CLINTON COCAINE VIDEO SURFACES IN LITTLE ROCK
Albert Nanomius
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 00:00:22 -0700 (MST)
From: Free Speech <r...@grapevinenews.com>
Subject: "Clinton Cocaine Video Surfaces in Little Rock"
"Clinton Cocaine Video Surfaces in Little Rock"
Free Speech Newspaper has obtained exclusive information from a source
associated with the Arkansas State Police in Little Rock that a sensational
video of then Governor Bill Clinton involving the illicit use of the drug
cocaine will be released to the media nationally during the next week.
The video tape clearly depicts then Governor Bill Clinton sitting at a table
in front of an ashtray with a substantial amount of cocaine in the presence
of Dan Lassiter and other well known and prominent Arkansas personalities.
The black and white video tape has been verified as authentic and is further
corroborated by witness statements.
For additional support of the video tape, sources linked to the Arkansas
State Police maintain that a series of surreptitious video and audio
recordings allegedly obtained by former Arkansas security employees of Bill
Clinton will be released. The release of the tapes may be made with the
tacit consent of key Washington D.C. Democrats who are said to be seeking a
quick resignation of President Bill Clinton in favor of Vice President Al Gore.
Photo excerpts from the video tape will be posted on Free Speech Newspaper
Web Site. http://www.freespeechnews.com/callme/ and their hardcopy Newspaper
during the next week.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Free Speech Newspaper
18631 North 19th Avenue
Suite 128-200
Phoenix, Arizona 85027
r...@freespeechnews.com
http://www.FreeSpeechNews.com/callme/
A current collection by top writers and researchers
of exposes on government, corporate and institutional
coverup and fraud. Exposing serious media abuses.
Subscription: $12.00 12 issues email version.
$24.00 12 issues hardcopy version postpaid U.S.
$15.00 Bundle of 50 for distribution postpaid U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
/\. |\| /\ |\| () |\/| | |/ _/~ nano...@netcom.com
A l b e r t N a n o m i u s http://www.newciv.org/~albert/
John Q. Public
Folks,
I have been told that the player behind the Arkansas tapes of Clinton doing
drugs, Larry Case, is a "Clinton disinformation operative." Specifically:
"He handles the dirty tricks department."
What devious plot is afoot? The investigation continues...
David Sussman
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Prediction of the decade: "The public will never believe the
innocence of the Clintons & their loyal staff." -- author unknown
David Salvador Flores
John Q. Public <J...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
>forwarded from David Sussman
>
>Folks,
>
>I have been told that the player behind the Arkansas tapes of Clinton doing
>drugs, Larry Case, is a "Clinton disinformation operative." Specifically:
>"He handles the dirty tricks department."
I have been told that its all Bob Dole's doing.
-Dave
Joyce
: In article <3171B8...@globaldialog.com>,
: -Dave
No, it was the commies.
Dave Brickner
hAVE BEEN TOLD BY WHO??????????????????????????????
Michael Rivero
David Salvador Flores <ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article <3171B8...@globaldialog.com>,
>John Q. Public <J...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
>>forwarded from David Sussman
>>
>>Folks,
>>
>>I have been told that the player behind the Arkansas tapes of Clinton doing
>>drugs, Larry Case, is a "Clinton disinformation operative." Specifically:
>>"He handles the dirty tricks department."
>
>I have been told that its all Bob Dole's doing.
>
Who told you? Raymond Young?
--
============== P I X E L O D E O N P R O D U C T I O N S ==============
| Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero |
===========================================================================
Joseph Bowen
>
>"Clinton Cocaine Video Surfaces in Little Rock"
>
>Free Speech Newspaper has obtained exclusive information from a source
>associated with the Arkansas State Police in Little Rock that a sensational
>video of then Governor Bill Clinton involving the illicit use of the drug
>cocaine will be released to the media nationally during the next week.
Still waiting...no video. Checked out the "newspaper" link again...no
video, and no pictures.
There IS, though a COPY of an ADVERTISMENT offering to SELL this lie to
anybody stupid enough to offer money. Even supporters of Rush aren't
that stupid, I suspect.
Free Speech was never intended to protect liars.
Joe Bowen
Danny Sale
>anybody stupid enough to offer money. Even supporters of Rush aren't
>that stupid, I suspect.
Then what do you have to lose.
if you send them the money, and dont get a video of President Clinton
doing cocaine, sue the hell out of them.
If you do, then you have a video of clinton doing cocaine and can get
him out of the whitehouse.
But by your prior post I take it you would never do this if it meant
there would be a 1% chance you'd get a video of our pinko liberal
one-worlder president doing cocaine, and if it came out to be a true
un-modified video you would probably say 'Who cares! everyone has
problems! that wont affect what he does in the whitehouse!'
Joseph Bowen
>>There IS, though a COPY of an ADVERTISMENT offering to SELL this lie to
>>anybody stupid enough to offer money. Even supporters of Rush aren't
>>that stupid, I suspect.
>
>Then what do you have to lose.
>
>if you send them the money, and dont get a video of President Clinton
>doing cocaine, sue the hell out of them.
Excuse me? Give money to liars who seek in impede the President of the
United States? Not my idea of patriotism.
Let's see - grainy video, camera moves a lot. Picture of the President.
Cut to figures huddled around a table, one may be the President, can't
tell. Close up of the President seated at a table. Shot of a line of
cocaine. Voice that sounds like Mr. Clinton... <etc>
No, I haven't seen it, I can just already tell you what's on it.
Sorry for not replying to the rest of your post. If it were intelligent,
maybe I would have.
Joe Bowen
George Grapman
: if you send them the money, and dont get a video of President Clinton
: doing cocaine, sue the hell out of them.
If you can find the people after they have your moey.
: But by your prior post I take it you would never do this if it meant
: there would be a 1% chance you'd get a video of our pinko liberal
By your own post you have shown that you will accept anything negative
about Clinton without any need for facts.
George Grapman
: Free Speech Newspaper has obtained exclusive information from a source
: associated with the Arkansas State Police in Little Rock that a sensational
: video of then Governor Bill Clinton involving the illicit use of the drug
: cocaine will be released to the media nationally during the next week.
Here we are, one week later, and the tape has not been released.
: The video tape clearly depicts then Governor Bill Clinton sitting at a table
: in front of an ashtray with a substantial amount of cocaine in the presence
: of Dan Lassiter and other well known and prominent Arkansas personalities.
: corroborated by witness statements.
Who are the witnesses?
: Photo excerpts from the video tape will be posted on Free Speech Newspaper
: Web Site. http://www.freespeechnews.com/callme/ and their hardcopy Newspaper
The site just has a sales pitch for the tape. No photos,no evidence.
: ---------------------------------------------------------------
Max Kennedy
: Danny Sale (ds...@jax.jaxnet.com) wrote:
: By your own post you have shown that you will accept anything negative
: about Clinton without any need for facts.
We don't NEED anything else negative about Clinton. He should have been
impeached, tried, and thrown in jail a long time ago.
Max Kennedy
seneca
Well if you've got everything you need what the hell is taking so long.
Let's get the show on the road.
sensen
David Salvador Flores
In article <4ldd5j$7...@pulm1.accessone.com>,
Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
>In article <Dq4y7...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>David Salvador Flores <ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>In article <3171B8...@globaldialog.com>,
>>John Q. Public <J...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
>>>forwarded from David Sussman
>>>
>>>Folks,
>>>
>>>I have been told that the player behind the Arkansas tapes of Clinton doing
>>>drugs, Larry Case, is a "Clinton disinformation operative." Specifically:
>>>"He handles the dirty tricks department."
>>
>>I have been told that its all Bob Dole's doing.
>>
>
> Who told you? Raymond Young?
>
C'mon Michael, you know I can't reveal my sources. Let's
just say that they're super secret, well placed, high up
individuals with about as much credibility as is to be
expected from super secret sources on alt.conspiracy.
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
In article <Dq9wJ...@iglou.com>, Max Kennedy <mken...@iglou.com> wrote:
>George Grapman (sfge...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Danny Sale (ds...@jax.jaxnet.com) wrote:
>
>: By your own post you have shown that you will accept anything negative
>: about Clinton without any need for facts.
>
>We don't NEED anything else negative about Clinton. He should have been
>impeached, tried, and thrown in jail a long time ago.
For the crime of refusing to goose step alongside Max Kennedy, no
doubt.
>
>Max Kennedy
>
-Dave
david mcintosh
: But by your prior post I take it you would never do this if it meant
: there would be a 1% chance you'd get a video of our pinko liberal
: un-modified video you would probably say 'Who cares! everyone has
: problems! that wont affect what he does in the whitehouse!'
I would really like to see videos of Newt giving his wife divorce papers
just as she comes out of cancer surgery with their children standing
around that would be a hoot or how about Newt recieving oral sex from
another professors man I'd laugh for days. Or how about Phil Gramm on the
set of that porno he invested in hahahhaha. And wouldn't it have been
great if Pat Buchannon would have been around 100 years ago so he could
have kicked his immigrant grandparents out of the country. And of course
some one whos been in Washington for 35 years has never done anything
questionable.
And you say Clinton is the one with the character flaw.
Kurt Warner
On 21 Apr 1996, Joseph Bowen wrote:
> nano...@netcom.com (Albert Nanomius) wrote:
>
> >
> >"Clinton Cocaine Video Surfaces in Little Rock"
> >
> >Free Speech Newspaper has obtained exclusive information from a source
> >associated with the Arkansas State Police in Little Rock that a sensational
> >video of then Governor Bill Clinton involving the illicit use of the drug
> >cocaine will be released to the media nationally during the next week.
>
> Still waiting...no video. Checked out the "newspaper" link again...no
> video, and no pictures.
>
> There IS, though a COPY of an ADVERTISMENT offering to SELL this lie to
> anybody stupid enough to offer money. Even supporters of Rush aren't
> that stupid, I suspect.
>
> Free Speech was never intended to protect liars.
ah... so now the liberals are stating they are against free speech.... We
all know they have never supported it unless you're saying what they want
you to say, but in the past they at least paid lip-service...
>
> Joe Bowen
>
>
>
>
Ross LaGue
In article <4lqjq0$f...@news.cc.utah.edu>, dmm...@cc.utah.edu (david mcintosh) wrote:
>: But by your prior post I take it you would never do this if it meant
>: there would be a 1% chance you'd get a video of our pinko liberal
>: one-worlder president doing cocaine, and if it came out to be a true
>: un-modified video you would probably say 'Who cares! everyone has
>: problems! that wont affect what he does in the whitehouse!'
>:
>I would really like to see videos of Newt giving his wife divorce papers
>just as she comes out of cancer surgery with their children standing
>around that would be a hoot or how about Newt recieving oral sex from
>another professors man I'd laugh for days. Or how about Phil Gramm on the
Kill file.
---
Ross LaGue < r...@erinet.com > Dayton, Ohio
CHill3644
Let me get this straight. Clinton is a jazz saxophonist wannabe who
"didn't inhale", Vietnam draft dodger, ladies' man, and he occasionally
does a couple of lines of blow. I knew there was a reason I voted for him.
Max Kennedy
David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: For the crime of refusing to goose step alongside Max Kennedy, no
: doubt.
I admire the intelligence it takes to scawl a one line insult. I'm sure
you worked your way up from bathroom walls.
Max Kennedy
Paul H. Henry
In article
<Pine.ULT.3.91m.96042...@red5.cac.washington.edu>, Kurt
Warner <kwa...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
> On 21 Apr 1996, Joseph Bowen wrote:
>
> > nano...@netcom.com (Albert Nanomius) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Clinton Cocaine Video Surfaces in Little Rock"
> > >
> > >Free Speech Newspaper has obtained exclusive information from a source
> > >associated with the Arkansas State Police in Little Rock that a sensational
> > >video of then Governor Bill Clinton involving the illicit use of the drug
> > >cocaine will be released to the media nationally during the next week.
> >
> > Still waiting...no video. Checked out the "newspaper" link again...no
> > video, and no pictures.
> >
> > There IS, though a COPY of an ADVERTISMENT offering to SELL this lie to
> > anybody stupid enough to offer money. Even supporters of Rush aren't
> > that stupid, I suspect.
> >
> > Free Speech was never intended to protect liars.
>
> ah... so now the liberals are stating they are against free speech....
You're an idiot, Kurt. Free speech does not protect liars. Ever heard of
libel law? If you tell a lie that defames someone, that is not protected
speech and that person can sue you for damages. Read a book, Kurt.
--
=============================================================================
_ (phe...@halcyon.com) || I N M E M O R Y
|_) || Oklahoma City * April 19, 1995
| aul H. Henry - Seattle, Wash.|| Remember the Victims of Extremism and Hate
====================== http://www.halcyon.com/phenry/ =====================
Paul H. Henry
That's right, folks! Ross LaGue can't stand to read messages from people
who think differently from him! He comes to Usenet to be surrounded by a
soothing buzz of conformity, not this messy debate and disagreement! You
heard it here first!
Paul H. Henry
> : But by your prior post I take it you would never do this if it meant
> : there would be a 1% chance you'd get a video of our pinko liberal
> : one-worlder president doing cocaine, and if it came out to be a true
> : un-modified video you would probably say 'Who cares! everyone has
> : problems! that wont affect what he does in the whitehouse!'
> :
> I would really like to see videos of Newt giving his wife divorce papers
> just as she comes out of cancer surgery with their children standing
> around that would be a hoot or how about Newt recieving oral sex from
> another professors man I'd laugh for days.
I guess that's the difference between you and me. If I saw a video of Newt
Gingrich receiving oral sex, I doubt I'd ever be able to sleep without
nightmares again.
Paul H. Henry
In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael
Rivero) wrote:
> In article <4lsnp0$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
> Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
> saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
Boy, that's a strong statement. I'm sure you're prepared to back it up
with some evidence. Unless, of course, your mind is so diseased by hate
that you're just making this stuff up because you want it to be true.
Charlie Armstrong
In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) pontificated:
> Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
>saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
>
And you base this not-quite-a-factoid on?
"I'm your only friend, I'm not your only friend but I'm a little glowing friend. But really I'm not actually your friend. But I am." -The Blue Canary
Dave B.
Tim Watson wrote:
>
> gre...@earthlink.net (Charlie Armstrong) wrote:
> >In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) pontificated:
> >
> >> Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
> >>saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
> >>
> >
> >And you base this not-quite-a-factoid on?
>
> assertion, strongly put. There is much talk of Clinton's dope use while
> in Arkansas, but if he still indulges, he is doing a much better job of
> keeping it quiet, which I understand is one of the perquisites of the
> presidency.
Have we seen the Boy President's medical records yet?
Habitual drug use would certainly be one reason to keep it from the
public.
--
Dave Bockstanz
Wifewater ain't over until the First Lady sings
Michael Rivero
In article <4lsnp0$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CHill3644 <chil...@aol.com> wrote:
>Let me get this straight. Clinton is a jazz saxophonist wannabe who
>"didn't inhale", Vietnam draft dodger, ladies' man, and he occasionally
>does a couple of lines of blow. I knew there was a reason I voted for him.
Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
--
Tim Watson
gre...@earthlink.net (Charlie Armstrong) wrote:
>In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) pontificated:
>
>>saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
>>
>
Charlie Armstrong
In article <4lroiv$8...@eri1.erinet.com>, r...@erinet.com (Ross LaGue) pontificated:
> >just as she comes out of cancer surgery with their children standing
> >around that would be a hoot or how about Newt recieving oral sex from
>
>Kill file.
>
Gosh, succint and yet totally of content! You do understand, Ross, that all of
these attempts to paint the President as morally depraved opens the door to
examination of folks on the other side. And you do know the difference between
the Clinton/coke story and the Gingrich/hospital (and lest we forget, the
Gingrich as deadbeat dad) story, don't you? In case you don't, it's this: The
first is almost certainly untrue, while the second certainly is. Killfile. Why
not? There probably isn't all that much sand to bury your head in out
there in Dayton. <snort>
Charlie Armstrong
viewer
phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote:
>In article
><Pine.ULT.3.91m.96042...@red5.cac.washington.edu>, Kurt
>Warner <kwa...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
[...]
>> ah... so now the liberals are stating they are against free speech....
>
>You're an idiot, Kurt. Free speech does not protect liars. Ever heard of
>libel law? If you tell a lie that defames someone, that is not protected
>speech and that person can sue you for damages. Read a book, Kurt.
You start out by calling him "an idiot" in a public forum, and then lecture
him on defamation and libel issues? Chutzpah, if nothing else.
But we digress.
His point, (that thing that you may have noticed flying right over your
head) is that when they assert that "free speech" doesn't "protect liars",
they indeed saying that "free speech" only extends to those who agree
with them.
The essence of the point is the notion (try to comprehend this -- I'll
use small words, and type slowly) that if I am telling the truth, and
what *you* say disagrees with what I say, then *you* are telling lies.
Now, if we have established that liars are not protected by the First
Amendment, and, we have established (to at least *my* satisfaction) that
I am "right", and *you* are "wrong", then your speech is obviously not
protected.
Now, as to your poorly-crafted attempt to reframe the debate from one of
free speech, to one of libel: this is not a binary decision. One can
speak lies, yet never approach even the fringe of "libel". For example,
try this one out for size, and tell me if Our Glorious Leaders could
find my words actionable:
"Our President, and his First Lady, are sterling examples of the proud
American tradition of elevating our very best and brightest to positions
of leadership and authority, and they do every American proud!"
A lie? Certainly. Libelous? Somehow I think not.
If you ever find a clue, treasure it.
George Grapman
Tim Watson (tim...@cei.net) wrote:
: That doesn't sound like a pontification to me. Sounds more like an
: assertion, strongly put. There is much talk of Clinton's dope use while
: in Arkansas, but if he still indulges, he is doing a much better job of
: keeping it quiet, which I understand is one of the perquisites of the
: presidency.
Actually it seems like a fabrication or one of those"I read it on the
net so it must be true" things.
BOBJONES
Paul H. Henry
> gre...@earthlink.net (Charlie Armstrong) wrote:
> >In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
(Michael Rivero) pontificated:
> >
> >> Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
> >>saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
> >>
> >
> >And you base this not-quite-a-factoid on?
>
>
> That doesn't sound like a pontification to me. Sounds more like an
> assertion, strongly put.
And it sounds to me like a lie, even more strongly put.
> There is much talk of Clinton's dope use while
> in Arkansas, but if he still indulges, he is doing a much better job of
> keeping it quiet, which I understand is one of the perquisites of the
> presidency.
Considering the degree to which you folks blindly hate people who disagree
with you, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T "much talk" of such things.
That does not make it any less of a scurrilous lie, and it does not make
you any less immoral for spreading it.
Paul H. Henry
> phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><Pine.ULT.3.91m.96042...@red5.cac.washington.edu>, Kurt
> >Warner <kwa...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> ah... so now the liberals are stating they are against free speech....
> >
> >You're an idiot, Kurt. Free speech does not protect liars. Ever heard of
> >libel law? If you tell a lie that defames someone, that is not protected
> >speech and that person can sue you for damages. Read a book, Kurt.
>
> You start out by calling him "an idiot" in a public forum, and then lecture
> him on defamation and libel issues? Chutzpah, if nothing else.
Hardly. The expression of an opinion is protected speech under the First,
and notwithstanding the outdated medical definition of the word "idiot,"
"You're an idiot" is the expression of an opinion.
Try to keep up:
"Clinton is a drug addict"--a defamatory lie; actionable under libel law
"Clinton is an idiot"--defamatory but a statement of opinion; protected
under the First Amendment
See? It's not that hard if you try.
> But we digress.
Speak for yourself.
> His point, (that thing that you may have noticed flying right over your
> head) is that when they assert that "free speech" doesn't "protect liars",
> they indeed saying that "free speech" only extends to those who agree
> with them.
In fact, that is not his point at all, as you would know if you cared
enough to pay attention. Kurt was replying to Joseph Bowen, who asserted
that an advertisement offering to sell a video "showing" the President
using cocaine was a lie, noting that "Free Speech was never intended to
protect liars." THIS IS A TRUE STATEMENT, regardless of the specifics of
the lie. This is exactly what libel law addresses, hence its relevance.
Kurt then let fly with the moronic (opinion!!) and grammatically incorrect
(verifiably true!) comment, " ah... so now the liberals are stating they
are against free speech...." Kurt's statement is not supported by the
evidence with which he has been presented, and also implies that he
doesn't know jack shit about First Amendment law (neither do you,
apparently).
It should be noted that the advertisement in question is probably libelous
on its face; current libel law allows a public figure to sue and recover
damages if the accused libeller makes a statement that s/he knows is
false or has acted with reckless disregard for the truth. See New York
Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 2524, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964);
also Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d
789 (1974).
> The essence of the point is the notion (try to comprehend this -- I'll
> use small words, and type slowly) that if I am telling the truth, and
> what *you* say disagrees with what I say, then *you* are telling lies.
Utterly irrelevent, as the statement at issue is "Free Speech was never
intended to protect liars." You're falling behind again.
> Now, if we have established that liars are not protected by the First
> Amendment,
Which we have. At least, the Supreme Court has, and I have. You I'm not so
sure about.
> and, we have established (to at least *my* satisfaction) that
> I am "right", and *you* are "wrong", then your speech is obviously not
> protected.
Only if I have in some way made an assertion of fact, and that assertion
is incorrect and defaatory.
> Now, as to your poorly-crafted attempt to reframe the debate from one of
> free speech, to one of libel: this is not a binary decision. One can
> speak lies, yet never approach even the fringe of "libel".
That's called false light. False light is not protected under the First
Amendment, and victims can and have sued and recovered damages. See Time
Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 87 S.Ct. 534, 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967), and
especially Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co., 419 U.S. 245, 95 S.Ct.
465, 42 L.Ed.2d. 419 (1974). You just keep digging yourself in deeper and
deeper.
> For example,
> try this one out for size, and tell me if Our Glorious Leaders could
> find my words actionable:
>
> "Our President, and his First Lady, are sterling examples of the proud
> American tradition of elevating our very best and brightest to positions
> of leadership and authority, and they do every American proud!"
>
> A lie? Certainly.
Not a lie, a statement of opinion. In the strictest sense, you lied when
you said it was a lie.
> Libelous? Somehow I think not.
Of course not. Statements of opinion that do not imply assertions of
objective fact are not affected by libel law. I'm hoping that if I keep
hammering this into your head, you'll come to accept it someday. Witness:
"Sterling examples"--subjective.
"proud"--subjective.
"best and brightest"--subjective.
Your inane example did not make a single assertion of objective fact, and
as such is neither true nor a lie. Claiming that Bill Clinton habitually
uses cocaine is an assertion of objective fact, and if it can be shown
that the person or entity that made the accusation knew it was a lie or
said it with reckless disregard for the truth, guess what?--THAT'S LIBEL.
> If you ever find a clue, treasure it.
Just a friendly suggestion, kid. Don't argue on points of law about which
you know absolutely nothing. This stuff has been settled law for decades.
All you're doing is making me look good and making you look bad.
Max Kennedy
Charlie Armstrong (gre...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) pontificated:
: > Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
: >saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
: >
: And you base this not-quite-a-factoid on?
A good example of how CNN is dumbing down the population. A factoid is
"like a fact". Too bad, it ISN'T a fact. Neither is lying or
exageration.
To be not quite a factoid, could quite honestly mean, to be a fact.
Max Kennedy
BOBJONES
>> >In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
>(Michael Rivero) pontificated:
>> >
>> >> Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
>> >>saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
>> >>
>> >
>> >And you base this not-quite-a-factoid on?
>>
>>
>> assertion, strongly put.
>
>And it sounds to me like a lie, even more strongly put.
>
>> There is much talk of Clinton's dope use while
>> in Arkansas, but if he still indulges, he is doing a much better job of
>> keeping it quiet, which I understand is one of the perquisites of the
>> presidency.
>
>Considering the degree to which you folks blindly hate people who disagree
>with you, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T "much talk" of such things.
>That does not make it any less of a scurrilous lie, and it does not make
>you any less immoral for spreading it.
>
>=============================================================================
> _ (phe...@halcyon.com) || I N M E M O R Y
>|_) || Oklahoma City * April 19, 1995
>| aul H. Henry - Seattle, Wash.|| Remember the Victims of Extremism and Hate
>====================== http://www.halcyon.com/phenry/ =====================
is by Komrade Klinton and ministtry of Propaganda at ABC news.
Peter Jennings DOES looklike Josef Goebels. Do you have any proof
that he hasnt or doesnt do coke?
Paul H. Henry
> phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote:
[...]
> >Considering the degree to which you folks blindly hate people who disagree
> >with you, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T "much talk" of such things.
> >That does not make it any less of a scurrilous lie, and it does not make
> >you any less immoral for spreading it.
>
> Is it immoral to spread the truth though.? The only lie spreading
> is by Komrade Klinton and ministtry of Propaganda at ABC news.
> Peter Jennings DOES looklike Josef Goebels. Do you have any proof
> that he hasnt or doesnt do coke?
Here in America, the burden of proof is on the accuser, and not on the
accused. And that's a good thing for you, because I have seen no proof
that YOU do not habitually take cocaine.
Bob James
On 28 Apr 1996, BOBJONES wrote:
> Is it immoral to spread the truth though.? The only lie spreading
> is by Komrade Klinton and ministtry of Propaganda at ABC news.
> Peter Jennings DOES looklike Josef Goebels. Do you have any proof
> that he hasnt or doesnt do coke?
I would not be surprised at all if evidence about some kind of Clinton
drug use came out. I think he has been instrumental in the deaths of
many people associated with him...the death rate of his friends being higher
than that of pets brought to our local humane society shelter. I think
he is corrupt to the core.
***B U T*****
According to our American system of justice, he is still innocent until
proven guilty. No one is compelled to provide evidence that he DOESN'T
do drugs. Those of us who believe that he is corrupt, a murderer or a
druggie are the ones compelled to bring forth the evidence.
Bob James knoc...@io.com
Max Kennedy
Charlie Armstrong (gre...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Gosh, succint and yet totally of content! You do understand, Ross, that all
of these attempts to paint the President as morally depraved opens the
door to examination of folks on the other side.
Yes? Well, GOOD.
Max Kennedy
Max Kennedy
Paul H. Henry (phe...@halcyon.com) wrote:
: > There is much talk of Clinton's dope use while
: > in Arkansas, but if he still indulges, he is doing a much better job of
: > keeping it quiet, which I understand is one of the perquisites of the
: > presidency.
: Considering the degree to which you folks blindly hate people who disagree
: with you, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T "much talk" of such things.
: That does not make it any less of a scurrilous lie, and it does not make
: you any less immoral for spreading it.
You mean like Clinton saying he "didn't inhale"? How gullible do you
think everyone else is? And what if he didn't inhale, POSSESSION is also
illegal, and gets us here poor common folks property all seized and
everything.
Beyond which, you might want to look at his NOSE. No, I don't mean its
growing, although you might expect that. I mean, its been awful red
lately.
I'll leave other signs of drug use in Clinton's manner and looks to other
users. I wouldn't want to look like an ex-drug user or something... Might
have the DEA sieze what little property I have left after taxes. 'Course
Roger Clinton and Lassiter were pardoned for their coke use. By the Governor
himself..
Max Kennedy
Michael Rivero
In article <phenry-2704...@blv-pm10-ip22.halcyon.com>,
Paul H. Henry <phe...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael
>
>> In article <4lsnp0$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>> CHill3644 <chil...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >Let me get this straight. Clinton is a jazz saxophonist wannabe who
>> >"didn't inhale", Vietnam draft dodger, ladies' man, and he occasionally
>> >does a couple of lines of blow. I knew there was a reason I voted for him.
>>
>>
>> saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
>
>with some evidence. Unless, of course, your mind is so diseased by hate
>that you're just making this stuff up because you want it to be true.
>
Hmmm. Come to think of it, nobody ever actually SAW Adolph Hitler
kill anyone, did they?
Is it possible we have maligned the poor fellow?????????
:)
Joseph Bowen
Max Kennedy wrote:
> Beyond which, you might want to look at his NOSE....I mean, its been awful red
> lately.
Red nose = drug user.
Always thought that bill of rights was a waste of effort.
>...'Course
> Roger Clinton and Lassiter were pardoned for their coke use. By the Governor
> himself..
Actually, the truth is that Mr. Clinton declined to interfere with Roger's
trial and sentancing, despite his personal desires to the contrary.
--
Joseph Bowen jo...@mail.utexas.edu
University of Texas Graduate School of Business, Class of 1996 (I hope)
This .sig shortened to save internet resources.
John Ertel
hearing about this video that nobody's ever seen. If you go around and keep saying
it exists but don't show it, people will think you're a liar.
David Horn
<After much argument we arrive at:>
>...Do you have any proof that he (Clinton) hasnt or doesnt do coke?
The ultimate request...prove a negative. Of course, nothing short
of a continuous video tape of WJC from birth to the present minute
is adequate to "prove" this, so the poster is able to say, "See, you
can't do it!" Brilliant.
--
David_Horn@ \/ No notes, no quotes, no ASCII boats... \/
ena-east.ericsson.se /\ Opinions expressed are mine alone. /\
Michael Rivero
In article <phenry-2804...@blv-pm1-ip18.halcyon.com>,
>with you, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T "much talk" of such things.
>That does not make it any less of a scurrilous lie, and it does not make
>you any less immoral for spreading it.
I resent the phrase,"blindly hate". In most cases, such as the forged suicide
note, the lack of blood at the scene where Vincent Foster's body was
found, the actual FBI records of the evidence tampering, we've been anything
BUT blind.
Those who refuse to aknowledge that such evidence even exists, now THEY
are blind and willfully so.
There have been numerous witnesses to Clinton's actual cocaine usage
including Gennifer Flowers herself. Others are interviewed in the documentary,
"The Clinton Chronicles". And before you commence with the accusations that
they (and I) are all liers, and that Bill Clinton is the lone purveyor of
the truth, I remind you that Dr. Houston has come forward with his report
of treating Bill Clinton for cocaine overdose, which is possibly one reason
why Bill has never released his medical records, even though he is required
by law to do so.
In other words, if you intend to accuse these people of being liers, the
onus is on you to prove that they have lied.
I don't expect to actually garner a reasonable response from you, Paul.
You're here to disinform, and I am responding to you only because I did
not want others to fight my battles for me (as opposed to with me).
You and I have crossed swords several time, and each time I've asked for
your response to the fact that the FBI was tampering with evidence in the
Vincent Foster affair, and each time I have asked you this you just pretend
it doesn't exist.
--
PIXELODEON PRODUCTIONS | Hand Hammered Special Effects
Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero
Will Host A Talk Radio Show For Food.
David Salvador Flores
In article <318388ee...@news.netonecom.net>,
>><Pine.ULT.3.91m.96042...@red5.cac.washington.edu>, Kurt
>>Warner <kwa...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> ah... so now the liberals are stating they are against free speech....
>>
>>You're an idiot, Kurt. Free speech does not protect liars. Ever heard of
>>libel law? If you tell a lie that defames someone, that is not protected
>>speech and that person can sue you for damages. Read a book, Kurt.
>
>You start out by calling him "an idiot" in a public forum, and then lecture
>him on defamation and libel issues? Chutzpah, if nothing else.
No, Kurt *is* an idiot. Libel's got nothin to do with it.
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
In article <DqICz...@iglou.com>, Max Kennedy <mken...@iglou.com> wrote:
>David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>
>: For the crime of refusing to goose step alongside Max Kennedy, no
>: doubt.
>
>I admire the intelligence it takes to scawl a one line insult. I'm sure
>you worked your way up from bathroom walls.
Don't worry Maxie, one day you'll work your way up too. Till
that time, keep drawing those naughty pictures next to the
toilet paper. You're getting better every day!
>
>Max Kennedy
>
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
In article <4lroiv$8...@eri1.erinet.com>, Ross LaGue <r...@erinet.com> wrote:
>In article <4lqjq0$f...@news.cc.utah.edu>, dmm...@cc.utah.edu (david mcintosh) wrote:
> >: there would be a 1% chance you'd get a video of our pinko liberal
> >: one-worlder president doing cocaine, and if it came out to be a true
> >: un-modified video you would probably say 'Who cares! everyone has
> >: problems! that wont affect what he does in the whitehouse!'
> >:
> >just as she comes out of cancer surgery with their children standing
> >around that would be a hoot or how about Newt recieving oral sex from
> >another professors man I'd laugh for days. Or how about Phil Gramm on the
>
>Kill file.
Hey, I disagree with you too Ross. Go ahead and add me to your
kill file now, lest your right wing virtual reality be upset
by something as banal as challenging thought.
>
>
>---
>Ross LaGue < r...@erinet.com > Dayton, Ohio
-Dave
Max Kennedy
Joseph Bowen (jo...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
: Max Kennedy wrote:
: > Beyond which, you might want to look at his NOSE....I mean, its been awful red
: > lately.
: Red nose = drug user.
: Always thought that bill of rights was a waste of effort.
I was being sarcastic. I have other reasons for thinking so.
:
: >...'Course
: > Roger Clinton and Lassiter were pardoned for their coke use. By the Governor
: > himself..
: Actually, the truth is that Mr. Clinton declined to interfere with Roger's
: trial and sentancing, despite his personal desires to the contrary.
I need some proof of this. Many moons ago, someone said something
similiar about the Lassiter statement, but this didn't work out.
Max Kennedy
: --
Max Kennedy
: >I admire the intelligence it takes to scawl a one line insult. I'm sure
: >you worked your way up from bathroom walls.
: Don't worry Maxie, one day you'll work your way up too. Till
I never write one line scawls. *I* wouldn't stoop so low.
: that time, keep drawing those naughty pictures next to the
: toilet paper. You're getting better every day!
Don't you understand how stupid a comment this is? If you are going to
insult someone, make it an attack on his actual NATURE, put some TRUTH in
it. We all have flaws, so it ought to be possible for anyone with any
INTELLIGENCE to sucessfully insult someone else with a little REASON
behind it.
Max Kennedy
Wayne Mann
mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) wrote:
[1]The Electronic Telegraph Monday 12 June 1995 [2]World News
White House death: murder theory comes under scrutiny
BY AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD IN WASHINGTON
-clip-
According to the official version, Foster shot himself in the mouth
with a .38 calibre Colt revolver of Edwardian vintage, a gun that
his
family was unable to identify. Somehow, he managed to fire it with
both hands gripping the barrel - which is almost impossible to do,
according to some homicide experts. The gun, which has a fierce
recoil, jumped back out of his mouth without chipping his teeth or
leaving any marks on his gums. It landed neatly by his side, still
jammed in his right hand.
The autopsy report says that the exit wound in the back of the head
was one inch by 1.25 inches. This is curious because no skull
fragments were ever found. The bullet was not found either.
Paramedics struck by the lack of blood at the scene
The Fairfax County paramedics who retrieved the body from a
secluded
Virginia park were struck by the lack of blood at the scene.
Gunshot
wounds of this kind would normally leave an abundant splattering of
blood. One of the rescue workers, Corey Ashford, helped put the
body
in a bag for transport to the morgue.
"Ashford lifted Foster from behind the shoulders, cradling the
victim's head," reads the FBI synopsis of his statement. "Ashford
did
not recall seeing any blood while placing Foster in the bag.
Ashford
did not recall any blood getting on his uniform or on the
disposable
gloves he wore while handling the body."
Roger Harrison, another paramedic, helped Ashford with the body. He
told the FBI that he "did not recall seeing any blood on Foster and
did not recall seeing any blood on individuals handling the body".
Also present was a paramedic Richard Arthur who believed that
Foster
had been murdered. He did not see an exit wound in the back of the
head. In his FBI statement he said Ashford told him later that
"Foster's head was intact and he had not observed any exit wound".
So, who did see this gaping hole in the back of Foster's head? Not
the
doctor who certified death, which is a bit surprising. According to
his FBI statement, Dr Julian Orenstein of the Fairfax Hospital
lifted
the body by the shoulders "to locate and observe the exit wound on
the
decedent's head".
But he told The Telegraph that he did not in fact see an exit
wound.
"I never saw one directly," he said. "I didn't spend too much time
looking back there. My suspicions weren't aroused." He was unaware,
however, that somebody in the FBI had apparently misrepresented his
testimony. X-rays would settle the dispute. According to the
autopsy
report X-rays were taken, and Virginia's Assistant Chief Medical
Examiner, Dr James Beyer, is quoted in the US Park Police report
discussing them. But they seem to have disappeared. Dr Beyer now
says
that the X-rays were never taken because the machine was not
working
properly. The contradiction is unexplained.
All that is left to go on is a set of photographs taken during the
autopsy. Some of the prints show a rod, used in such examinations,
pushed through the mouth and coming out at the back of the head.
But
they are profile shots that are easy to manipulate.
Dr Donald T. Reay, chief medical examiner of King County in Seattle
and one of four outside experts brought in by the Fiske
investigation
last year to review the death, told The Sunday Telegraph that he
could
not remember seeing a photo that gave a clear view of the exit
wound.
His panel concluded that Foster "shot himself where he was found".
Starr investigation may have to exhume the body
The embalming of the body was done by Robert J. Murphy in
Arlington,
Virginia. This is unusual. Murphy has a classified contract with
the
US Defence Department. His firm allegedly provides cover stories
for
operatives killed on secret assignments overseas, according to an
intelligence source who has had direct dealings of this nature with
the funeral home. The waiting room is decorated with commemorative
certificates from military units.
From there the body was taken to the Reubel Funeral Home in Little
Rock, Arkansas, for final viewing. The director, Tom Wittenberg,
was
asked by a private investigator in Arkansas what the exit wound
looked
like. He replied: "What if I told you there was no exit wound?"
But when pressed on the matter, Wittenberg refused to elaborate. He
told The Telegraph that he checked the hair, face, suit and hands,
but
did not lift the body. "I didn't want to look at Vince," he said,
explaining that he had close ties to the Foster family.
Investigators working for the Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr,
are
starting to look into the possibility that the exit wound was
fabricated in order to make it appear as if the powerful .38
calibre
revolver found in Foster's hand was the cause of death.
A .22 calibre weapon - typically used for close-up assassinations -
would tend to produce a tiny exit wound in the shape of a disk. The
trajectory of the shot would also tend to be lower, with the bullet
coming out through the back of the neck.
Ultimately, the Starr investigation may have to exhume the body to
get
to the truth. "It would be a last resort," said a well-placed
insider.
"But in the end we might have to do that."
>Max Kennedy
\\/ayne //\ann
"A politician who commends himself as 'caring' and
'sensitive' because he wants to expand the government's
charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing
to do good with other peoples' money." - PJ O'Rourke
Wayne Mann
BOBJONES <ea...@cloudnet.com> wrote:
The Electronic Telegraph
20 March 1995
Doubts linger over Clinton aide's 'suicide'
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Little Rock
THE ghost of Vince Foster is coming back to haunt the White House.
Once again
Washington is buzzing with gossip about what really happened to the
friend of the Clintons
who handled the family's private financial affairs until he was found
dead in a Virginia park
in July 1993.
A series of US media reports has stated that Kenneth Starr, the
special counsel probing
the Whitewater scandal over an unsuccessful Arkansas development
company half-owned
by Bill and Hillary Clinton, is wrapping up his probe of Foster's
death. Starr's conclusion,
the newspaper and magazine articles over the past three months have
said, is that it was a
straightforward suicide without any evidence of foul play.
But Starr's persistent failure to oblige is now drawing comment.
Indeed, if anything, he
has been stepping up his investigation. He has called 11 witnesses
before a federal grand
jury in Washington, and has elicited testimony from three of them that
suggests the body
was moved and that the crime scene was tampered with in a police
cover-up. Last month a
group of Park Police officers was made to sit through a pointed
reading of the federal
perjury statutes.
Now The Telegraph has learned that Foster's widow, Lisa, his three
children and one of
his sisters, Sharon Bowman, have been summoned to Washington for
questioning this
month by Starr's staff. This will be the first time that the three
children, all grown-up, have
been asked about the events leading up to their father's death.
The Park Police, who originally handled the case, were refused
permission to talk to the
children by James Hamilton, a Washington lawyer, who had taken on the
role of family
attorney. In the subsequent Whitewater probe conducted by Robert Fiske
- whom a panel
of judges later replaced with their own appointment - the children did
meet investigators
but only to be briefed, not to answer questions.
"Starr's people were absolutely stunned when they found this out;
they couldn't believe
the way the investigation had been handled," said a source close to
the probe.
Conflicting testimony about Foster's state of mind before his death
It is not clear what Starr expects to learn from talking to the
family, but sources say that
his investigators are disturbed by conflicting testimony from
witnesses about Foster's state
of mind before his death. Key figures have changed their stories,
raising suspicions that
there may have been an orchestrated attempt after the fact to make it
look as if Foster was
in the grip of a deep depression.
There is no doubt that Foster was suffering a degree of depression.
Lisa Foster told
investigators that he was sleeping badly and suffering from a pounding
heart. A week
before his death he told his sister, Sheila Anthony, a top Justice
Department official that he
wanted to talk to a psychiatrist but needed assurances that nothing
revealed in counselling
sessions could be flushed out by subpoena at a later date.
A psychiatrist told the FBI that he was contacted on July 16 by
Anthony, who explained
that Foster was working on "Top Secret" issues at the White House and
"that his
depression was directly related to highly sensitive and confidential
matters" (FBI file 29D-
LR-35063). This gives the lie to farcical theories that Foster took
his own life because of
criticism by the Wall Street Journal. The psychiatrist never actually
spoke to Foster in
person.
It is not known what Anthony meant by "top secret", but the Starr
investigation has had
discussions about Foster's possible involvement in a clandestine
operation run by the
National Security Agency.
The scheme involved use of an Arkansas computer firm as a front to
help install software
in foreign banks, central banks and intelligence agencies around the
world.
Foster had planned to take children out on the night his body was
found
The software, known as PROMIS, was allegedly used to track money
flows on behalf of
US intelligence. Sources say that one of the files removed from
Foster's office by a White
House raiding party on the night of his death contained documents
related to this operation.
Foster's children are unlikely to know anything about such matters
but they may have
insights into his state of mind. His youngest son Brugh, now a
university student in
Virginia, was struck by the calm mood of his father as they chatted at
their Georgetown
home on the night before his death, according to sources close to the
family. Foster was
making plans in a matter-of-fact way and even discussed buying a boat
to use at weekends.
The next day Foster drove to work late, dropping his eldest son
Vince Jr (who was then
employed as an aide in Arkansas Senator David Pryor's office, and now
works for the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange) at a metro station. He then took his
daughter Laura to
work. Once again he seemed to be in a good mood.
Both Brugh and Laura, currently at university in Arkansas, have
told friends they find it
difficult to believe that their father took his own life. But they
have never spoken out
publicly. Foster's sister, Sharon Bowman, is puzzled because she had
flown up to
Washington from Little Rock with her daughter Mary on July 20, 1993,
to spend a few
days visiting the Fosters.
They actually arrived the same evening the body was found. Foster
had made plans to
entertain them and show them a bit of Washington. He had even invited
Mary for a special
treat lunch in the White House mess.
Reports claiming Starr has already made up his mind are patently
false
Last July, just nine days before the Senate Banking Committee
opened hearings into
Foster's death, the family issued a statement endorsing the suicide
verdict of the Fiske
Report. It said: "The family believes that questions as to how and why
Vince died are now
answered as best they can be. There is now no justification for
painful, repetitious
examination of these issues. The principal advocates for doing this
appear chiefly motivated
by mean-spirited partisanship."
The wording was drafted by Sheila Anthony, then Associate
Attorney-General in charge
of selecting US federal marshals, prosecutors, and judges - a very
powerful position.
Her husband, Beryl Anthony, was also involved. He is a former US
Congressman from
Arkansas and used to be Treasurer of the Democratic National
Committee. They are both
Democratic insiders with extremely close ties to the Clinton White
House.
The rest of the family were hardly involved in the matter,
according to sources in Little
Rock. However, the statement was effective in deterring Republican
senators from asking
tough questions in the hearings. Senator Lauch Faircloth wanted to
conduct a proper
inquiry but came under intense pressure from colleagues to back off.
The Starr investigation may ultimately conclude that there was no
foul play in Foster's
death, but news reports claiming that Starr has already made up his
mind are patently false
- and appear to emanate from those interested in trying to put
pressure on the judicial
process.
>gre...@earthlink.net (Charlie Armstrong) wrote:
>>In article <4lroiv$8...@eri1.erinet.com>, r...@erinet.com (Ross LaGue) pontificated:
>>>In article <4lqjq0$f...@news.cc.utah.edu>, dmm...@cc.utah.edu (david mcintosh)
>>> wrote:
>>> >:
>>> >I would really like to see videos of Newt giving his wife divorce papers
>>> >just as she comes out of cancer surgery with their children standing
>>> >around that would be a hoot or how about Newt recieving oral sex from
>>> >another professors man I'd laugh for days. Or how about Phil Gramm on the
>>>
>>>Kill file.
>>>
>>
>>Gosh, succint and yet totally of content! You do understand, Ross, that all of
>>these attempts to paint the President as morally depraved opens the door to
>>examination of folks on the other side. And you do know the difference between
>>the Clinton/coke story and the Gingrich/hospital (and lest we forget, the
>>Gingrich as deadbeat dad) story, don't you? In case you don't, it's this: The
>>first is almost certainly untrue, while the second certainly is. Killfile. Why
>>not? There probably isn't all that much sand to bury your head in out
>>there in Dayton. <snort>
>>
>>Charlie Armstrong
>>
>>"I'm your only friend, I'm not your only friend but I'm a little glowing friend. But really I'm not actually your friend. But I am." -The Blue Canary
>Proof Charlie? Documentation?
\\/ayne //\ann
Wayne Mann
David Horn <David...@ena-east.ericsson.se> wrote:
The Electronic Telegraph
Monday 7 August 1995
Secret service link in death of Clinton aide
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Washington
VINCE Foster was handling top-secret
intelligence files at the White House before
his violent death in July 1993, according to
sworn testimony given to the Senate Banking
Committee. Deborah Gorham, Foster's
executive assistant, gave a dramatic new
twist to the widening Whitewater
investigation into the financial affairs of
Hillary and Bill Clinton. Gorham told Senate
lawyers that Foster, Deputy White House
Counsel and an intimate friend of the
Clintons, stored documents from the National
Security Agency in a safe next door in the
office of his boss.
The Telegraph has obtained a full copy of
Gorham's deposition, which was taken behind
closed doors on June 26 and never been
released to the press.
She testified that Foster handed her the
files for safe storage in March or April of
1993. Asked what the documents looked like,
she replied: "There were two one-inch ring
binders that were from the National Security
Agency."
She referred to the NSA files with
precision three times in her testimony. The
Senate investigators, however, did not seem
interested in this surprising disclosure and
moved on quickly to other matters. When
Gorham appeared as a witness in televised
hearings last Tuesday, the subject never
came up.
The National Security Agency is a
legendary arm of US intelligence. It is
controlled by the Defense Department and has
a far larger budget than the CIA. Its chief
function is to collect intelligence from
satellites and by eavesdropping on
telephones and computer traffic all over the
world.
Foster's job as Deputy White House
Counsel was to handle legal matters
concerning the institution of the
presidency. While his office might handle
classified documents from the FBI or other
law enforcement agencies from time to time,
it would be highly unusual for him to get
mixed up in the foreign espionage activities
of the ultra-secret NSA.
Gorman said that these two files were the
only ones Foster ever handed to her for
storage in the safe. She also testified,
however, that Foster kept a file on the Waco
disaster locked in a cabinet in his office,
which may belie White House claims that
Foster never played a significant role in
the storming of the Branch Davidian
stronghold by the FBI.
There is no proof that Foster ever had
any dealings with the NSA
There is no proof that Foster ever had
any dealings with the NSA, or any other
branch of US intelligence. But allegations
have been flying on the Internet computer
superhighway and in political newsletters on
both the Left and the Right over the past
few weeks claiming that he was an NSA
operative during the 1980s. It is alleged
that he took care of legal matters for a
computer company in Arkansas that installed
"bugged" software on behalf of US
intelligence in commercial and central banks
all over the world.
At the time, Foster was head of
litigation at the Rose Law Firm in Little
Rock, Arkansas. It has never been
established that he did, in fact, do work
for this computer company. But his partner,
Hillary Rodham Clinton, was the attorney of
record on two known occasions, once in 1978
and then again in April 1986 (during the
term of Bill Clinton's Governorship) when a
federal court clerk inadvertently revealed
her role in a case by releasing details of a
sealed law suit.
The staff of the Independent Counsel
investigating Whitewater has been asking
some questions about this subterranean
software nexus after receiving a letter from
Elliot Richardson, the former US Attorney-
General. Richardson, who has followed the
affair closely, has suggested that it might
be linked in some way to the death of
Foster. Jim Leach, the Chairman of the House
Banking Committee, has also been looking
into the computer mysteries in preparation
for his own congressional hearings into
Whitewater, this week.
In a parallel development, The Telegraph
has learned that the House Judiciary
Committee is beginning to prepare for
possible hearings into gun-running and drug-
smuggling in Arkansas. Terry Reed, a former
Air Force intelligence operative, has been
asked if he is willing to testify about his
experiences in a covert operation based at
the Mena airport in the mid-1980s.
I want to know whether they're for real
this time, or whether it's just another of
their political pillow fights"
After watching the charade of Republican
hearings into Waco and Whitewater over the
past three weeks, Reed has mixed feelings
about this prospect. "I want to know whether
they're for real this time, or whether it's
just another of their political pillow
fights," he said.
He is the plaintiff in a civil-rights
suit that is cracking open the great
Arkansas scandal quite effectively through
the power of legal "discovery". Last month,
he took sworn testimony from a secretary at
the Criminal Intelligence Division of the
Arkansas State Police who said that she
helped shred sensitive documents revealing
the involvement of Bill Clinton's Arkansas
in the Contra support operation run by Lt.
Col. Oliver North.
In another deposition, L. D. Brown, the
Arkansas State Trooper, has now repeated
under oath the allegations published in the
August edition of the American Spectator
magazine. He said he was recruited by the
CIA in 1984 - with the encouragement of
Governor Clinton - and flew on two missions
to Central America to deliver M-16 rifles to
the Nicaraguan Contras.
On one of the return trips, he discovered
the aircraft was carrying cocaine into
Arkansas. He confronted Clinton, but was
told not to worry. "That's Lasater's deal,"
said the Governor, referring to Dan Lasater,
a business tycoon and political supporter
who was later convicted on federal cocaine
charges.
Over dinner at the Cosmos Club in
Washington last week, Trooper Brown said
that his old friend Bill Clinton was
complicit in a major drug-smuggling
operation. That, he said, is something that
cannot be forgiven.
>BOBJONES <ea...@cloudnet.com> wrote:
>>phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote:
>>>Tim Watson <tim...@cei.net> wrote:
>>>> gre...@earthlink.net (Charlie Armstrong) wrote:
>>>> >riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) pontificated:
> <After much argument we arrive at:>
>>...Do you have any proof that he (Clinton) hasnt or doesnt do coke?
>The ultimate request...prove a negative. Of course, nothing short
>of a continuous video tape of WJC from birth to the present minute
>is adequate to "prove" this, so the poster is able to say, "See, you
>can't do it!" Brilliant.
>--
> David_Horn@ \/ No notes, no quotes, no ASCII boats... \/
>ena-east.ericsson.se /\ Opinions expressed are mine alone. /\
Wayne Mann
Joseph Bowen <jo...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
2551
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
MEMORANDUM
U.S. SECRET SERVICE
DATE: 07/20/93 12:01 pm
REPLY TO:
ATTN OF: SA SCOTT MARBLE
SUBJECT: DEATH OF VINCENT FOSTER, DEPUTY
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY
COUNSEL (SEE ATTACHED)
TO: SAIC INTELLIGENCE DIVISION
ON 7/20/93 AT 11:30 HRS. LT. WOLTZ, USSS/UD - WHB,
CONTACTED THE ID/DD AND ADVISED THAT AT 2030
HRS. THIS DATE, HE WAS CONTACTED BY LT. GAVIN,
US PARK POLICE, WHO PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION:
ON THE EVENING OF 7/20/93, UNKNOWN TIME, US
PARK POLICE DISCOVERED THE BODY OF VINCENT
FOSTER IN HIS CAR. THE CAR WAS PARKED IN THE FT.
MARCY AREA OF VA NEAR THE GW PARKWAY. MR.
FOSTER APPARENTLY DIED OF A SELF-INFLICTED
GUN-SHOT WOUND TO THE HEAD. A .38 CAL.
REVOLVER WAS IN THE CAR.
SA TOM CANAVIT, WFO PI SQUAD, ADVISED THAT HE
HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH US PARK POLICE AND
WAS ASSURED THAT IF ANY MATERIALS OF A
SENSITIVE NATURE (SCHEDULES OF THE POTUS’,
ETC.) WERE RECOVERED, THEY WOULD IMMEDIATELY
BE TURNED OVER TO THE USSS. (AT THE TIME OF THIS
WRITING, NO SUCH MATERIALS WERE LOCATED)
NO FURTHER INFORMATION AVAILABLE.
INVESTIGATION BY US PARK POLICE CONTINUING.
THE FOLLOWING NOTIFICATIONS WERE MADE BY
USSS/UD - WHB:
DAVE WATKINS DIR. OF PERSONNEL,
WH
INSP. DENNIS MARTIN USSS/UD
CRAIG LIVINGSTONE WH SECURITY
COORDINATOR
ASAIC PAUL IMBORDINO CFO
DAD RICHARD GRIFFIN CFO (BY ASAIC
IMBORDINO)
ATSAIC DON FLYNN CFO (BY ASAIC
IMBORDINO)
SAIC RICHARD MILLER PPD ( BY ATSAIC FLYNN)
DIRECTOR MAGAW DIR (BY DAD GRIFFIN)
THE FOLLOWING NOTIFICATIONS WERE MADE BY THE
ID/DD:
ATSAIC LON WARFIELD ID 2145 HRS
SAIC STEPHEN BERGEN ID ????? HRS
DAD DALE WILSON PA ????? HRS
ASAIC EARL MEYER PA ????? HRS
6200
>Max Kennedy wrote:
>> Beyond which, you might want to look at his NOSE....I mean, its been awful red
>> lately.
>Red nose = drug user.
>Always thought that bill of rights was a waste of effort.
>
>>...'Course
>> Roger Clinton and Lassiter were pardoned for their coke use. By the Governor
>> himself..
>Actually, the truth is that Mr. Clinton declined to interfere with Roger's
>trial and sentancing, despite his personal desires to the contrary.
>--
>Joseph Bowen jo...@mail.utexas.edu
>University of Texas Graduate School of Business, Class of 1996 (I hope)
>This .sig shortened to save internet resources.
Wayne Mann
ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) wrote:
THE TRIAL OF VINCENT FOSTER
AIM REPORT APRIL-A 1995
THE TRIAL OF VINCENT FOSTER
The attention of much of the nation has been riveted on
the trial of O.J. Simpson as his "dream team" of high-
priced lawyers fight tooth and nail to convince a jury
that O.J. did not kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald
Goldman.
Simpson's lawyers are making heroic efforts to overcome
an avalanche of evidence pointing to their client's
guilt. They have left no stone unturned in their effort
to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors
and the public. They have challenged the competence and
integrity of the detectives and charged that their
investigation was flawed. They have combed California
for witnesses who might help them undermine the
prosecution's case. They found a Nobel laureate chemist
to help them attack the validity of the damning DNA
findings. No matter how outlandish their arguments, they
have captured the media's attention.
By contrast, another prominent individual has been
judged by the authorities and the media to be guilty of
a killing without the benefit of any defense that has
been reported by any of the TV networks or national
newspapers or news magazines. Not a single lawyer was
engaged to expose the serious flaws in the investigation
of his case or the hasty rush to judgment based on
incomplete, flimsy evidence. Even the family and close
friends of the accused failed to rise to his defense.
They all meekly accepted the findings of the police
without closely examining the evidence, much of which
was not made known to them and to the public until
nearly a year after the killing.
The accused himself was silent. He was unable to speak
out in his own defense because he was dead. The failure
of others to speak out on his behalf is hard to explain.
He was not the kind of person who would be immediately
suspect of committing such a crime. He was an upstanding
citizen with an excellent reputation. He was not a
nobody. He was a high White House official and a close
personal friend of the President and the First Lady. His
name was Vincent W. Foster, Jr. He was accused of
killing himself.
Suicide is different from murder, to be sure. It is a
crime that by definition is always punished by death. It
is also punished by the indelible stain it leaves on the
reputation of the killer-victim. That punishment is
particularly severe for a man of high character and
reputation. He would not want to be remembered as a
coward who would inflict grievous hurt and hardship on
his loved and loving wife and children, to escape some
petty embarrassment. Nor would he want it said that he
was so cruel that he would desert them without a parting
word, sentencing them to live tortured by the thought
that perhaps they were somehow to blame for his death.
The Rush To Judgment
That punishment was inflicted on Vincent Foster by
police investigators who jumped to the conclusion that
he had killed himself because they found a gun in his
hand and no sign of any struggle. They made and acted on
that determination before they knew the answers to many
vital questions, including these:
1. Did Foster own the gun found in his hand?
2. Did that gun fire the bullet that killed him?
3. Were his fingerprints on the gun?
4. Was there any blood on the gun?
5. Was the fatal shot fired where the body was found?
6. Was the spent bullet found there?
7. Were bone fragments from his skull found there?
8. Was any blood splattered on the vegetation?
9. Did gunshot residue show that he had fired the gun?
10. Was the attitude of the body consistent with
suicide?
11. Were the spilled blood and blood stains consistent
with suicide on the spot where the body was found?
12. Had anyone heard the shot?
13. By whom and where was he last seen alive?
14. Was he familiar with this little-known park?
15. Was there any evidence such as dirt or traces of
vegetation on his shoes, socks and trousers that showed
he had walked from where his car was parked to where his
body was found?
16. Did he have a motive for killing himself?
17. Through actions or words had he given anyone the
impression that he might commit suicide?
18. Did he leave a suicide note?
19. Did he put his affairs in order as if preparing for
death?
20. What was he doing in the hours before his death?
21. Was there any reason to suspect foul play?
22. Would anyone have had reason to kill him?
23. Was there any reason to think he might have been
killed?
24. Could he have died elsewhere and been moved to the
park?
The Park Police investigators reached and acted on the
conclusion that Vincent Foster had killed himself while
they were still at the crime scene on the night of July
20, 1993, but they did not officially make this charge
until August 11. They carried out their investigation
based on the assumption that it was a suicide.
Explaining to Senate Banking Committee investigators why
his investigation of the crime scene had not been more
careful and thorough, Sgt. John C. Rolla of the U. S.
Park Police said: "If there's some suspicion, which
there wasn't then, is not now and never has been, then,
yes, it would be more of a crime scene." (Banking
Committee Hearings, p. 436)
Even though he saw none of the usual splatter of blood
and tissue on the vegetation surrounding Foster's body,
Rolla had no doubt that Foster had inflicted the wound
found in his head with the .38 caliber Colt revolver
found in his hand. No doubts were aroused by the failure
to find the bullet or the fragments of skull that it
blew out of Foster's head. Rolla said he "probed" for
the bullet and the Park Police claimed they searched for
it with a metal detector the next day, but without
success. A thorough FBI search eight months later failed
to find either the bullet or the skull fragments.
With that as a beginning, let us imagine what a lawyer
like Robert Shapiro or Johnny Cochran or F. Lee Bailey,
the Simpson "dream team," would do if hired to defend
Vincent Foster against the charge that he had killed
himself. Let's call this figment of our imagination
Johnny Bob Lee, a famous Arkansas defense attorney, and
pretend that he has argued his case in a court hearing.
We will assume that the media were as eager to report
his words as they are those of the Simpson lawyers and
will summarize what they might have said.
HEADLINE: LEE CLAIMS FOSTER SUICIDE FAKED, POLICE FOOLED
BY GUN
Johnny Bob Lee charged today that the police had no
evidence to prove that the gunshot that killed Vincent
W. Foster, Jr. was fired at the spot where his body was
found. They found no bullet, no skull fragments and no
splatter of blood and tissue on vegetation surrounding
Foster's body. (Banking Committee Hearings, p. 2123) The
hard evidence that Foster shot himself was all missing,
Johnny Bob declared.
The veteran defense lawyer charged that Park Police had
not even tested Foster's hands for powder burns to prove
that he had fired the gun that was found in his hand. He
said the dark mark on Foster's right index finger that
they assumed to be a powder burn could have been eye
shadow for all they knew. He pointed out that the
autopsy report showed a similar mark on Foster's left
index finger, and this presented a problem for the
police which they had simply ignored. Rather than being
proof that Foster had fired the gun, Lee argued that
these marks were actually evidence that Foster's death
was a homicide disguised to look like a suicide.
Lee said gun experts all agreed that if the marks were
powder burns, they had to come from the gap between the
cylinder and the barrel of the .38 Colt revolver. For
both right and left index fingers to have been exposed
to the gases from that gap, Foster would have had to
fire the gun while gripping the cylinder with both
hands. He said that is not only an awkward, unnatural
way to fire a revolver, it is impossible.
Lee pointed out that even Park Police technician Peter
Simonello had testified that Foster could not have fired
the gun while gripping the cylinder with both hands.
(Banking Committee Hearings, pp. 662-663). The police
and the FBI had nevertheless cited the powder burns as
proof that Foster had fired the gun. "Isn't it
interesting," Lee told the court, "that we have what are
said to be black powder burns on both index fingers,
where they shouldn't have been, but none on Foster's
face, where they should have been. And these Keystone
cops and our vigilant news media, didn't even find that
suspicious! They were blinded by the gun in Foster's
hand!"
Gun Should Have Aroused Suspicion
Lee said the gun that convinced the police they were
dealing with a suicide is actually additional evidence
of a disguised homicide. He said the police found no
evidence to prove that gun killed Foster. He promised to
call experts who would testify that the damage done to
Foster's mouth and skull by the shot fired inside his
mouth would be more consistent with a smaller caliber
weapon. They would say that the blast from a weapon that
powerful would have scorched the inside of his mouth and
the recoil would have knocked out or chipped some of his
front teeth. No such damage was found.
Experts would also testify that in the absence of
cadaveric spasm (instant rigor mortis) the gun should
have fallen from Foster's hand or been dislodged when it
struck the ground, Lee said. He argued that the gun in
Foster's hand should have been cause for suspicion that
the suicide was faked.
That suspicion should have been heightened, Lee said,
when no fingerprints were found on the exposed surfaces
of the gun. Lee said Foster would have sweated profusely
if he made the long walk from the parking lot, and his
prints should have been on the gun if he had handled it.
But if the gun were planted, Lee said, those doing the
planting would wipe it clean and try to put Foster's
prints on it. With a cold corpse, he said that isn't
easy.
The absence of blood on the gun was additional evidence
that it was not the gun that killed Foster, Lee said.
The gun was supposedly fired with the muzzle pressed
against the soft palate in Foster's mouth, creating a
bloody mess. How come, Lee asked, the gun came out
clean? The FBI lab tests found not a trace of blood or
tissue on the gun. Lee said it was unfortunate that the
Park Police processed the gun for fingerprints before it
was tested for blood, because this provided an excuse
for the tests turning out negative for blood. He said
that if there was any blood, it should have been easily
visible, but no one saw any. Lee was sure none would
have been found if the testing had been done in the
proper order. He said the FBI found a trace of DNA on
the gun, but it did not tie the gun to Foster. Its
origin was unknown, and it was common to 6 percent of
whites and 8 percent of Hispanics and blacks. (Banking
Committee Hearings, p. 1919).
Another flaw in the theory that Foster used that gun to
kill himself is that it was not his gun, Lee said. He
charged that the Park Police and Fiske created the
impression that Foster owned that .38 Colt even though
they had evidence that this was not true. Lee pointed
out that Foster's widow and his grown children could not
recall ever seeing that gun. The police had sent a photo
of the gun to Sharon Bowman, Foster's sister, and had
gotten back a message via a White House aide that it
resembled one her father had owned that may have been
given to her brother Vince. (Banking Committee Hearings,
p. 2169)
Johnny Bob said Sharon Bowman's son, Lee, who had hunted
with his grandfather and had used his guns, told the FBI
that his grandfather owned a revolver that may have been
.38 caliber, but "he didn't remember the black handle
and the dark color of the metal." (Banking Committee
Hearings, p. 1807). Foster's widow said the gun was "not
the gun she thought it must be a silver six-gun, large
barrel." (Banking Committee Hearings, p. 2227) Lee said
that Peter Markland, the Park Police officer who
interviewed Mrs. Foster, included the "silver six-gun,
large barrel" remark in his notes but omitted it from
his report. Lee said this was because the authorities
did not want it known that the revolver Foster owned was
silver, not black.
A gun was found in Foster's home, he said, but it was
never described in any reports. Lee said it had to be
the silver gun mentioned by Mrs. Foster. Describing it
would have ruined the effort to tie the black .38 Colt
to Foster. He described the Colt as a typical "drop
gun," an untraceable weapon used to stymie a criminal
investigation. He said there was no evidence that Foster
ever owned or even touched that gun while alive. He
pointed out that the man who found the body was certain
there was no gun in either hand. The only EMS worker to
describe the gun said it was a big brown and black
automatic, not a black revolver. He even drew a picture
of it. (Banking Committee Hearings, pp. 883, 1564) Lee
said that if the police didn't tamper with the evidence,
they certainly let their conclusions shape the way they
viewed it
HEADLINE: LEE CLAIMS BODY WAS MOVED
Johnny Bob Lee, continuing his indictment of the Park
Police and Fiske/FBI investigations of Vincent Foster's
death today, asserted that evidence presented in
official reports proved that Foster's body had been
moved to Fort Marcy Park. Lee said the absence of blood
and tissue splatter on the vegetation near Foster's body
was a good indication that he was not shot on the spot
where the body was found. That, he said, was confirmed
by the paucity of blood at the crime scene. He pointed
out that Corey Ashford, who handled the bagging of the
body, couldn't remember getting blood on his uniform or
his disposable gloves. (Banking Committee Hearings, p.
1347) Others had said there was a pool of blood under
Foster's head, but it was only visible when the head was
moved. There was some blood on the right shoulder of
Foster's white shirt, some on his right cheek and jaw,
and two dried tracks of blood that had flowed from his
right nostril and the right corner of his mouth over and
under his right ear to the back of his neck. There was
also a spot of blood on his shirt in the area of his
right rib cage. The FBI lab found traces of blood on one
of his shoes and his belt. (Banking Committee Hearings,
p. 243)
Lee said the paucity of blood and the absence of
splatter indicated that the shooting and most of the
bleeding occurred elsewhere. That was where the missing
bullet, bone fragments and splatter might have been
found had the case been investigated as a homicide
promptly and vigorously. Lee said evidence that the
body was moved was found in an FBI lab report dated May
9, 1994, which said that the blood on Foster's right
shoulder and on his right cheek and jaw showed that at
some point, his face had rested on his shoulder. Blood
from his mouth and nose soaked the shoulder of his
shirt, and this left what is called a transfer stain on
his cheek and jaw. Lee quoted the report as saying: "The
available photographs depict the victim's head not in
contact with the shirt and therefore indicate that the
head moved or was moved after being in contact with the
shoulder. The specific manner of this movement is not
known." (Banking Committee Hearings, p. 242)
Lee rejected the explanation for the movement of the
head given in the Fiske Report that one of the early
observers on the scene moved it. He said there was no
evidence to support this. Everyone who saw the body at
the crime scene said the head was face-up and denied
that they moved the head or saw anyone move it.
Lee also dismissed the contention by Fiske and his team
that if the small amount of blood found on Foster's
clothing and skin was proof that the body had not been
moved. They claimed that moving the body would have
caused more spillage of blood. (Banking Committee
Hearings, p. 226) But Lee said that experts agreed that
such spillage could be minimized by using bandages. Lee
said that the altered position of the head, combined
with the evidence that the shot had not been fired in
Fort Marcy Park, proved that the body was moved. He
pointed out that that could explain the blood found on
the lower part of Foster's shirt, his belt and one shoe,
stains that did not fit the suicide-in-the-park
scenario.
Lee said the movement of the body also explained why it
was laid out as if in a coffin, as one of the EMS
personnel described it, head up, arms at his sides, and
legs extended. " Laid out' is the right word," he said.
"Foster did not fall in that position. He didn't sit on
that steep, dirt slope in his shiny dress shoes and his
neat pin-striped pants, blow out his brains and then
extend his legs and drop his arms to his sides. He was
carried to that spot and gently laid out with a gun in
his hand. That is why his shoes and pants were not in
the least bit soiled by the long walk up the dusty path
from the parking lot. Fiske's pathologists said this
laid out' position was just what was to be expected if
Foster sat down on the hill and shot himself. (Banking
Committee Hearings, p. 54) They and those who planted
the gun forgot one thing. If Foster's right thumb was
inextricably trapped in the trigger guard, gravity alone
would not have determined where the right arm fell. The
gun's powerful recoil would have forced his lifeless
hand away from his body, and his right arm would have
been found at least partially extended to the side."
HEADLINE: NO FOSTER SUICIDE MOTIVE, LEE SAYS
"Nothing about this case is more absurd, "Johnny Bob
Lee declared, "than the sudden discovery a week after
Vince Foster's death that he was suicidally depressed."
He pointed out that none of Foster's family, close
friends or co-workers, including the President, could
think of any reason why he would have committed suicide
when they were first questioned. All said that he was
behaving normally.
Lee noted that when White House press secretary Dee Dee
Myers first said at a press briefing a week after
Foster's death that he had been "having a rough time,"
reporters protested that this contradicted all that they
had been told previously. Lee recalled that Myers backed
down saying, "There was absolutely no reason to think
that Vince was despondent. Nobody believed that." She
then agreed with a reporter who said that Foster
certainly wouldn't kill himself over the White House
travel office scandal and over the Wall Street Journal's
complaining that it couldn't get a picture of him. Myers
said, "I would certainly never intimate that he would.
There's no way we'll ever know why.
But, Lee pointed out, in the absence of any better
explanation, the Wall Street Journal/travel office
induced depression soon became accepted as the reason
for Foster's alleged suicide. It was incorporated in the
Fiske Report in June 1994, and has gone unchallenged by
the news media. (Banking Committee Hearings, pp. 186-
192)
Lee said it was sad that so many people accepted this,
most of all his friends and family. "Vince Foster was a
man of strong character and a tough minded lawyer," Lee
declared. "It is ludicrous to think that such trifles
would cause him to take his life and abandon his loved
ones. I propose to take the testimony of all the co-
workers and friends who said they had seen no evidence
of any altered behavior or depression, ranging from his
secretary to the President and First Lady. But let me
cite one who is already on the record, Linda Tripp, the
executive assistant he asked to bring him a hamburger
for lunch from the White House cafeteria. Tripp said she
was surprised to find that he had sent an intern to see
what was taking her so long. She said she hadn't been
gone very long and that he must have been in a rush. He
left the office right after finishing the hamburger. In
a rush to commit suicide? The man eats his hamburger
while reading a newspaper and leaves, saying, I'll be
back.' Was he rushing off to kill himself? Incredible!
(Banking Committee Hearings, p. 1534)
"Experts will tell you that the activities and behavior
of Vince Foster prior to his death are definitely not
those of a despondent and suicidal man. He had just
returned from a pleasant weekend with his wife and
friends on the Maryland eastern shore. His sister Sharon
was arriving from Arkansas for a visit that night, and
he planned to take her to lunch at the White House. A
lawyer friend was flying in from Denver to see him the
next day, and he had an appointment with the President
the day after. Nothing devastating had happened and no
impending catastrophe loomed before him. He was not
mentally imbalanced and there is no way that he would
forsake those he loved most without even saying good-bye
or leaving a note of explanation simply because he was
having a little trouble sleeping. Vince Foster did not
rush from his office with the intention of killing
himself. He had neither a motive nor the means to do
so."
HEADLINE: WHO KILLED VINCE FOSTER, LEE ASKS
Johnny Bob Lee, the Arkansas attorney who took on the
unusual task of defending Vincent W. Foster, Jr. against
the government's charge that he killed himself, wound up
his defense today, claiming that he had proved that
Foster did not commit suicide in Fort Marcy Park by
shooting himself in the mouth with a .38 Colt revolver
that was found in his hand. Stressing that there was
nothing to connect that gun to Foster, Lee said that the
former White House Deputy Counselor had neither the
means nor the motive to kill himself that afternoon.
Lee said that in showing that Foster did not commit
suicide and that his body was moved to the spot where it
was found, he had accomplished all that he set out to
do. It was the duty of the government, not him, to find
out how, why and at whose hand Vince Foster died. That,
he said, was a duty that the Park Police, the FBI, and
Robert Fiske, the former independent counsel, had all
ducked, choosing to ignore all the evidence that pointed
to Foster's innocence in order to avoid the difficult
task of finding the truth. He charged that they were
abetted in this by virtually all the news media. They
had eagerly accepted a motive for Foster's suicide that
they had once agreed was absurd. They had ridiculed as
wild conspiracy theorists the few journalists who had
the integrity and courage to dig up the evidence and
expose it to public view. The great New York Times had
refused to report even the unanswered questions about
Foster's death, saying it feared it would only discover
more unanswered questions.
Lee said he hoped that independent counsel Kenneth
Starr would focus on trying to answer the question, "Who
killed Vincent Foster?" He said he himself had no idea
who it was or why they did it, but he hoped that
Foster's real friends would now come forward and give
Kenneth Starr their full cooperation in his efforts to
find the answer to that question. He asked the news
media "to take off their blinders" and join in the
search for those responsible for Foster's death
EDITOR'S NOTES
THIS AIM REPORT WAS INSPIRED BY THE DOGGED EFFORTS BEING
MADE BY O.J.
Simpson's lawyers to win the acquittal of their client.
It occurred to me that it would be interesting to see a
clever lawyer mount a similar defense of Vincent W.
Foster, Jr. Not knowing any lawyers willing to do that,
I created one and named him Johnny Bob Lee, using the
first names of Simpson's attorneys, and put myself in
his shoes. I made extensive use of the two-volume
collection of documents relating to the investigation of
Foster's death published by the Senate Banking Committee
under the title "Hearings Relating to Madison Guaranty
S&L and the Whitewater Development Corporation
Washington, D.C. Phase." In performing this exercise, I
was driven to a conclusion that I had previously refused
to draw that Vincent Foster did not take his own life.
That is what the evidence tells me. I think you will
agree.
WHEN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL KENNETH STARR REOPENED THE
FOSTER
investigation last January using a grand jury, it
appeared that he, unlike his predecessor, Robert Fiske,
was determined to learn the truth. But on Feb. 22, The
Wall Street Journal ran a page-one story by Ellen
Pollock and Viveca Novak saying that little was likely
to come of Starr's Whitewater investigation. It said
that anyone counting on Starr's finding "a solution to
the mystery of a top White House official's death was it
really suicide or was it murder? is destined to be
disappointed." On March 23, the Journal ran another
front-page story by Ellen Pollock trashing the handful
of people who have been pointing out the serious flaws
in the Foster investigations. She named Chris Ruddy,
whose stories for the New York Post beginning in January
1994 reopened the Foster case; Joe Farah, whose Western
Journalism Center has been buying space in national
newspapers to reprint Ruddy's stories from the
Pittsburgh Tribune Review; James Davidson, publisher of
Strategic Investment newsletter; and Pat Matriciana of
Jeremiah Films. Davidson and Matriciana have each
produced excellent videos on the Foster case. Pollock
sought to leave the impression that these are all
"conspiracy buffs" who are spreading wild rumors about
the Foster case to sell videos and rake in
contributions. My letter responding to Pollock appeared
in the Journal on April 11, together with letters from
Davidson, Farah and Gary D. Martin.
I FOUND ON TALKING TO ELLEN POLLOCK THAT SHE DOESN'T
KNOW MUCH
ABOUT the serious flaws in the Foster investigations.
She accepts the Fiske report as gospel. Her answer to
all my efforts to get her answers to the big unanswered
questions was, "I don't want to argue any point with
you. I'm not going to." I saw that she was being used by
someone who hoped to discredit any investigation, much
as she had been used a year earlier to discredit Chris
Ruddy's stories. She had a story in The Wall Street
Journal on April 4, 1994 saying that Robert Fiske would
issue his report before the end of April and would
confirm that Foster committed suicide. That was one of
the leaks that prompted the New York Post to halt
Ruddy's aggressive reporting on the Foster case. Ruddy
recently showed that when that story ran, Fiske's
investigation was still in its preliminary stage. He had
not yet interviewed the most important witnesses in the
case and the FBI lab had not reported on its findings.
THE MOST DISTRESSING NEWS COMES NOT FROM POLLOCK BUT
FROM RUDDY,
who reported on April 6 that Miguel Rodriguez, the
prosecutor in charge of the grand jury investigation of
the Foster case had resigned in March. Ruddy's sources
said Rodriguez left "because he believed the grand jury
process was being thwarted by his superior." That would
be Mark H. Tuohey, III, a Democratic activist said to be
close to Associate Attorney General Jaimie Gorelick.
Rodriguez was said to be upset by interference in the
choice of witnesses and delays in quizzing them. In
three months, only a dozen witnesses have been
questioned, and some key people have yet to be summoned.
Ruddy quoted Thomas Scorza, a former federal prosecutor
and a professor of legal ethics, as saying that he would
have resigned under the circumstances described, but he
would have made a public stink about it. Rodriguez has
not made a stink. A former colleague of Starr's
commented that Starr is a fine man but he suffers from a
desire to please everyone. It appears in this case that
he decided to please Mark Tuohey and sacrifice Miguel
Rodriguez, whose determined efforts to learn the truth
were making some people in Washington very nervous.
WHAT'S MAKING SOME PEOPLE NERVOUS IS THE NEW EVIDENCE
RODRIGUEZ
found. Ruddy's story on Rodriguez's resignation cites
three important advances: 1. Photographic evidence not
previously available to the investigators; 2. Strong
evidence that the gun in Foster's hand had been moved or
switched; 3. Development of a clear theory that the body
was moved No. 1 suggests good prints have been obtained
from the underexposed Park Police negatives. No. 2
suggests the prosecutors have reason to believe that the
police may have substituted the .38 Colt revolver for
the large caliber automatic that paramedic Richard
Arthur said he saw under Foster's hand. This helps
explain why Rodriguez subjected the police to such rough
grilling. Ruddy and The Sunday Telegraph have reported
other Park Police cases that raised doubts about their
honesty and their competence.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Miguel Rodriguez's resignation is
disturbing. It suggests that Starr has decided not to
play hardball. He will get no heat from the media for
that. I fear the worst unless more is done to bring the
facts in this AIM Report to the attention of the public.
I suggest that we buy space in key papers to print this
report or portions of it. If you agree, please fill out
and return the coupon below. Also send the enclosed card
or a letter to Kenneth Starr
>In article <318388ee...@news.netonecom.net>,
>viewer <vie...@view.city.org> wrote:
>>phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote:
>>
>>>In article
>>><Pine.ULT.3.91m.96042...@red5.cac.washington.edu>, Kurt
>>>Warner <kwa...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>> ah... so now the liberals are stating they are against free speech....
>>>
>>>You're an idiot, Kurt. Free speech does not protect liars. Ever heard of
>>>libel law? If you tell a lie that defames someone, that is not protected
>>>speech and that person can sue you for damages. Read a book, Kurt.
>>
>>You start out by calling him "an idiot" in a public forum, and then lecture
>>him on defamation and libel issues? Chutzpah, if nothing else.
>No, Kurt *is* an idiot. Libel's got nothin to do with it.
>-Dave
Wayne Mann
ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) wrote:
Here is a brief excerpt from the October-A 1995 issue of Accuracy
in
Media's AIM report, published by Reed Irvine. It's a transcript of a
conversation between Reed Irvine and Mike Wallace shortly after the 60
Minutes farce.
-----------------------------------------
Mike Wallace: I would just LOVE to be able to say, "Hey, Ruddy's
right
and the others are wrong." We've made our reputation doing that.
Reed Irvine: If that's the case, why didn't you address any of the
REAL
questions in this case -- the ones I pointed out to you? [Irvine sent
Wallace a memo outlining the "must answer" questions concerning this
mystery shortly before the 60 Minutes piece.]
...
RI: There is more evidence that the body was moved than there is
evidence
that he died in the park, because there is no forensic evidence that
he
died in the park, contrary to what you said. [Wallace had said: "The
forensic evidence showed that the fatal bullet had been fired in
Foster's
mouth from the gun found in Foster's hand and that Foster's thumb had
pulled the trigger."] Name me one piece of forensic evidence that
proves
he died --
MW: Reed, all I want --
RI: One piece, one piece.
MW: Reed the only reason I called you --
RI: Yeah, to tell me you couldn't --
MW: -- was the courtesy of telling you that I wouldn't be with you
tomorrow night [on the AIM TV show.]
RI: -- I didn't think you would be, but tell me one piece of forensic
evidence that proves he died in the park.
MW: I will, I'll tell you what --
RI: One, Mike, just one.
MW: You know what?
RI: Name one. One.
MW: (sort of laughs)
RI: Just one lousy piece. You said you examined all the questions.
MW: Yep.
RI: -- and you said all the evidence points to this. One piece of
forensic evidence that he died in the park.
MW: Reed, no matter --
RI: Can you name one?
MW: Just a moment. You know perfectly well, Reed, that no matter
what
evidence, forensic or otherwise, that I --
RI: Mike, try me. Name one.
MW: All right I'll tell you what I'll do. I won't do it on the
telephone. I'll put it on paper, Okay?
------------------------
Despite beign reminded by Reed later, Wallace never produced any
evidence, on paper or otherwise. He did, however, have this to say in
a
later conversation with Reed. Wallace backed out of going on TV with
Reed, claiming that he needed to watch the OJ Simpson interview that
never
happened. When OJ cancelled, Reed called Wallace back:
---------------------------
RI: Hey, I understand that you're freed up this evening.
MW: Huuuh! Actually, I am not, only for the reason that I am still
going
to have dinner with my son and we're going to stay home and watch
ball,
number one, and Bob Dole and the rest of the people, because he's
involved
with that -- the debate that's taking place.
RI: Oh, that's right -- in New Hampshire. Do you really think you'd
enjoy that more than coming over and getting skewered on our TV show?
MW: I would love to get skewered. I would just LOVE to get skewered
by
you assholes.
--------------------------------------
There you have it. GO GET 'EM, REED!
>In article <DqICz...@iglou.com>, Max Kennedy <mken...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>>
>>: For the crime of refusing to goose step alongside Max Kennedy, no
>>: doubt.
>>
>>I admire the intelligence it takes to scawl a one line insult. I'm sure
>>you worked your way up from bathroom walls.
>Don't worry Maxie, one day you'll work your way up too. Till
>that time, keep drawing those naughty pictures next to the
>toilet paper. You're getting better every day!
>>
>>Max Kennedy
Jeff O'Donnell
In article <DqnJ3...@iglou.com>, mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) wrote:
>Joseph Bowen (jo...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
>: Max Kennedy wrote:
>
>: > Beyond which, you might want to look at his NOSE....I mean, its been
awful red
>: > lately.
>
>: Red nose = drug user.
>: Always thought that bill of rights was a waste of effort.
>
>
Actually, I saw Clinton when he announced he was releasing 12 million gallons
of oil from the nation's reserve, and if his face and nose had been any redder
he could start moonlighting as a traffic signal.
My wife saw it, and put me on the floor with "well, looks like we've been
snorting a lot since the testimony on Sunday"
Max Kennedy
Michael Rivero (riv...@accessone.com) wrote:
: In article <DqLGM...@iglou.com>, Max Kennedy <mken...@iglou.com> wrote:
: >Charlie Armstrong (gre...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: >: In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) pontificated:
: >
: >: > Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
: >: >saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
: >
: >: And you base this not-quite-a-factoid on?
: >
: >A good example of how CNN is dumbing down the population. A factoid is
: >exageration.
: >
: >To be not quite a factoid, could quite honestly mean, to be a fact.
: We're beginning to sound like the feminists; no sense of humor is
: allowed any more.
It's a pet peeve of mine. CNN has irritated me with the above for well
over a year.
Max Kennedy
Kurt Warner
On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Paul H. Henry wrote:
> In article <318388ee...@news.netonecom.net>, vie...@view.city.org wrote:
>
> > phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote:
> >
> > >In article
> > ><Pine.ULT.3.91m.96042...@red5.cac.washington.edu>, Kurt
> > >Warner <kwa...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >> ah... so now the liberals are stating they are against free speech....
> > >
> > >You're an idiot, Kurt. Free speech does not protect liars. Ever heard of
> > >libel law? If you tell a lie that defames someone, that is not protected
> > >speech and that person can sue you for damages. Read a book, Kurt.
> >
> > You start out by calling him "an idiot" in a public forum, and then lecture
> > him on defamation and libel issues? Chutzpah, if nothing else.
>
> Hardly. The expression of an opinion is protected speech under the First,
> and notwithstanding the outdated medical definition of the word "idiot,"
> "You're an idiot" is the expression of an opinion.
>
> Try to keep up:
>
> "Clinton is a drug addict"--a defamatory lie; actionable under libel law
of course, Clinton would have to prove this to not be true and any drug
test of our current President would show heavy drug use... Let me just
put it this way and he can sue me if he wants.. Clinton is a drug using
womanizing lying cheating stealing coward.
>
> "Clinton is an idiot"--defamatory but a statement of opinion; protected
> under the First Amendment
>
> See? It's not that hard if you try.
You apparently dojn't understand the "public figure" clause in current
rulings...
>
> > But we digress.
>
> Speak for yourself.
>
> > His point, (that thing that you may have noticed flying right over your
> > head) is that when they assert that "free speech" doesn't "protect liars",
> > they indeed saying that "free speech" only extends to those who agree
> > with them.
>
> In fact, that is not his point at all, as you would know if you cared
> enough to pay attention. Kurt was replying to Joseph Bowen, who asserted
> that an advertisement offering to sell a video "showing" the President
> using cocaine was a lie, noting that "Free Speech was never intended to
> protect liars." THIS IS A TRUE STATEMENT
It is not... lying is not illegal... defamation is hard to prove for a
public figure and much more leaway is allowed to the defamer...
> , regardless of the specifics of
> the lie. This is exactly what libel law addresses, hence its relevance.
>
> Kurt then let fly with the moronic (opinion!!) and grammatically incorrect
> (verifiably true!) comment, " ah... so now the liberals are stating they
> are against free speech...." Kurt's statement is not supported by the
> evidence with which he has been presented, and also implies that he
I assumed you knew something about "public figures" and the libel laws...
Apparently I was wrong...
> doesn't know jack shit about First Amendment law (neither do you,
> apparently).
>
> It should be noted that the advertisement in question is probably libelous
> on its face; current libel law allows a public figure to sue and recover
> damages if the accused libeller makes a statement that s/he knows is
> false or has acted with reckless disregard for the truth. See New York
> Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 2524, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964);
> also Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d
> 789 (1974).
I suggest you see: NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY V. SULLIVAN
(1964) that the 1ST AMENDMENT disallowed libel judgements against
the critics of public officials or public figures unless actual
malice can be shown.
and
In Hustler v. Falwell
(1988), however, the Supreme Court strongly reinforced that decision
and extended its standard of actual malice to suits in which injury
to mental well-being, rather than reputation, is claimed.
You apparently weren't aware of the difference between "public figures"
and Joe Sixpack... Of course Clinton would have to undergo drug testing
if he sued...
>
> > The essence of the point is the notion (try to comprehend this -- I'll
> > use small words, and type slowly) that if I am telling the truth, and
> > what *you* say disagrees with what I say, then *you* are telling lies.
>
> Utterly irrelevent, as the statement at issue is "Free Speech was never
> intended to protect liars." You're falling behind again.
It protects lies...
>
> > Now, if we have established that liars are not protected by the First
> > Amendment,
>
> Which we have. At least, the Supreme Court has, and I have. You I'm not so
> sure about.
You have done no such thing and neither has the Supreme Court. Cite the
case in which lying has been held illegal.
>
> > and, we have established (to at least *my* satisfaction) that
> > I am "right", and *you* are "wrong", then your speech is obviously not
> > protected.
>
> Only if I have in some way made an assertion of fact, and that assertion
> is incorrect and defaatory.
>
> > Now, as to your poorly-crafted attempt to reframe the debate from one of
> > free speech, to one of libel: this is not a binary decision. One can
> > speak lies, yet never approach even the fringe of "libel".
>
> That's called false light. False light is not protected under the First
> Amendment, and victims can and have sued and recovered damages. See Time
> Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 87 S.Ct. 534, 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967), and
> especially Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co., 419 U.S. 245, 95 S.Ct.
> 465, 42 L.Ed.2d. 419 (1974). You just keep digging yourself in deeper and
> deeper.
So do you... It was "NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY V. SULLIVAN
(1964) that the 1ST AMENDMENT disallowed libel judgements against
the critics of public officials or public figures unless actual
malice can be shown." and followed by
"Hustler v. Falwell (1988) in which the Supreme Court extended its
standard of actual malice to suits in which injury to mental well-being,
rather than reputation, is claimed.
