan "Wag The Dog" bombing of an aspirin factory while the head of the FBI and several members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were deliberately kept out the loop.), Murder (the circumstances surrounding Vince Fosters death are more than a little unusual ... what were those files that Secret Service agents saw being taken out of his office?) and, finally, the Breaking of Every Oath Possible (from Marriage to the Presidential Oath Of Office).
 
"Jury nullification"?

I'm not quite sure what trial you're talking about there, but I don't think jury nullification is a crime, is it? I'm not sure you know what "jury nullification" means - perhaps you can clarify?
 
Matthew Best said:
I'm not quite sure what trial you're talking about there, but I don't think jury nullification is a crime, is it? I'm not sure you know what "jury nullification" means - perhaps you can clarify?
Click to expand...

Good grief, Matthew. Did you completely miss the Senate trial OF BILL CLINTON? Did you miss the fact that Democrat Senators like Byrd went on record stating that the charges were impeacheable offenses and that Clinton had committed them ... and yet STILL voted to acquit? Maybe that will give you a clue what jury nullification means. If not, then look it up in a dictionary. Here's wikipedia's definition: "Jury nullification means making a law void by jury decision, in other words "the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."

Here, read this:

http://users.law.capital.edu/federalistsociety/fp3/mayer1.htm

The 55 Senators who voted "Not Guilty" on the first article of impeachment (perjury) and the 50 Senators who voted "Not Guilty" on the second (obstruction of justice) succumbed to the strategy of Clinton's defenders, who blatantly called for the Senators to commit "jury nullification," to acquit Clinton because they argued that perjury and obstruction of justice did not "rise to the level" of impeachable offenses, warranting his removal from office. That argument is not only ludicrous (both offenses clearly are impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors") but also unconstitutional, as it flies in the face of the Constitution's clear language giving the House of Representatives the "sole" power to impeach (which carries with it the exclusive power to determine what constitutes impeachable offenses). Senate Democrats voted to acquit a man who their own draft censure resolution asserted has "brought shame and dishonor to himself and to the Office of the President" and created "disrespect for the laws of the land." In a rare burst of honesty, one Democrat--Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia--in a well-publicized interview admitted that Clinton's offenses were indeed high crimes and misdemeanors warranting his removal--"no doubt about it," he said--but that he'd vote "Not Guilty" nevertheless because of Clinton's high poll numbers. The result was aptly characterized by the Wall Street Journal in its February 11 editorial as "poll-driven jury nullification, with Senate Democrats in the role of the O.J. jury."
Click to expand...

And this:

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v7n2/alt.html

Indeed, Senator Byrd (D-WV), who is widely touted as the defender of Senate prerogative, stated before the final impeachment vote that he had no doubt that Clinton’s actions constituted high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the Constitution required removal for conviction of the same. But Senator Byrd and a number of his colleagues voted "not guilty," not because Clinton was innocent or because the crimes he was guilty of aren’t impeachable, but in order to nullify the Constitution’s mandatory sentence of removal.
Click to expand...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_4_51/ai_53901753

Henry Hyde, the rock of the House managers, recently talked to NR about the impeachment trial and its aftermath.

... snip ...

NR: Would you characterize what happened in the Senate as jury nullification?

Hyde: I think so. Senator Byrd is another strange, or curious, case, because he purports to be the guardian of the Constitution. But he wanted to shut the doors on us before we had made any presentation. He says things-like Joe Lieberman, who made a marvelous statement on what's wrong with Mr. Clinton-and at the end wimps out.
Click to expand...
 
Matthew Best said:
Jury nullificaion is not a crime, though, is it?
Click to expand...

Are you sure? How about this logic?

http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2008/03/guest-post-jury-nullification-a-prosecutors-view.html

Can you please explain to me how jury nullification is not a gross and unconscionable violation of the juror’s oath? As you well know, in Texas (and I suspect most other states as well) the jurors must swear, prior to being impaneled, that they will “a true verdict render, based on the law and the evidence presented.” Read those words closely, and if I’ve left any out, please let me know. It doesn’t say “unless I disagree with the law in question,” or “unless I’m against the WoD.” It doesn’t mention jury nullification or even civil disobedience!

... snip ... Modern jurors are promising, in very specific terms, that they are going to render a TRUE verdict, based on the LAW and the FACTS presented. Jury nullification ignores all three of those things: The verdict will not be true, but will in fact be intentionally, knowingly, willfully and (I might add, to go outside of mens reas BLATANTLY false. The jury nullification verdict will not be based on the law, because it sets out to disregard the law because it is viewed as immoral, wrong, etc. Finally, the jury nullification verdict will most certainly not be based on the facts, because it chooses to ignore those facts as a matter of course.

How, then, do proponents of jury nullification justify their position that modern jurors are legally authorized to employ this fancifully archaic concept? Is it simply understood that the whole juror’s oath is but a subterfuge, and that the renegade juror must engage in this deception as a means to an end?

... snip ...

By taking the juror’s oath, a juror who plans on engaging in jury nullification is making a false statement under oath, and the statement could hardly be more material to the proceeding! The elements of perjury are thus met. The violation is even more egregious since it is planned out in advance. The jurors enter the courtroom having already formed the intent to commit jury nullification in narcotics cases, regardless of the evidence (”save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence are alleged” of course, according to the sanctimonious and high-minded drivel put out in the article). Since it is premeditated, the jurors’ oath is false at the moment the jury nullification juror is taking it.
Click to expand...

So technically, I suppose one could call jury nullification a crime, with far reaching consequences that will eventually be harmful to our society.

Surely you don't think what those Senators did was a good thing, Matthew? Do you know that the chief Clinton impeachment prosecutor in the House, David Schippers, quoted Senator Ted Stevens saying "Henry (BAC - speaking to Henry Hyde of the House Managers), I don't care if you prove he raped a woman and then stood up and shot her dead---you're not going to get 67 votes?" After Stevens made that comment, Shippers said, "I just watched one hundred Senators raise their right hand to God and swear to do equal and impartial justice. I'm only a Democrat from Chicago, but are you telling me that the Senators are going to ignore that oath also?" Stevens' response: "You're damn right they are." Try and convince us that was a good thing. Go ahead, just try. :rolleyes:
 
Matthew Best said:
So, is it against the law?
Click to expand...

Apparently no one has been prosecuted for it. But it looks like it might technically be perjury. And according to what's said in the link I provided, in some states ... like Texas ... it might also be a crime to promote it. But again I don't think anyone's been charged with it. Yet. But let's face it. If the juries decides to ignore the evidence and just vote however they want, what use is the jury system?
 
BeAChooser said:
But it looks like it might technically be perjury.
Click to expand...

Jury nullification is perjury? How does that work exactly?

If the juries decides to ignore the evidence and just vote however they want, what use is the jury system?
Click to expand...

I think there's a case for saying that jury nullification is an important right of juries - in order to send a message to tyrannical governments, or governments who just pass stupid laws.
 
Well, I'm not sure that some random lawyer's blog is really the ultimate arbiter of what is or is not perjury. I suppose we'd have to leave that to ... er, I don't know - a jury?
 
Matthew Best said:
Well, I didn't bother to read all the comments, but other than that, yes. Why do you ask?
Click to expand...

Because it cites the specific laws that are broken in jury nullification and advocating jury nullification. The language of those laws seems pretty clear-cut to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom