Vince Foster and Ron Brown conspiracies

[Drudgewire]

As I remember the Vince Foster conspiracy, it was in part based around the fact he had slept with Hillary and was privvy to some pillow talk.

The flaw in that argument is I can't think of a better reason for sucking on a tailpipe than having sex with Ms. Ack-ack.

 

[applecorped]

The same reason we ignore the interesting facts of the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Area 51, the Grassy Knoll, 9/11, USPS, IRS, Roswell, Fatima, the Philadelphia Experiment, Pearl Harbor, the Jews, Tri-Lateral commission, the Reptoids, Moon Hoax, Chemtrails, Alien Abductions, Red Neck Abductions (AKA "he's got purdy lips), Big Pharma, Little Petey, Thimeriasol, and Dolly Parton.

Though I ignore RNK's, I still won't go white water rafting in the South. That's just me though. I guess I'm a bit superstitious that way.

Dolly Parton? Please don't tell me they are fake!!!

 

[dudalb]

Dude, trust me, give this one up. I'm a moderate-conservative, but you are just an embarrassment. Anyone who honestly believes the Clinton Body Count nonsense has completely jumped the shark and serves no purpose other than to give reasonable conservatives a bad name.

Amen. I was not a huge fan of Slick Willy, (Just as I am not a huge fan of Dubya) but always thought the conspiracy theories about Foster and Brown were silly.
BeAChooser is guilty of letting his hatred of Clinton overcome his reason; the same thing that the 9/11 Truthers are guilty of vis a vis Dubya.

 

[BeAChooser]

As I remember the Vince Foster conspiracy, it was in part based around the fact he had slept with Hillary and was privvy to some pillow talk.

No, that's not it. Their relationship was a lot more involved and complicated than that. He was involved in their business dealings, for one. He was deputy White House counsel. But more important, he was the Clintons' personal lawyer. In other words, he knew where the bodies (figuratively) were.

Ask yourself why Hillary's chief of staff, Margaret Williams, was observed by secret service removing boxes of material from Foster's office immediately after the death, before park police arrived to seal it. Ask yourself why Craig Livingstone (who curiously Hillary denied even knowing) was seen by another Secret Serviceman removing items from Foster's office after it was sealed. Ask yourself why witnesses saw Bernard Nussbaum in Foster's office after his death. Ask yourself why three witnesses say Patsy Thomason, director of the White House's Office of Administration, was looking for the combination to Vincent Foster's safe. Two envelopes reported 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 regarding rumors of the safe opening, Mack McLarty, White House Chief of Staff, told reporters Foster's office did not even have a safe. That claim is proven false in the final IOC report.

You remember that briefcase that Bernard Nussbaum opened and upended in front of Park Police, showing it to be empty? Three days later, Stephen Neuwirth, Associate Counsel to the President, announced that a suicide note was discovered in that briefcase. Do you know there are witnesses who saw boxes marked "Foster" in the Clinton WhiteHouse residence later on? You heard that a document connected to Whitewater, with Hillary's fingerprints on it, magically appeared in the residence a few days after the statute of limitation on the Whitewater matter expired? Well guess what? We know that documents connected to Whitewater were in Foster's office the day he died and were removed. SOME were later turned in.

Do you start to get the picture?

Do you know who Patrick Knowlton is? If not, maybe you should find out because you see, the three judges who supervised Ken Starr, forced Starr to include a twenty page addendum to his report on Foster that was largely made up of Patrick Knowlton's testimony on the harassment he endured for suggesting there was evidence the investigators overlooked. This addendum is the first time in US history that an independent counsel had criminal activity by his own staff attached to his report. You want to learn more, you can start here:

http://www.fbicover-up.com/

And then read this from AIM:

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-the-independent-counsels-final-report/

and this:

http://www.aim.org/publications/special_reports/2003/jul15.html

Keep in mind that the evidence presented to the court by Knowlton stands uncontradicted. The rulings against Knowlton in the matter provided NO analysis whatsoever of the evidence.

It is certainly damning that Fiske and Starr both failed to tell the three judge panel and the public about an FBI memo to the Director of the FBI written two days after the death stating that the shot was fired into Foster's mouth without leaving an exit wound, which directly contradicts Starr, Fiske and the official autopsy report (which all concluded there was an exit wound in the back of the head). Is it any wonder that the government claims the official 35 mm photos of Foster at the scene of the crime were "underexposed" and deemed useless? Only one polaroid photo of Fosters head (of his neck actually) survived from the scene of the supposed suicide during the *investigation*. All the others (taken by several different people) simply disappeared.

And when Miquel Rodriguez (you know who he is? If not, you better read the links above) got hold of the original photograph, he had the Smithsonian institution blow it up. The blowups show a dime-sized wound on the right side of Foster’s neck about half way between the chin and the ear. A wound never mentioned by Fiske or Starr or in the official autopsy report.

Then there is the matter of the x-rays. You see, a Supplemental Criminal Incident Record of the U.S. Park Police states "Dr. Beyer stated that X-rays indicated there was no evidence of bullet fragments in the head." Dr. Beyer was the Deputy Virginia Medical Examiner. The X-ray box on the autopsy report was checked "yes." But, curiously, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Dr. Beyer said that he had been planning to take X-rays but never did. Claimed the equipment was broken and had been for weeks. Asked whether Robert Fiske had ever talked to him he said "no". Asked whether Fiske had sent investigators to the hospital, or to the company that services the X-ray machine", he said "Not that I am aware of."

The original report by Dr. Donald Haut, the only doctor to visit the crime scene, lists the cause of death as a "self-inflicted gunshot wound mouth to neck." Yet according to the official report, Foster blew a 1 by 1 ¼ inch hole in the upper part of his skull. "There is no other trauma identified that would suggest a circumstance other than suicide," concluded Fiske’s panel of pathologists. Dr. Haut’s report was not included in the documents released by the government. It was discovered in June 1997 at the National Archives by Patrick Knowlton.

Four of the rescue workers testified in secret before the Whitewater grand jury that they saw trauma to the side of Foster’s head or neck. This information was submitted to Kenneth Starr in a memorandum from Miquel Rodriguez summing up the proceedings of the Whitewater grand jury. Keep that in mind as your read in the above links what Rodriguez says about this case being a cover up.

Now you'd think if there was a 1 by 1 ¼ inch hole in the back of Fosters head there would have been brain matter and blood all over the scene. But Corey Ashford, the Emergency Medical Services technician, who had to pick up and move the body didn't observe any. He said he didn't get a drop of blood on his white uniform, or on his gloves. He said there was no blood on the ground underneath the body. Roger Harrison, who helped Cory, didn’t see any blood either. No blood on the ground. No blood on the body. No blood on anybody who had touched it. Corey Ashford didn't see an exit wound. Or Richard Arthur. Or Sgt Gonzalez. In fact, NONE of the paramedics who where there report seeing the 1 by 1 ¼ inch hole claimed by Fiske and Starr to be in the back of Foster’s skull. Nor did they found any bone fragments on the ground near the body.

At the FairFax County Morgue, the doctor on duty was Julian Orenstein. In his FBI statement it says he lifted the body in order "to locate and observe the exit wound on the decedent's head." Notice that it doesn't actually say he saw the exit wound ... but you might think he did reading that. But he didn't. Contacted later, he admitted "I never saw one directly." And a copy of the handwritten notes of the FBI interviews, which Christopher Ruddy obtained via a FOIA lawsuit against the Office of the Independent Counsel does not mention Orenstein trying to locate an exit wound. Apparently, that was added to his statement after the fact.

And what about the official autopsy photos? Given all of the above, and all the rest that Knowlton documents at his website, you'd think the government would want them released to stop all these allegations of foul play that are circulating. Clear autopsy photos showing only a wound where the official report claims is a wound would likely do that. But in a recent FOIA ruling, the court has refused to release them to the public. They say the privacy rights of the Foster family outweigh the public's interest in seeing them. Do you know that was the first time that the Supreme Court has ruled that a public figure's privacy rights under the FOIA can be extended after his death to members of his family? Do you know that the US government joined with the Foster family to prevent the release? It seems, they'd rather have these allegations floating about, discrediting the whole government, then clear the matter up by simply releasing four photos? Go figure.

Oh there are plenty of reasons to suspect foul play in this case. I just listed but a few of them above. Just read the Knowlton website. There are literally hundreds of inconsistencies and incriminating facts that the so-called *debunkers* don't want to touch. Just like in the Ron Brown case.

 

[BeAChooser]

I was not a huge fan of Slick Willy

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.

but always thought the conspiracy theories about Foster and Brown were silly.

Thinking that and proving that are two different things. One takes some effort which you clearly haven't even been willing to expend.

BeAChooser is guilty of letting his hatred of Clinton overcome his reason

No, I'd say the cases I've made in the Ron Brown and Foster instances ... or in FileGate, RapeGate, Chinagate, and Campaign Finance gate ... are quite reasoned. Which is why, unlike you, I'm able to and willing to supply sources to back up everything I suggest. Go ahead, dubalb, prove that Hillary didn't know Craig Livingstone, like she claimed:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/20000327_xnjdo_new_photos5.jpg

 

[Drudgewire]

And what about the official autopsy photos? Given all of the above, and all the rest that Knowlton documents at his website, you'd think the government would want them released to stop all these allegations of foul play that are circulating.

CTers vastly overestimate how much people in the real world care about these silly theories because they vastly underestimate how irrelevant they are to everyone else. I'm sure government will release the autopsy photos right after that new investigation into 9/11 to "answer all those questions the American people have."

 

[beachnut]

Ron Brown was killed with a friend of mine in an Accident. To say otherwise, that it was not an accident, is pure ignorance. I can say this because I am trained in aircraft accident investigation and understand how the accident happen, from well before the flight to impacting the mountain. All the lies about it are not even plausible to rational people after you study all the lies. If there was something to it I would have a Pulitzer Prize to redeem my friend who flew the Jet and died, and the many supervisors fired for contributing to the accident would not of been FIRED! So sad to see people fall for lies. I was

If you actually study Ron Brown's and the Pilot I had flown with deaths, the only CT was exposed by the use of unsafe approach plates, one of the causes of the ACCIDENT. To make up pure lies about Ron Brown's death, is pure political bias, and thus fiction and in the wrong sub forum.

Sad that someone can see the idiots ideas of 9/11 truth makes up the same kind of ideas about Ron Brown's death. For me to figure out the accident is easy and I see most of the claims about CT are false. Why can I see it, not because I am superior, I was trained to have investigate aircraft accidents for the USAF. Being formally trained puts me ahead of pure bs spewed by Ron Brown CTers. The false claims of bullets in the head are made by crackpots and were not supported by further study. So, either you think Rob Brown's death is a CT, and support crackpot ideas, or you go with the facts and can figure out the accidents root cause, much more interesting and as intriguing in a technical way than the idiot CT ideas. I mean it was like a Payton Place for Colonels and Generals making up rules and ignoring flight rules and regulations. Not that I think regulations are great, but some things can not be waived and one of them is a mountain against an airplane. To learn why the accident happen takes time, most CTers opt out for the easy hearsay lies of bullets and junk ideas from people who have cherry picked their evidence to support what becomes a nut case conclusion. Why waste time with facts and learning what happen, when you know based on lies. The lazy way is the easiest.

Anyone who has enough time can figure out Ron Brown's accident and will find it comes down to a simple piece of paper, about half the size of notebook paper! Pathetic are those who blindly believe others without evidence.

 

[Allen773]

Why do we even bother giving this guy the time of day? He still thinks that Saddam Hussein had a role to play in 9/11 and still buys the Bush Administration's propaganda about Saddam's WMD capability (or lack of, really).

Not surprisingly, he's hopelessly wrong on other issues as well.

 

[Dubbi]

Actually, Kevin, those threads show that those you claim dismantled the allegations actually knew very little about Air Force regulations or the facts in the Brown case. In them, they basically just regurgitated (or should I say chanted) the "official" position from an Air Force report that curiously failed to even mention that pathologists in the case had noted the wound's bullet like appearance and called for an autopsy at the time (which didn't happen on orders from the Whitehouse and JCS, by the way). That report also neglected to mention a number of other significant incriminating facts which I listed and sourced in those threads. None of which your debunkers ever addressed. They just ignored them (like you are now trying to do, Kevin). Or they wanted to pretend like *they* were experts in forensic pathology or aircraft crashes. Which I demonstrated wasn't true. For those who'd like to confirm this, here are the threads that Kevin refers to ... but for some reason )) fails to actually link you to:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87011 The first thread I discussed this topic on the forum. Will all the behaviors I noted above.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90750 This one is especially good. In it, I even debate Kevin directly. You can watch Kevin (as I noted in this thread) "obfuscate, distort, mischaracterize, pretend ignorance, blatantly ignore facts and easy to understand logic, spin, and post illogical nonsense" and hope this allegation goes away. So do many of the other *debunkers*. It's good reading and very illuminating regarding Kevin, who claims to be a disinterested Australian but keeps jumping in to defend Clinton whenever he's mentioned. Like now.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87840&page=3 Here, the death of Brown was debated along with some other scandals ... like Filegate. And surprise, surprise, some of the same people show up to defend the Clintons against those allegations too.

I maintain, Kevin, that those who bother to read the above threads will conclude your description of their content is nothing short of dishonest. I wonder why that dishonesty was necessary?

You remind me of someone.

 

[BeAChooser]

CTers vastly overestimate how much people in the real world care about these silly theories because they vastly underestimate how irrelevant they are to everyone else.

Well apparently whatever I said was relevant enough to involve you in this thread. Note that I didn't call you here or make you post on this thread. You did that yourself and you had to go out of your way to do it. And not just post once, but now twice. Why I bet you're next going to tell us you weren't a fan of Bill Clinton either.

Now there are a zillions things we could talk about in the Foster case (since that seems to be the one that peaked your interest). Let's just focus on one for now. The suicide note. The one that first wasn't in the briefcase and a few days later was.

The government refused to release photocopies of the reconstructed note and fought efforts by The Wall Street Journal to obtain a copy under the Freedom of Information Act. Eventually a copy was leaked to the WSJ, however. Three noted and independent handwriting experts then looked at the published note. All were board certified and all three declared the note an obvious forgery.

And here's another twist. Reed Irvine (of AIM) met with Sergeant Larry Lockhart, the U.S. Capitol Police handwriting expert who the government said concluded that the note was written by Foster. He showed Lockhart a sheet of paper with 12 words that were found in both the Foster letter that had been used to authenticate the note and the note itself. They had been copied and enlarged. Lockhart was told that these words came from two documents, neither of which was identified. He was asked if, in his professional opinion, all 12 words had been written by the same person. Lockhart conclude "very possibly" and "probably" they were not. He pointed out indications of conscious efforts to imitate Foster's handwriting by the person who wrote the note. At that point he didn't know that he was reversing the opinion he gave the Park Police. When he was told that, he acknowledged that he had not used any enlargements for his 1993 analysis.

Now, for your edification, the note was undated and unsigned. It said nothing whatever about suicide or farewells to family and friends. Curiously, the beginning and the end of the note are written in first person but the middle part is written in third person (and, curiously, exonerates the Clintons of all sorts of allegations). Finally, note that FBI failed to find Foster's fingerprints on the note. That in itself is very curious. Oh yes, the note was torn into pieces ... which the three experts said is a red flag.

And just incase you supported Hillary in the primaries ... there is this: the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee concluded that Hillary was one of the first persons to see the alleged suicide note and that it was her instructions that Bill Clinton NOT be informed of its existence and that the note NOT be turned over to law enforcement. And it wasn't until about 28 hours later (4 hours after Bill learned about the note anyway). These facts are documented in the OIC report. Now a number of Clinton staffers swore under oath that the first lady had no role whatsoever in the handling of Foster's note. Yet a memo was discovered, written by White House lawyer Miriam Nemetz, who quotes then-White House chief of staff Mack McLarty saying Mrs. Clinton "was very upset and believed the matter required further thought and the president should not yet be told". I think those staffers should have been charged with perjury, don't you?