So much for your knowledge of Supreme Court cases.
>
> > For example,
> > try this one out for size, and tell me if Our Glorious Leaders could
> > find my words actionable:
> >
> > "Our President, and his First Lady, are sterling examples of the proud
> > American tradition of elevating our very best and brightest to positions
> > of leadership and authority, and they do every American proud!"
> >
> > A lie? Certainly.
>
> Not a lie, a statement of opinion. In the strictest sense, you lied when
> you said it was a lie.
>
> > Libelous? Somehow I think not.
>
> Of course not. Statements of opinion that do not imply assertions of
> objective fact are not affected by libel law. I'm hoping that if I keep
> hammering this into your head, you'll come to accept it someday. Witness:
>
> "Sterling examples"--subjective.
>
> "proud"--subjective.
>
> "best and brightest"--subjective.
>
> Your inane example did not make a single assertion of objective fact, and
> as such is neither true nor a lie. Claiming that Bill Clinton habitually
> uses cocaine is an assertion of objective fact, and if it can be shown
> that the person or entity that made the accusation knew it was a lie or
> said it with reckless disregard for the truth, guess what?--THAT'S LIBEL.
And of course the only way to show it would be for Mr. Clintoon to
undergo drug testing.. personally I welcome the opportunity... of course
he admitted to using marijuana and cheating on his wife...
>
> > If you ever find a clue, treasure it.
>
> Just a friendly suggestion, kid. Don't argue on points of law about which
> you know absolutely nothing.
Same to you Henry... Look up the "Public Figure" clauses then get back to
us...
Kurt Warner
On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, David Salvador Flores wrote:
> In article <318388ee...@news.netonecom.net>,
> viewer <vie...@view.city.org> wrote:
> >phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote:
> >
> >>In article
> >><Pine.ULT.3.91m.96042...@red5.cac.washington.edu>, Kurt
> >>Warner <kwa...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>> ah... so now the liberals are stating they are against free speech....
> >>
> >>You're an idiot, Kurt. Free speech does not protect liars. Ever heard of
> >>libel law? If you tell a lie that defames someone, that is not protected
> >>speech and that person can sue you for damages. Read a book, Kurt.
> >
> >You start out by calling him "an idiot" in a public forum, and then lecture
> >him on defamation and libel issues? Chutzpah, if nothing else.
>
> No, Kurt *is* an idiot. Libel's got nothin to do with it.
At least you're not as stupid as P. H. Henry... who knows nothing about
the "Public Figure" clauses of the libel laws...
>
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
>
Michael Rivero
In article <DqLGM...@iglou.com>, Max Kennedy <mken...@iglou.com> wrote:
>Charlie Armstrong (gre...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>: In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) pontificated:
>
>: > Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
>: >saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
>: >
>
>: And you base this not-quite-a-factoid on?
>
>A good example of how CNN is dumbing down the population. A factoid is
>"like a fact". Too bad, it ISN'T a fact. Neither is lying or
>exageration.
>
>To be not quite a factoid, could quite honestly mean, to be a fact.
>
We're beginning to sound like the feminists; no sense of humor is
allowed any more.
Gail Thaler
>I'll leave other signs of drug use in Clinton's manner and looks to other
>users. I wouldn't want to look like an ex-drug user or something... Might
>have the DEA sieze what little property I have left after taxes. 'Course
>Roger Clinton and Lassiter were pardoned for their coke use. By the Governor
>himself..
>
>Max Kennedy
ex-drug user.
Fess up, Max, what kind of drugs are you on right now?
"We had an interesting convention in Los Angeles and we ended up with a strongDemocratic platform which we called the "Rights of Man=
" The Republican platformhad also been presented. I do not know its title, but it has been referred to as the"Power of Positive T=
hinking."
JFK September 19, 1960
Michael Rivero
In article <318529...@mail.utexas.edu>,
Joseph Bowen <jo...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Max Kennedy wrote:
>
>> Beyond which, you might want to look at his NOSE....I mean, its been awful red
>> lately.
>
>Red nose = drug user.
>Always thought that bill of rights was a waste of effort.
The lead reindeer is a user!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is nothing sacred?
:)
Bob James
On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, John Ertel wrote:
> Bob James wrote:
> > I would not be surprised at all if evidence about some kind of Clinton
> > drug use came out. I think he has been instrumental in the deaths of
> > many people associated with him...the death rate of his friends being higher
> > than that of pets brought to our local humane society shelter. I think
> > he is corrupt to the core.
> >
> > ***B U T*****
> >
> > According to our American system of justice, he is still innocent until
> > proven guilty. No one is compelled to provide evidence that he DOESN'T
> > do drugs. Those of us who believe that he is corrupt, a murderer or a
> > druggie are the ones compelled to bring forth the evidence.
> >
> > Bob James knoc...@io.com
> Hey we're not saying he didn't do it. .we're saying GIVE US THE PROOF! We keep
> hearing about this video that nobody's ever seen. If you go around and keep saying
> it exists but don't show it, people will think you're a liar.
If you re-read what I said, you will note that I said that I believe he
is corrupt and would not be surprised if he was involved in drug use. I
also said tht evidence has not come forth yet, especially about the drug
use. *I* said that it is the responsibility of the ones doing the
accusing to bring forth the evidence.
I did not say that any video exists, nor did I say I had proof. I stated
my opinions based on the character of the man. I guess it is safe to say
that if Reagan was the Teflon president (because nothing seemed to stick
to him) then it is even more safe to say that Bill Clinton is the Silver
Stone (stoned?) president.
Bob James knoc...@io.com
Wayne Mann
BOBJONES <ea...@cloudnet.com> wrote:
AP buries it at the end with less said then meaningful.
Panel Eyes W'water Subpoenas
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate Whitewater Committee plans to call
Hillary
Rodham Clinton's chief of staff and a longtime friend for further
questioning
about White House restrictions that kept police from searching Vincent
Foster's
office.
After a hearing Wednesday, committee chairman Alfonse D'Amato,
R-N.Y., said
the panel might consider calling Mrs. Clinton to testify, depending on
what
witnesses Margaret Williams and Susan Thomases say.
With a stack of recently obtained telephone records in hand,
D'Amato
threatened to issue sweeping subpoenas for more documents and he
accused the
Clinton White House of withholding material that was requested months
ago.
A longtime friend of Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Thomases told the committee
last
summer that she didn't speak to Mrs. Clinton about the planned police
search of
Foster's office, but D'Amato said Mrs. Thomases statements are "at
least
suspect" in light of the phone records.
Ms. Thomases "has failed to answer in a responsive manner," D'Amato
told
reporters.
White House spokesman Mark Fabiani accused D'Amato of
"misrepresenting the
facts" and said "the senators' political side show was made possible
because we
voluntarily provided the records."
"The senator is seeking the last refuge for a political
witch-hunter,"
Fabiani added. "He is complaining about technicalities and
procedures."
Committee Democrats objected to the far-reaching subpoenas proposed
by
D'Amato and committee lawyers were negotiating a compromise to narrow
their
scope. The committee's ranking Democrat, Paul Sarbanes of Maryland,
said he was
"very disappointed" that Republicans had initiated the subpoena plan
without
consulting the rest of the committee.
The telephone records show that hours before Foster's office was to
be
searched, Mrs. Clinton spoke with Ms. Thomases and her chief of staff,
Ms.
Williams, before talking to White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum.
Nussbaum then
told law enforcement officials they would not be allowed to review
Foster's
documents.
Mrs. Clinton calls on Ms. Thomases, an attorney, for advice from
time to
time. The two women have known each other for decades.
The phone records also show three calls by Ms. Thomases to Ms.
Williams'
office two hours before the search of Foster's office the afternoon of
July 22,
1993, two days after the deputy White House counsel's suicide. And
minutes
before the search began, Ms. Williams called Mrs. Clinton.
Foster had custody of some financial records of the Clintons and a
file on
the White House travel office controversy -- the mass firings that
raised a
furor and embarrassed the administration.
Separately, the committee's majority counsel, Michael Chertoff,
disclosed
that the Treasury Department has shredded some records relating to
Whitewater
contacts between the White House and Treasury officials.
Chertoff said the Treasury inspector general's office reported that
the
shredded documents were only duplicates, but he said the action
nonetheless
concerned the committee.
As the hearing ended, D'Amato said that there may be an innocent
explanation
for the shredding but that issuing subpoenas would safeguard against
such action
in the future.
Meanwhile, a forensic panel of three handwriting experts contended
that the
torn-up note found in the bottom of Foster's briefcase six days after
his death
is a forgery.
The finding conflicts with two previous investigations concluding
that Foster
wrote the note.
The three experts who say Foster didn't write the note are Reginald
E. Alton
of Oxford University; Vincent Scalice, formerly a homicide expert with
the New
York City Police Department; and Ronald Rice, a consultant to the
Massachusetts
attorney general's office. The three conducted the work for Strategic
Investment, a financial newsletter.
In an interview, Alton said he compared the torn-up note with a
number of
pages of notes in Foster's hand turned up during Whitewater and that
"it's a
shaky enough forgery. It seems to me that the forger is reproducing
shapes
without understanding how they were made and how Foster's hand works."
>phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote:
>>In article <4luhgr$1...@ren.cei.net>, Tim Watson <tim...@cei.net> wrote:
>>
>>> gre...@earthlink.net (Charlie Armstrong) wrote:
>>> >In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
>>(Michael Rivero) pontificated:
>>> >
>>> >> Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
>>> >>saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >And you base this not-quite-a-factoid on?
>>>
>>>
>>> That doesn't sound like a pontification to me. Sounds more like an
>>> assertion, strongly put.
>>
>>And it sounds to me like a lie, even more strongly put.
>>
>>> There is much talk of Clinton's dope use while
>>> in Arkansas, but if he still indulges, he is doing a much better job of
>>> keeping it quiet, which I understand is one of the perquisites of the
>>> presidency.
>>
>>Considering the degree to which you folks blindly hate people who disagree
>>with you, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T "much talk" of such things.
>>That does not make it any less of a scurrilous lie, and it does not make
>>you any less immoral for spreading it.
>>
>>--
>>=============================================================================
>> _ (phe...@halcyon.com) || I N M E M O R Y
>>|_) || Oklahoma City * April 19, 1995
>>| aul H. Henry - Seattle, Wash.|| Remember the Victims of Extremism and Hate
>>====================== http://www.halcyon.com/phenry/ =====================
>Is it immoral to spread the truth though.? The only lie spreading
>is by Komrade Klinton and ministtry of Propaganda at ABC news.
>Peter Jennings DOES looklike Josef Goebels. Do you have any proof
>that he hasnt or doesnt do coke?
Wayne Mann
Bob James <knoc...@io.com> wrote:
<< 1992 Campaign One Focus Of Senate; Hubbell Questioned
By PETE YOST
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - With more Whitewater hearings looming, Senate
investigators
questioned former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell and are
preparing
to delve into the 1992 Clinton campaign's responses to the Whitewater
controversy.
Forty-nine subpoenas are going from the Senate Whitewater Committee to
President
and Mrs. Clinton, the White House, state and federal regulatory
agencies and
potential witnesses.
Committee investigators privately questioned Hubbell under oath
Thursday on
Capitol Hill to prepare for the next phase of hearings, which will
deal with
the role the White House played in various inquiries dealing with
Whitewater.
Hubbell was the No. 3 official at the Justice Department during
criminal
investigations touching on the Clintons' Arkansas real estate venture.
The subpoena initiative was led by the committee chairman, Sen.
Alfonse D'Amato,
R-N.Y., who contends the White House has withheld documents, an
allegation the
administration denies.
Committee members said some of the subpoenas to individuals demand
records from
the 1992 presidential campaign having to do with Whitewater. When
Clinton was
running for president, the issue quickly died amid assurances that
Whitewater
had simply been a money-losing real estate venture of no consequence.
Senate hearings resume next Thursday, with Republicans trying to
determine
whether Hillary Rodham Clinton influenced a decision to keep law
enforcement
officials away from documents in Vincent Foster's office, which
contained some
of the Clintons' financial records.
The Senate recently obtained phone records showing calls between Mrs.
Clinton,
her chief of staff Margaret Williams and a longtime friend, Susan
Thomases,
just before the decision to restrict the search of Foster's White
House office.
Williams and Thomases are being called back for more testimony. They
said in
hearings last summer that they hadn't discussed the impending search
with Mrs.
Clinton.
Whitewater Committee Democrats agreed to the subpoenas, saying they
represented
a substantial narrowing of sweeping document requests that the panel
made
months ago.
The subpoena to the White House "cuts short the fishing expedition,"
said
White House spokesman Mark Fabiani.
D'Amato said that most of those subpoenaed have already turned over
material.
But he said the subpoenas would reinforce the importance of turning
over all
relevant documents.
"The subpoenas are much ado about nothing," said David Kendall, the
Clintons'
lawyer. "We've fully cooperated without regard to a subpoena and will
continue
to do so."
>>
>On 28 Apr 1996, BOBJONES wrote:
>> Is it immoral to spread the truth though.? The only lie spreading
>> is by Komrade Klinton and ministtry of Propaganda at ABC news.
>> Peter Jennings DOES looklike Josef Goebels. Do you have any proof
>> that he hasnt or doesnt do coke?
>I would not be surprised at all if evidence about some kind of Clinton
>drug use came out. I think he has been instrumental in the deaths of
>many people associated with him...the death rate of his friends being higher
>than that of pets brought to our local humane society shelter. I think
>he is corrupt to the core.
>***B U T*****
>According to our American system of justice, he is still innocent until
>proven guilty. No one is compelled to provide evidence that he DOESN'T
>do drugs. Those of us who believe that he is corrupt, a murderer or a
>druggie are the ones compelled to bring forth the evidence.
>Bob James knoc...@io.com
Wayne Mann
John Ertel <er...@xstar.com> wrote:
CHRIS RUDDY Interviewed by Chuck Harder - October 25, 1995
Part 1
RUDDY: Well Chuck, today was a major news day. I don't know if most of
America is going to hear this news, but shocking news was revealed at
a press
conference this morning at Washington's Willard Hotel, where three
leading
forensics experts, two from the United States, one from Britain, a
very
prominent handwriting expert, came together and offered their findings
as to
the torn note, the so-called Foster suicide note that was found in
Foster's
briefcase, which the government has said was written by Vince Foster
and is
indicative of his state of mind which led to his suicide. These three
experts
have unanimously spoken and declared the note a forgery. In other
words,
high government officials forged the note, according to these experts,
of a
high ranking official, on his stationary, to mislead police
investigators,
apparently, and obstruct justice, if this is true.
HARDER: Okay now, you say that you have three different forensics
experts
and one gentleman is in the studio with you, would you introduce that
gentleman?
RUDDY: Sitting next to me is one of the most world renowned forensic
handwriting experts, Mr. Reginald Alton from Oxford University. He has
taught for 30 years at Oxford on handwriting, manuscripts, forgery
detection
and authentication of manuscripts. His is the one who authenticated,
several
years ago the C.S. Lewis diaries - there was some controversy over
that. He
has testified in British courts. He has been consulted by British
police
authorities. A very distinguished individual - he flew in for the
press
conference today and he has reviewed the note and compared it to a
dozen
documents that we have, that we know Vince Foster wrote, and has
called it
an out-and-out forgery.
HARDER: Professor Alton, can you hear me?
ALTON: Yes.
HARDER: Okay, can you tell us, what is the thing that sets the forgery
apart - how do you tell the difference?
ALTON: Well, how do you tell the difference between one man's face and
another man's face? A lot of people, you know I'm sure, if you saw
them
across the street, you'd say that's Jekyll. And that's the way you do
it.
You look at a document, a manuscript, and the computer in your head
starts
to put together all the evidence on that piece of paper.
RUDDY: Mr. Alton noted a number of unique characteristics to Vince
Foster's handwriting that are not in the note. Mr. Alton, maybe you
could
explain that?
ALTON: Well certainly there was what I would call "clinching". In all
the
genuine Foster documents, for instance, the initial minuscule "b" and
the
initial lower-case "b", that is a small letter, Foster who has a very
fluid,
fluent hand, made it in every case we have, made it in a single
stroke, a
single firm downstroke, from the top of the ascender, down to the
line, up
again at the same track with short [garbled] then back and across,
forming a
circular mark, which is the vault of the letter, and then as that hit
one of
the - the descender hit the line, it moved again sharply right, across
into
the next letter, all done in one stroke.
HARDER: And the forgery is done in two strokes?
ALTON: The forgery is done in three strokes.
HARDER: Three strokes.
ALTON: Three strokes - insofar as one can say from a photocopy. In the
genuine documents, you can quite clearly see that it's one stroke.
HARDER: Uh-huh.
ALTON: There's a thickening as it goes back up to it's first track and
then
it thins out round into the vault and then back straight across. You
can see
it even in the photocopy quite clearly that the forger has drawn what
he
thinks is the same shape, but he's failed totally to understand the
way
Foster's hand moved to make that particular letter.
RUDDY: In other words, all the experts agree, Chuck, that when Foster
wrote, he wrote in a very continuous, bold, flowing style. He didn't
stop
his pen at certain points to draw things, like the letter "b" he'd
just write
with one measured stroke on the paper. But what they demonstrated, and
the
press saw this very clearly, in large blowups - it was shown to the
press.
Mr. Rice, Ronald Rice from Boston, came in. He showed them that, in
fact,
the forger added lines - drew lines in. But his hesitation - usually
you
don't have hesitation. I spoke to the sergeant with the U.S. Park
Police
who first authenticated the note. It turns out, here the Park Police
find
this note under very suspicious circumstances...
HARDER: Let's hold it right there and continue with that thought about
the
Park Police right after this break.
[Break for commercials]
HARDER: We're talking with professor Reginald Alton. He is with Oxford
University. He is a handwriting expert and has been for years and
years.
Chris Ruddy is with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. He is a reporter
who
has been tenacious on the case of the mysterious death of Vince
Foster.
The new, interesting development is, as Chris has mentioned, today at
a
press conference three handwriting experts say that the Foster suicide
note
is a forgery. Chris Ruddy, what does this mean in this case?
RUDDY: Well, it means that somebody has lied - somebody has engaged in
a coverup of this man's death. And that possibly this was not a
suicide -
there is strong evidence it could have been a murder. Let's go back
and
review things. The police, with White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum,
searched Foster's office two days after his death. They did not find a
suicide note. In fact, no one even knew this man was suicidal or
depressed.
And everybody expressed great shock, and as you know, under strange
circumstances, they found the body at Fort Marcy Park. They searched
the
office, and the police were there, and said that the briefcase was
searched
twice, with Mr. Nussbaum declaring, "It's empty." Almost a week after
the
death, Chuck, a week after, some White House aide is packing the
briefcase
and finds torn pieces - 28 pieces of a legal piece of paper at the
bottom of
the brief case. They piece it together and they find out that it's the
note.
And they call it a so-called suicide note. It had no fingerprints on
it. One
of the experts gave a statement today, Mr. Vincent Scalice is a latent
fingerprint expert. He said, when you tear a piece of paper, you have
to
put multiple finger impressions on it. He said that it is consistent
with
someone having worn gloves. The note was found torn - why? Well the
experts concluded that they did that because it's very difficult to
make a
comparison when anything is torn. Maybe Mr. Alton can comment on that.
ALTON: Yes, what you are looking for - signs where delineation is not
exact.
The marginal registration is not exact, and the way one letter is
joined
to the next is not the same as in any authentic examples of the same
hand. This note was torn into - umpteen pieces, twenty-six,
twenty-eight
pieces, one of them said to be missing, where the writer would have
put,
perhaps, his initials and the date - not room on the missing piece for
a signature - the rest of them have contrived to obscure the way the
hand
runs across the page. I'm not saying that was deliberately done, but
it
looks very, very odd indeed.
RUDDY: Based on your experience, Mr. Alton, what would you feel - you
were talking in your opening statement today, based on your experience
in
dealing with questioned documents, what is the significance of its
discovery?
ALTON: Well, when a manuscript or document turns up suddenly,
unexpectedly, not necessarily at the proper time, that's a sign that
one
ought to start being suspicious of it. If, in addition, the content of
the
document is interesting, or likely to be valuable - value, of course
is
not necessarily just in dollars, it could be in terms of value to
somebody's
political position or life - there is then a prima facie case for
suspecting
this document. If you change your mind, well that's all right. The
prima
facie case is fallen, but there is a prima facie case for wondering
what
this particular document is about.
RUDDY: Well, you know, the funny thing is, Chuck, the police have been
saying the briefcase was empty - the Park Police. The FBI have kept
out of
this investigation. William Sessions [the former FBI Director] has
charged
that his firing the day before the death of Vince Foster led to a
"compromised" investigation into the death. Okay, so here we find out
that
the note is suspicious. So the first thing we want to do is make sure
that
handwriting is his. Well, who do they have to authenticate it? They
get
a sergeant from the U.S. Capitol Police, who is not certified as a
handwriting examiner, to come over and certify it.
HARDER: Was this the same guy who counted how many showed up at the
million-man march?
RUDDY: Probably...They used one single known document of Foster's
handwriting, which they said was given from the family, to
authenticate it.
You never want just one document, you want as many as you can [have].
Even he, Mr. Laughbart [sp], the expert told me that he wanted as many
as
ten, but he was dumbfounded to explain why he only used one. It's
obvious
that his job was to rubber-stamp this. What's amazing is that they
used the
FBI later, when Robert Fiske took over the investigation, to certify
it as
Foster's, and again they used only one document and two checks written
by
Foster, and I'm told by someone very close to that investigation that
the two checks that Foster was said to have written were inconclusive
to
the torn note. In other words, they knew very well. Now I spoke to the
head
of the FBI crime lab and the head of the questioned documents unit,
who
had just retired. The both said they want as many documents as you can
get,
with a minimum of ten. Mr. Alton, how many documents would you like to
see
when you do something like this?
ALTON: Certainly as many as we had today, preferably with more
handwriting on them than were on some of those notes taken during the
Whitewater period. Certainly [garbled] or 30, if possible.
HARDER: You know gentlemen, the question again is, where is the press?
Where is the press that gave us the Watergate? Where are the guys from
the Washington Post that gave us Watergate? Where are the
investigative
reporters? And the answer is, I just don't think, number one, there
are
any, other than yourself, and a handful. And, number two, I think most
of
the press is so corporatized, they don't want to rock the boat - they
don't want to make waves, and they subsist on handouts.
RUDDY: Chuck, this story is tantamount to the atomic bomb...
HARDER: Hold it right there, and after a quick break, why?
[Break for commercials]
HARDER: ...Professor Alton, you wanted to say something before we
continue about the atomic bomb.
RUDDY: Well, not the atomic bomb. He wanted to mention his reasons for
coming here, and we'll talk about the atomic bomb in a second.
ALTON: I'd like to say that I hope nobody who sees this will think I'm
a nasty, interfering Brit who's come over to try and prove that
America
is a horrible place where you can get away with murder. I have the
greatest
admiration for Americans. I fought alongside them in World War II, and
I
have many friends, many pupils whom I love very dearly, and I hope it
is
reciprocated. I wouldn't like them to think I was here meddling and
interfering and making a nonsense for America.
HARDER: The purpose of the visit is simply to examine the documents
and
to give your thoughts and your findings - it's as simple as that, is
it
not?
ALTON: Exactly as simple as that.
RUDDY: Mr. Alton has no political biases here, in fact, President
Clinton
came from Oxford - was a Rhodes Scholar there. He knows nothing about
the
case, really, other than the sketchy details he just found out today.
He
came in as an expert based on the document - what the document means.
HARDER: And only the document.
RUDDY: He did not ask for a fee for this. He was given a small
honorarium
by the organization, *Strategic Investment*, a prominent financial
newsletter
that authored the conference.
What I was saying, Chuck, about the atomic bomb - this is a huge
story.
This is bigger than the Watergate burglary. This is bigger that the 18
minute gap on the Watergate tape. Yet you're not going to see this as
the
lead item on the news tonight, just as you mentioned - where are the
Woodward and Bernsteins out there? They're not out there - they're all
running for cover. At the very least - even the reporters who were
present
There were a couple of networks there and a couple of wire services.
There
were about 20 members of the news there, all asking hostile questions.
At the very least, even if they disagree with the opinions findings of
the
experts skilled in this - the point is the FBI and the Park Police
didn't
treat this like they would treat any other case.
HARDER: The guy at the local grocery store, if he had been murdered,
would
have gotten much more attention, in my view.
RUDDY: I think he would have gotten a complete, thorough death
investigation here. This is just absurd - the levels at which they are
operating here. One of the things I would strongly encourage people to
do is, if they want to read about this in their local newspaper, to
call
their newspaper, say there was a press conference in Washington today
about the Foster suicide note, there was an Oxford expert there, and
they've
heard about it on the radio and they'd like the Associated Press or
Reuters
to cover the story...This is very important. People can make those
calls to
their local newspaper or to Reuters...or the Associated press (the
main
number in Washington [(202) 776-9400]) and say, we want to read about
this
in our local newspapers and find out what the experts said.
HARDER: Well again if the AP did not even show for the press
conference,
that's very, very sad. Isn't the Willard Hotel right across the street
from the press building?
RUDDY: Yeah, well it's incredible. Now the AP can certainly still
cover the
story. They have a copy of the report. They have a copy of my article
on
this. Reuters was there; CBS News; NBC; I believe CNN had someone
there;
CBN had someone there; so, yes, I do think that it's important for it
to
get out in newspapers across the land...people are disagreeing with
this now.
I also want to point out that the government has gone to extraordinary
lengths - this copy that we had of the torn note was a leaked copy.
The
government refuses to release that note. At first they even tried to
claim
executive privilege and not allow the police to even see it for
examination.
All the red flags are there - you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to
know
that something smells here.
HARDER: Unbelievable. Gentlemen, I want to thank you for taking the
time
to bring it to our microphones and to our video cameras. I find it
just
unbelievable. And professor, I want to thank you for your kindness in
telling us about it. Handwriting is something everybody does and, as
you
say, it's your face on paper, right?
ALTON: Of course, they do it unconsciously - one of the things that
was
pointed this morning is that the little words that one writes,
virtually
identically every time, because one isn't thinking about writing them,
words
like "and" and "to" and "the" they were some of the words where some
of the
greatest observable differences between the authentic documents
written by
Foster and this note...
HARDER: The forgery - thank you. We'll be right back.
HARDER: ...Chris Ruddy, first of all let's go back in time and start
at the
beginning about the death of Vince Foster - why so strange? Why did
the red
flags go up? Why don't we do it chronologically, from the beginning
and then
do an update?
RUDDY: Vince Foster died just over two years ago, his body was found
in
Fort Marcy Park, which is just across the Potomac from Washington. He
was
the number two White House lawyer. He was one of the highest federal
officials in the land. He was the personal attorney to both the
Clintons.
He was privy to all of their personal dealings. He was a Rose Law Firm
partner with Hillary Clinton, Webster Hubbell - who you know has been
convicted on federal offenses and is serving time in jail - and
William
Kennedy who served at the White House. He was found very strangely
dead
of a suicide. Nobody detected that he was even depressed. His doctor
had
given him some medication, not for depression, but for insomnia. He
was
telling people his heart was pounding so hard it was coming through
his
chest. He was rubbing his hands together, compulsively. Thought his
phones
were tapped. Does that sound like depression or anxiety to you?
HARDER: Anxiety.
RUDDY: And these are all in the FBI reports that are available in a
book
we're going to be offering through your organization. Everybody was
taken
quite by shock when this man died. Now, he's found in a park. Police
are
trained to treat suicides, no matter how apparent, as murders -
standard
police procedure. It's even the Park Police procedure. Foster's found
on
park land - the police come - they declare it a suicide, Chuck, before
the police detectives even get to see the body. And that's in the
Senate
depositions on this from one of the police investigators. He's found
with
a gun in his hand - red flag - any time you find someone with a gun in
their
hand it's a sign of possible foul play. You shoot yourself in the
mouth
with a gun - typically the gun flies from your hand. Just look at the
issue
of the gun. He's found with a gun in his hand, neatly at his side - it
shouldn't be there. No blood or blowback material is visible, but the
gun was pressed deep against the mouth. No one heard the fatal shot.
The
family couldn't identify the gun in two investigations as being owned
by
Foster. It was an old 1913 gun with two serial numbers. Two bullets in
it. No matching bullets in either of the Foster homes. It was found in
his hand, yet they found no fingerprints on it.
HARDER: No fingerprints on the gun?
RUDDY: No. And the FBI lab found that Foster had neither hand on the
handgrip of the gun when it was fired. If this was the gun here, okay?
And I was to place it in my mouth, you'd want to place in my mouth,
you'd
want to put one of the hands down here on the hand-grip to stabilize
the gun,
because you're going to have to pull that trigger. But the FBI said
no,
both hands were up around the top of the gun, like this. How do you
pull
a trigger...like that? Anybody that knows guns and the interaction
that
guns have with the human body says this doesn't add up. They never
found
the fired bullet. Ken Starr, the independent counsel, hired Henry Lee,
the
forensic scientist. It should be noted that Henry Lee was one of the
key
defense experts for the O.J. Simpson case and has come under heavy
criticism
for his testimony at the FBI as being a hired gun. He's now brought
into
the case by the government, and is looking into it. And he said that
the
bullet should have been found. And apparently [after] a month-long
expedition
in that park, they still haven't found the fired bullet. There is a
lot of
evidence that the body was moved. Two New York City homicide
investigators
went up to that park, and they tested three pairs of shoes that would
have
walked from where Foster was found to the spot where his car was -
that's
700 feet. No grass stains, no soil on his shoes according to the FBI
lab.
Mike Wallace of *60 Minutes* even told me that he took the walk and he
had
soil on his shoes.
HARDER: Why didn't Mike Wallace say that on TV?
RUDDY: Well, why didn't he tell them about any of the issues I'm
raising
here? Because he obviously didn't want anybody to know about it, and
be
informed. That's a good question for Mike Wallace.
HARDER: But that's Mike Wallace and Mike Wallace tells us the truth,
doesn't
he?
RUDDY: Well, Mike Wallace tried to explain that Foster didn't have
soil
on his shoes [NOTE: Wallace didn't mention the soil in his interview
of
Ruddy] but he had carpet fibers of seven different colored carpets
all
over his clothing and underwear. Mike Wallace said, well, that's
because
[when] you walk across a carpet, you get fibers swept up on you and
they
bagged all of Foster's clothing in one bag at the morgue. Which is
somewhat
incredible if they put bloodied items with non-bloodied items, But
that's
the story were getting. What Mike Wallace didn't tell people is that
Foster's
tie and suit jacket were found in his car and bagged separately - they
too
had carpet fibers all over them...
HARDER: Whoa - his tie and his coat, separately bagged, had carpet
fibers?
RUDDY: Exactly, they were not brought to the morgue, they were in the
car.
HARDER: Alright, let me ask you this question. Did Mike Wallace know
that?
RUDDY: Yes.
HARDER: Why wouldn't Mike Wallace tell us that on CBS' *60 Minutes*,
which
is renowned for telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
RUDDY: Good question to ask Mike Wallace. They were more interested in
smearing my reputation - you know, they went on the air and said, well
Chris Ruddy has reported, basically, Foster was left-handed and the
guy
was right-handed. That wasn't me that reported that, that was the
Boston
Globe reported that. They knew it - I was the one that told them
Foster
was right-handed. They had the medical examiner there saying that he
saw a lot of blood and I had misreported what he said. Well Mike
Wallace
knew that that medical examiner who was on the scene saw little blood
according to what he told the FBI. We have his statement, and I have
what he said to me on tape. And they didn't have me saying that I have
him on tape. Because they wanted to make it look like we were just out
for money, or whatever purpose - everybody is out for shenanigans that
wants to tell the truth. But the point is that the body was so neatly
arranged - it's not Chris Ruddy - the two paramedics first on the
scene
said it didn't look like a suicide. One went back later and classified
it as a homicide. He said the body was so neatly arranged with the
arms
at its side it looked like it was ready for the coffin. A gunshot
wound
to the head only trickled the blood. He said usually you have blood
all
over the place. No blood splatter above the top of the head where the
exit wound was. So there was strong evidence that the body was moved.
When the police searched Vince Foster's pockets at the park, they
didn't
find his car keys. They claim that they must have overlooked them.
They
let the body leave the park and they went back to the hospital morgue
and suddenly found two sets of keys in his pockets, but only after
White
House officials arrived at the hospital. Again you don't have to be
Sherlock Holmes to presume what probably happened there. The amazing
thing about this case, Chuck, is that everything is there on the
record.
Two witnesses - two Washington professionals that were in the park
just
before the police arrived, and discovered the body - both told the FBI
their witness statements are in the report that will be available to
your organization - they both told them they saw two men - not Foster
-
in and around his Honda before the police arrived. One man with long
blonde hair was standing with the hood of the car up. Here we have
clear
indication of foul play - two men, his keys weren't found in the park,
this man had long blonde hair...blonde hairs were found on the body,
Obviously, there's a problem with this case. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard,
the intrepid reporter from the Sunday Telegraph in London - it's
ironic
that we have to get the truth from Great Britain - he reported this
week that, in fact, the FBI interviewed a witness who first saw
Foster's
car in Fort Marcy about 4:30 in the afternoon, And the FBI said he saw
a
man, a Mexican-American apparently, giving him a very menacing look
as he left to urinate in the woods. He was so worried and concerned
that
he got back in his car and took off immediately. The FBI interview
statement
says that the man - the witness, whose name is Patrick Knowlton,
couldn't
identify the Mexican-American if he was shown the man in a lineup of
photographs. Well, Ambrose has a composite sketch of the man - a
picture
of him. The man said I told [them] I could very well identify who the
man was. Again, we have another instance where the FBI badgered
someone
into changing their story or altered their FBI interview statement. As
you know, the first witness on the scene, who found the body - a
construction worker - told the FBI he didn't see a gun in Foster's
hand
when he came across the body, and explained the different type of
head position. And we get his interview statement and he's now charged
that the FBI's badgered him into changing his statement.
HARDER: By the way, you say that CNN was there, did CSPAN do this
live?
RUDDY: No. CSPAN did not...
HARDER: CSPAN did not cover it.
RUDDY: I'm told that CSPAN - somebody in the media world told me that
CSPAN has been basically told by the White House that it's not
acceptable
for them to do anything on the Foster case.
HARDER: Stand by, if you would please. We're just going to have a
quick
break.
[Break for commercials]
HARDER: ...Chris, we are now to the point of the mysterious Hispanic
looking gentleman in the park. Where do we go from there?
RUDDY: I don't know what [kind] of proof people need, that when the
FBI
says a witness can't identify someone an he turns around and has a
composite sketch drawn with police artists. You see it right in front
of your nose and you know something doesn't add up. The problem with
this
case is, it's not just a matter of covering up a potential homicide.
It's
that the federal government's law enforcement agencies are scared to
death, because there are obviously implications for them in this. They
mishandled this whole thing. The may have taken an active part in the
coverup. William Sessions, we know, was fired as the head of the FBI.
We know that the Park Police were given exclusive jurisdiction. We
know
that all the key evidence in the homicide investigation is missing.
They
have no crime scene photos - of the whole crime scene.
HARDER: Let's stop for a minute and talk about these anomalies, if you
please. The photographs that are so important are all missing, along
with x-rays. Tell us about that if you would.
RUDDY: Well, okay. Anyone who has watched two episodes of Columbo,
Chuck,
knows that you have to have a photo of the whole scene, with the body.
Well, they have a couple of close-up Polaroids - all the 35mm film -
the
key photos, they claim was underexposed in the lab. They only took one
roll,
which is unheard of. This was a high official's death investigation.
HARDER: First of all, you don't underexpose in the lab - that's just
nonsense. I was in the film processing business for years. You don't
do
that. Number two, most cameras that the police use are about
goof-proof.