You go on being uninterested about "silly theories", Drudgewire. Since you obviously have nothing substantive to offer this debate.

 

[Drudgewire]

You go on being uninterested about "silly theories", Drudgewire. Since you obviously have nothing substantive to offer this debate.

I didn't say I was uninterested. I'm a reformed CTer, believe me I spent many a day telling folks Vince was murdered by the evil Clintons.

But regardless of which side of the issue I was on, you missed my point. NOBODY ELSE DOES. It's a fact of life, and when you bury yourself in these CTs it gets harder to see how little anyone else cares. Been there, done that, grew up, and started questioning those who were just questioning the official stories. It's when you reach that level of objectivity that you begin to watch them fall apart... and very few of them present a more shining example of this than Vince Foster and Ron Brown.

Have you ever looked for the explanations of these "suspicious facts?" No, because you went in with a confirmation bias (and I can't stand the Clintons. If there's an anti-Christ, I'd lay even money on it being Hills) and any explanations which were good enough for investigators get dismissed as part of the cover up to you.

I'll become interested in a good CT again when someone presents NEW information that makes people outside of their own paranoid community stand up and take notice, and when that somebody didn't already have an agenda the CT conveniently fit into before falling hook, line and sinker for it.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Megalodon]

I'd seriously LOVE to have been a fly on the wall during the planning meetings for this particular hit . What is it with these conspirators choosing unnecessarily complicated means to achieve their goals? It reminds me of the people who believe that the gubmint blew up the Murrah Building in OKC by planing explosives INSIDE the building, when they wanted to create the illusion that it was an ANFO bomb in a truck outside the building. Apparently it would have been too easy to ACTUALLY detonate an ANFO bomb in a truck outside the building to create the desired illusion.

Main MIB: Gentlemen, we will now clear the final details of the target removal. Agent 1, you will disable the beacon...

Agent 1: Check.

Main MIB: Agent 2, you will place the decoy beacon in the mountainside, to insure the crash of the plane...

Agent 2: Check.

Main MIB: Angent 3, you will infiltrate the plane and shoot the target on the head and exit the plane before the crash...

Agent 3:..... Say what?!?

 

[BeAChooser]

Ron Brown was killed with a friend of mine in an Accident. To say otherwise, that it was not an accident, is pure ignorance. I can say this because I am trained in aircraft accident investigation and understand how the accident happen

Yeah, yeah, beachnut. We've all heard you claim the pilot was a friend and we've all heard you call me ignorant. We've all heard you call anyone who posts anything that doesn't agree with your version of what happened a liar. And we've all heard you claim you're an expert on crashes. Anyone who wants to see you do that need only go read the first two threads I linked earlier, especially the second where you regurgitate the official story without even telling folks your source (I had to do that). And if they read post #90 of that thread, they'll find my reasoned response to what you claimed ... which I still stand by.

One of my comments was that your source (Flight Safety Digest) was written long before it became known that pathologists at the examination of Brown's body voiced concerns about gunshot and called for an autopsy. It was written before the photo of the wound and the first set of x-rays (presuming there was indeed a second set as claimed by the government) were posted on the internet ... x-rays and photos that showed the pathologist who examined Brown's body, Gormley, lied when he said there was nothing unusual about the x-rays and there was only bone visible in the wound.

Like I asked in that thread, beachnut ... would you mind sharing with us whether when those aspects of the crash came to light, Flight Safety Digest (or whatever your source for what you posted was) told its readers anything about them? If not, why didn't they? It seems to me that allegations by military pathologists of a bullet in the head of a passenger of a military plane would be relevant to a discussion of "flight safety" on CT-43A.

And I'm curious, beachnut. Would you mind telling us why your source claimed that "they found all the passengers except one died of blunt force injuries. One died of thermal inhalation injuries. They found out the cause of death with an autopsy. Autopsy performed by the US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology." You see, that's false. There is one very important passenger whose cause of death was NOT determined by an autopsy ... it turns out on orders from the Whitehouse and JCS, according to the pathologist who did the external "examination" of Ron Brown. And if FSD didn't know that, it can only be because the report they based their article on forget to mention that or because it falsely claimed everyone was autopsied. So which was it, beachnut? How curious that the only person who by law on that flight had to have an autopsy is the one person who did not get one.

And why didn't your source mention that the SIB was skipped? That should have been known to them at the time the article was written. Skipped for the first time in Air Force history (except for a clear cut case where friendly fire was the cause). Why wouldn't they tell their readers that, beachnut? Now when I asked you this, you declared the SIB is the same stuff as the AIB. Then why did the Air Force even bother with SIBs, beachnut? In fact, if our readers go check out post #90 of the second link, they'll find you didn't even know that Part I of the SIB is releasable. Strange ... for someone claiming to be an expert in crash investigations.

My questions for you remains the same as before. If you REALLY were a friend of the pilot of that plane as you claim, one would think you wouldn't be content to let his name and reputation be smeared, when he might not have been responsible. You never did tell us what the family felt about being lied to in the AIB report and in the letter the acting Secretary of the Air Force sent them. Remember that letter and the lies it contained? If they knew there was a chance their loved one didn't make a mistake but was murdered, don't you think they'd like that question resolved ... even now? Isn't it curious that a document the Air Force gave the Brown family members (and your pilot's family, by the way) AND THEIR LAWYERS left out such crucial facts as the concerns of the pathologists that day about a possible bullet wound and the original x-rays of Brown's head? And if you really care about the military like you claim, why would you let the military pathologists and photographer in this case be punished ... just because they asked good questions?

So you go ahead and stick to the official story, beachnut. Keep repeating it all you want. Because each time it serves as a good example of how similar your side's response to this allegation is to that of 911 Twoofers. You obfuscate, distort, ignore, demean, lie and throw out adhominems attacking the intelligence of the other side. All while actually losing the debate. And by the way, I distinctly remember you claiming "I will not talk about Brown any more." Guess you couldn't help yourself.

 

[BeAChooser]

Why do we even bother giving this guy the time of day? He still thinks that Saddam Hussein had a role to play in 9/11 and still buys the Bush Administration's propaganda about Saddam's WMD capability (or lack of, really).

Allen, I don't recall you offering any actual debate on those topics. You just a cheerleader for those who do? And should I remind you of rule 11 (see the second post of this thread)? If you want to participate on this thread perhaps you could offer something substantive about the Ron Brown or Vince Foster cases? If you can't, then why are you here? Because you are a Democrat?

 

[BeAChooser]

You remind me of someone.

Well don't keep us in suspense. If you have an accusation to make, make it. But be sure you can back it up.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

BeAChooser, when are you planning on contacting the authorities in order to report this outrageous crime?

 

[Megalodon]

BaC:

The only problem with your theory is that it requires either:

-an operational (let's call him flying ninja) doing the hit on the plane, despite the fact that they were all going to die in the crash, and exiting it in-flight at low altitude (which would be pretty much impossible);

-an operational arriving first to the crash-site, finding the target alive (among the cadavers of the rest of the people on board) and shooting him (as opposite to e.g. bashing his head in with anything heavy found in the crash) .

Both are equally ridiculous, and allow everybody to laugh at you, which is exactly what's happening...

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm a reformed CTer, believe me I spent many a day telling folks Vince was murdered by the evil Clintons.

Did you now.

But regardless of which side of the issue I was on, you missed my point. NOBODY ELSE DOES.

Actually, that's where you are wrong. The problem is that most people are simply unaware of the facts. They don't know the facts in the Ron Brown case. They still think bad weather was the reason Brown died and they are completely ignorant of the testimony of the military pathologists and photographer or what the x-rays shows. They've never heard of Knowlton. Because people like you let those who wish those facts to go away control the debate on forums and what we read in the media.

I say we mustn't let that happen. We must remind people when the opportunities arise that what they heard was not the real story. It wasn't just about an "affair" with an intern. When you get people one on one and show them what we learned about these particular "conspiracies", it's not unusual for them to say "gee, I never knew". And then maybe next time they'll be a little more skeptical of those liberal mainstream sources.

Been there, done that, grew up, and started questioning those who were just questioning the official stories. It's when you reach that level of objectivity

Actually, you haven't done that here. You've tried to attack the messenger, not the facts behind the message. And I wouldn't call what you do "objectivity".

that you begin to watch them fall apart... and very few of them present a more shining example of this than Vince Foster and Ron Brown.

Does it really look to you like I or the cases I'm making for Foster and Brown are falling apart.

Have you ever looked for the explanations of these "suspicious facts?" No, because you went in with a confirmation bias

Clearly you haven't even bothered to read the three threads I linked regarding Ron Brown. I've challenged the other side over and over to show any of what I've posted is false. And the response has been silence.

I can't stand the Clintons.

It's fascinating how often I hear that from people defending the Clintons against the accusations of FileGate, Chinagate, RapeGate, Campaign Finance Gate, and the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Brown and Foster. If I were skeptical, I might think ...

I'll become interested in a good CT again when someone presents NEW information that makes people outside of their own paranoid community stand up and take notice

Like an autopsy of Ron Brown's body? That's all I've been asking for. But strange thing is, your side of this debate doesn't want that to happen. They appear all the time when this topic is raised to dismiss it. Just like you're now trying to do. But I think in these two cases there is already more than enough information to convince anyone who has a logical, unbiased mind that there was foul play and that the investigations were a sham. If that doesn't satisfy you, I suspect nothing would ... and that makes me wonder.

Do you remember what Shippers and the House Managers were told during the Clinton impeachment trial? 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." Are you really content to let them get away with that, Drudgewire?

 

[BeAChooser]

BeAChooser, when are you planning on contacting the authorities in order to report this outrageous crime?

Do you honestly think the authorities don't know all the facts I've noted? That should give you some cause for concern. But maybe your party affiliation is getting in the way.

By the way, do you know that James Riady (who had close ties to Ron Brown) stood up in a California courtroom and told a judge under a plea agreement that required he be honest and forthcoming that contrary to what Bill Clinton and the DNC had publically claimed, he never got any of the millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions back from them. The judge asked the prosecutor if that was true and the prosecutor told the judge "yes, to the best of our knowledge". And the Bush administration let Riady, Clinton and the DNC walk. That should concern anyone, regardless of party affiliation.

 

[Drudgewire]

It's fascinating how often I hear that from people defending the Clintons against the accusations of FileGate, Chinagate, RapeGate, Campaign Finance Gate, and the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Brown and Foster. If I were skeptical, I might think ...

If you were skeptical you'd try to take your politics out of the equation and look for evidence instead of looking for evidence that supports your politics.

You're nothing of the sort, and that's the exact opposite of being open-minded. Skepticism is how most liberals who would love to see Bush impeached for lying about Iraq and the rest of his laundry list still manage to not believe the 9/11 horse. It's how most conservatives who hate Clinton for selling us out to China and the rest of his laundry list manage to not believe the body count horse.

Your last paragraph about the rape quote is quite telling. It couldn't possibly have less to do with the issue at hand, but to you it's evidence simply by virtue of "politicians are scumbags." Just because someone is capable of murder doesn't mean there are thousands of bodies in their basement. It still requires actually committing the crime. And as many have pointed out, it would be among the most stupid crimes in history.

Read my signature. It's what you're guilty of. So much of your stuff comes from suspect sources (worldnetdaily for instance) and so much more is bad information that has been passed around the CT universe for so long it's accepted as true by virtue of hearing it a lot. I hold out hope one day you'll grasp the notion of critical thinking as I did. It's not always as much fun as being paranoid, but in the end it's a lot more fulfilling.