They are sophisticated...you put the roll of film in - a lot of the
cameras automatically feed the film. If the camera needs to turn the
flash
on, it turns the flash on. I just don't buy that.
RUDDY: The key thing here is that all of the critical evidence is
missing.
The first police officer who took the photos of the original
scene...says
his Polaroids are missing. He took seven Polaroids - they're all
missing.
He says the gun was in a different position than it was in the later
photos. Which is a very odd position, with the thumb still on the
trigger.
The other police officer, who later took photos, when the body was
moved,
of the amount of blood under the body, which is in dispute. They're
missing. So, the 35 mm, two sets of Polaroids - who holds these people
accountable? The x-rays, the autopsy - let's go over the x-rays for a
second. The autopsy [report] says the x-rays were taken, which would
substantiate the notes on a piece of paper - that's all we have - as
to
where the wounds were, and the damage to the head. They're missing.
The
police report quotes the medical examiner as saying, "Dr. Beyer
examined
the x-rays and said there were no metal fragments in Foster's head."
Now
he's saying - the medical examiner - that the machine was inoperable.
It
was a new machine. Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media called over to the
company that deals with it and [they] said they didn't need to service
it
for months during that period. Again, we know that Bob Fiske, the
first
special counsel, was not interested in getting the truth of this. And
he
didn't use a grand jury; he didn't do a lot of things. Ken Starr, the
new
independent counsel said he was going to investigate it. The truth of
the
matter is that Ken Starr is not a prosecutor and he has basically
bungled
this case. He had a very good prosecutor handling it, who had the Park
Police under oath. He was finding all sorts of discrepancies. His name
is
Miguel Rodriguez. Rodriguez had to resign this year because he was not
able to conduct a full probe. And Ken Starr...has allowed this to go
on,
holding the police... Look, there are four witnesses, two before the
police arrived, and two after who said there was a briefcase in
Foster's
car. What does the police report say? What do the police all say? That
there was no briefcase. Oh, come on - four witnesses - all of them are
mistaken about a briefcase? It's obvious - two of the prosecutors on
Starr's staff told me they believe absolutely that that briefcase was
given back to the White House. The police don't want to take the rap
for
it, but the truth of the matter is that any prosecutor who wanted to
expose this would look at the little lies to get at the big lies.
That's
how it works in our system. But Ken Starr, who is a consummate
Washington
insider, apparently wants to be on the Supreme Court, is unwilling to
follow through on these things.
HARDER: You know, there's a saying among the insiders that quiet
telephone
calls are made from one big high-powered law firm to another...and
very
often, deals are quietly made...things that are "not helpful" get
quietly
covered up. And the big machine, the "octopus" just goes on and runs
the
government the way it wants to run it. Unfortunately, the people who
are
doing all this have never been elected - never ran for office. It just
seems to me the American people deserve the whole truth and nothing
but
the truth. And it's about time to get it, don't you think?
RUDDY: Well, I think it's absolutely critical that people be given the
full facts in this case. Everybody was so worried about the O.J. case.
That has very few implications for our daily lives.
HARDER: No national security with O.J.
RUDDY: Well, if justice can be subverted in a high official's death
investigation, who of us in this country will be safe? If statements
can be manipulated, if FBI refuses to investigate a death... The
procedures are very clear - when you have a death, an apparent
suicide,
it is to be treated as a homicide. Police regulations, for example,
say
you go out and canvass the neighborhood, ask anyone, "did you hear a
shot?
Did you see anything unusual?" The didn't even follow their own
regulations.
They didn't interview any of the neighbors.
HARDER: We'll be right back - there's more to come.
[Break for commercials]
HARDER: From the Washington studio, Chris Ruddy and Professor Reginald
Alton, of Oxford, and the professor would like to make a quick comment
before thee time escapes us. Yes sir.
ALTON: I want to make a comment that I think has not been sufficiently
emphasized.
HARDER: Sure.
ALTON: It's not just a lone Brit who has been flown in to do this, but
there are two admirable American experts, who seem to me be real,
proper
experts in this matter of looking at the document and deciding that in
our opinion - we didn't get together beforehand - all three of us
thought
that it was a forgery, and it was a rank enough forgery to be decided
by
using photo copies, which I wouldn't want to do normally.
HARDER: Do me a favor, if you would - in just a few seconds - tell us
who
the other two gentlemen were.
[Interruption to change tape - a description of the handwriting
experts
is inserted at this point]
Professor Alton has for thirty years lectured on handwriting,
manuscript
authentication, and forgery detection at England,s Oxford University.
In
recent years he led a panel of experts that ruled on the challenged
diaries of noted English author C.S. Lewis. He has testified in
British
courts as an expert witness relating to questioned documents. Alton is
currently Dean of Degrees at Oxford's St. Edmund Hall, its oldest
undergraduate institution.
Ronald Rice, who heads New England Investigation of Boston is
also an expert, and he is a consultant to the criminal unit of the
Massachusetts Attorney General's Office. He has eighteen years
experience examining documents and is board certified. He also was
employed by CNN regarding O.J. Simpson's handwriting. He calls [the
Foster note] an artistic forgery.
Vincent Scalice, a former homicide and identification expert with the
New York City Police Department, has twenty-two years experience
handling
questioned documents and is a certified document examiner with the
American
Board of Forensic Examiners. He has testified in numerous court cases
relating to documents.
RUDDY: ...the American Board of Forensic Examiners on document
examination
recently was asked by CNN to examine a document that O.J. Simpson had
supposedly written. So if it's good enough to be used by CNN, we'll
see if
it's good enough in this case.
HARDER: Terrific. So there are three independent forensic handwriting
experts who say the Foster suicide note is a forgery.
RUDDY: First of all they said that it wasn't a suicide note. There was
nothing in there that indicates suicide. But it's funny - one of the
reporters got up and said, "Well, who cares if it's a forgery, the
fact
is it's some rambling - it sounds like a protest letter." The point is
that the press has been saying this is a suicide note for the past two
years. Now that it's deemed a forgery, they say that it's
inconsequential.
Give me a break.
HARDER: [laughs] You know, it is sad to be so laughable. Professor,
you
are from England. One of the things that concerns me - we get
clippings
from the overseas press, and around the world, the overseas press is
laughing at not only the American press, wondering why they are asleep
on
all of these sleazy matters, but it also, in my opinion, disgraces the
American government. I don't know if you have a comment on that or
not,
but I just wanted to tell you that's our concern here...the truth
should
come out or else America, as a nation, is disgraced. Your thoughts on
that?
ALTON: Anywhere the truth, and the whole truth, doesn't come out is
not a
good place to be, and I got increasingly worried as this morning had
gone
on and I've heard more background material to this, which I didn't
know,
and wasn't in my mind when I read my report on the handwriting. And
that's
been my only concern in this, but it sounds to me as though you're
right to
be worried.
HARDER: Professor, I want to thank you. Chris Ruddy, I want to thank
you
also - both of you for coming into the Washington studio and giving us
a good scoop and an exclusive - I thank you both.
ALTON and RUDDY: Thank you.
HARDER: Professor, have a great trip home, and thanks a million.
[End of Interview]
>Bob James wrote:
>>
>> On 28 Apr 1996, BOBJONES wrote:
>>
>> > Is it immoral to spread the truth though.? The only lie spreading
>> > is by Komrade Klinton and ministtry of Propaganda at ABC news.
>> > Peter Jennings DOES looklike Josef Goebels. Do you have any proof
>> > that he hasnt or doesnt do coke?
>>
>> I would not be surprised at all if evidence about some kind of Clinton
>> drug use came out. I think he has been instrumental in the deaths of
>> many people associated with him...the death rate of his friends being higher
>> than that of pets brought to our local humane society shelter. I think
>> he is corrupt to the core.
>>
>> ***B U T*****
>>
>> According to our American system of justice, he is still innocent until
>> proven guilty. No one is compelled to provide evidence that he DOESN'T
>> do drugs. Those of us who believe that he is corrupt, a murderer or a
>> druggie are the ones compelled to bring forth the evidence.
>>
>> Bob James knoc...@io.com
>Hey we're not saying he didn't do it. .we're saying GIVE US THE PROOF! We keep
>hearing about this video that nobody's ever seen. If you go around and keep saying
>it exists but don't show it, people will think you're a liar.
Wayne Mann
odon...@nauticom.net (Jeff O'Donnell) wrote:
VINCENT FOSTER - THE RUDDY INVESTIGATION
Preface by Christopher Ruddy
Complete 50 Page Report available from the Western
Journalism Center 1-800-WJC-5595 Order # RI-4 Oct 20, 95
The sheer number of discrepancies in the case has made it
the story that won't die. Talk radio, Internet bulletin
boards and alternative media are still abuzz about the
death.
Standard police procedure is to first treat every suicide
as a homicide. That wasn't done here. "It seems to me that
we made that determination prior to going up and looking at
the body," senior Park Police investigator Cheryl Braun
said, admitting the police's verdict was made before
detectives had even inspected the death scene.
"You look for inconsistencies, things that don't fit with
what you would normally expect," explained Vernon Geberth.
Geberth has been part of over 5,OOO death investigations,
starting with the New York Police Department and now as an
expert witness. He has authored the standard text on
homicide investigations, "Practical Homicide Investigation."
"A high number of inconsistencies should raise an invest-
igator's antennae and raise suspicion," Geberth said,
referring to the critical area of concern for police
investigators: the crime scene. A careful examination of the
scene permits an investigator to distinguish a real suicide
from a staged one -- a murder made to look like suicide --
an occurrence Geberth said is happening with increasing
frequency.
But in Foster's case the scene was not the primary basis
for a suicide conclusion. For example, the U.S.Park Police,
ho had exclusive jurisdiction on the case, didn't even
bother to send the gun for testing until a week after they
ruled the death a suicide. Instead, the police relied
heavily on Foster's state of mind and "depression" for
their ruling.
The official story is that Vincent Foster was busy working
in his West Wing office one hot Tuesday. He had lunch
brought to his office: a hamburger, fries and Coke. After
eating his lunch, leaving only the onions, he took his suit
jacket, told his secretary, "I 'll be back," reminded her of
the M&Ms still left on his table, and left. Foster was last
seen alive exiting the West Wing at about 1 p.m. by a Secret
Service guard.
His body was found at around 6 p.m. at Fort Marcy Park.
Expressing shock the next day, White House officials said
Foster's death was unexplained and that he had not behaved
unusually. That story soon changed. Foster, the man the
President called the "Rock of Gibraltar," was clinically
depressed, the White House said, upset over critical
editorials in the Wall Street Journal and Congressional
inquiries over the Travel Office scandal.
A note torn into 28 pieces leaving no fingerprints and
said to have been written by Foster, was found almost a
week after his death, expressing these and other concerns.
Foster's wife, Lisa, who believes her husband took his own
life, has said she was not aware he was depressed before
his death. He appeared to be under stress, she said,
recalling that her husband began compulsively rubbing his
hands together. At one point his heart was pounding so hard,
he thought it was coming out of his chest.
Lisa Foster was also unaware that the family's Little Rock
doctor, Larry Watkins, had just prescribed the anti-depres-
sant trazadone for Foster the day before his death. Watkins
told the FBI that the trazadone was prescribed mainly for
insomnia. His statement reads: "He did not think that
Foster was significantly depressed nor had Foster given the
impression that he was 'in crisis'."
Lisa Foster's failure to detect the depression was remark-
ably similar to statements made to Fiske's investigators by
her husband's close friends and associates. Former Rose Law
Firm partner Webster Hubbell told the FBI that he "did not
notice Foster acting differently in the days or weeks before
his death."
Testifying before the Senate in the summer of 1995, Hubbell
completely reversed direction, stating that Foster "seemed
to be depressed." Hubbel remarked that Foster even believed
his phone was tapped.
Other evidence of depression, Fiske said was Foster's
"obvious" weight loss. Yet records show Foster actually
gained weight while at the White House, jumping from 194
pounds just weeks before joining the White House to 197
pounds at his autopsy (which didn't include the weight of
lost blood).
Insomnia, compulsively rubbing his hands, believing the
phone is tapped, rapid heartbeat -- are these signs of
suicidal depression or are they signs of anxiety? If Foster
was afraid, what did he fear? Did Travelgate worries lead
him to purchase a special alarm system for his Georgetown
home shortly before he died?
The Park Police, and later Fiske, relied heavily on the
nebulous aspects of Foster's state of mind, while seemingly
ignoring unusual circumstances of Foster's death and the
forensic evidence derived from the crime scene -- the area
police typically concentrate their efforts.
Scene inconsistencies
Foster left no suicide note. According to homicide expert
Vincent Scalice, the torn note is not a suicide note
because "it doesn't mention final departure, death,
farewell to loved ones, or harm to oneself." Foster bid no
farewell to his wife of 25 years or his three college-age
kids. The meticulous lawyer made no special financial
arrangements for them -- leaving them his standing life
insurance money of about $1,OOO,OOO -- not a considerable
sum considering their living standards.
Other linkages to the suicide also aren't there: Foster had
no history of visiting Fort Marcy Park. Foster's face was
splashed accross newspapers and TV screens after his death,
yet no one came forward to claim they had seen him alive at
the park, or even around Washington, that fateful afternoon.
From the time he left the White House, five hours of his
life are simply, and inexplicably, unaccounted.
Unaccounted time, unusual place no suicide note, no
farewell, no financial arrangements -- each in itself does
not prove Foster did not commit suicide -- but any Baker
Street Irregular can appreciate their in importance in
light of the questionable aspects of the crime scene.
Foster was found, by all accounts, lying amidst dense
brush in supine position on a steep hill, his head almost
touching the ridge's crest. His body was found in a neat
position: arms at his sides, legs extended straight, head
and face straight up. Lead Fairfax County paramedic Sgt.
George Gonzalez, among the first to find the body, said
he had never seen a gunshot to the head death leaving the
body so pristine as "id it was ready for the coffin."
The police said the neat arrangement of the body was one
sign there was no struggle -- evidence consistant with a
suicide. This is true, but signs of a struggle would not
be the only evidence to determine that the death was a
suicide.
Gonzalez and others noted the relatively samll amount of
blood loss from the head. EMS worker Kory Ashford told the
FBI he had cradled Foster's head in his arms as he placed
him in the body bag he did not use gloves, did not get
blood on him, did not even wash his hands after the task.
He said he couldn't remember an exit wound or seeing blood,
and upon return to his station, classified the death in his
report as he saw it: a homicide.
An FBI lab report notes several blood drainage tracks
emanating from Foster's nose and mouth. but no excessive
bleeding. Fiske's experts concluded that Foster's heart had
to have stopped almost instantly after the gunshot fired
(not impossible, but unusual).
The gun, perhaps the most crucial scene evidence, was found
in Foster's right hand, held close to his right thigh in
almost the classic cowboy position. Foster was right-handed.
The thumb was still in the trigger mechanism. Homicide
expert Geberth said it is "rare" for the gun to remain in
the suicide's hand. "Under ordinary circumstances. the gun
is away from the person," he said, pointing out the gun's
explosive recoil and the natural reflexes of the body.
Was the gun ever owned by Foster? Investigators have
equivocated on this point, but the bottom line is that no
family member has ever positively identified it. The gun
was believed to have come from Foster's father's gun
colletion. Foster's children and a nephew, intimately
knowledgable of the collection, told the FBI that the gun
positively was not in the collection. The antique Colt,
which the ATF lab said was made from the cannibalized parts
of two or more guns, had two serial numbers, traceable to
Seattle, Washington 1913. (In a recent profile in The New
Yorker, Mrs. Foster said the gun was Foster's, something
she was unable to do in 2 previous federal investigations.)
The revolver was found loaded with two rounds, one fired,
the other unspent. No matching ammunition was found in
either of Foster's homes.
The fired bullet was never found. No one heard the fatal
shot.
Though the FBI asserted the gun's barrel was said to have
been pressed deep against the back of the mouth. no blood,
tissue or blowback material was visible on the gun. The
explosion left no gunpowder on Foster's tongue, and the
recoil didn't chip or damage any teeth.
The FBI lab found some DNA material at the very tip of
the gun, from blood or saliva, that was inconclusively
matched to Foster-a rather tenuous link.
And multiple test firings in the FBI lab found that
Foster's index fingers, hence his hands, had to be "in the
vicinity of the (front) cylinder gap when the gun was
fired." Minus the jargon, Foster shot himself, neither hand
on the gun's grip, with both hands clasped around the sides
of the gun's cylinder. "It doesn't make any sense," Dr.
Vincent Di Maio explained. Di Maio, medical examiner for
San Antonio, Texas, considered one of the nation's top
firearms forensics experts, suggested such gunpowder residue
patterns were "not consistent with suicide."
Just the gun, and the list of inconsistencies at the crime
scene grows: the blood, the ownership, the matching ammo,
the position, the powder burns, the noisy shot -- all are
strangely inconsistent with the death.
If Foster didn't shoot himself with that gun, who did?
Where? How did he really die? These are questions
investigators should have asked. Their answers lead to
other, logical questions about the strong evidence that the
body was moved to the park.
Failure to find the bullet is one piece of evidence the shot
wasn't fired there. FBI blood splatter analysis found that
Foster's head was in as many as four separate positions
afterdeath -- but that doesn't jibe with Fiske's pathology
conclusion Foster died almost immediately with prompt heart
cessation. Foster's head might have been moved by an
emergency worker checking a pulse, as Fiske conjectures, but
that doesn't explain multiple head movements, including one
where blood drained from Foster's nostril to above his ear
-- moving up his face and against the gravity of the hill.
Investigators noted no blood splatter or tissue above
Foster's head, though the bullet is said to have exited the
top of the back of his head while in a sitting position. The
medical examiner at the scene noted a small amount of blood
behind the head. He said that the blood was "matted and
clotted under the head." Was the wound at some point
covered?
Trace analysis of Foster's shoes at the FBI lab found not a
speck of soil on his shoes or clothing despite a 700-foot-
plus trek through the heavily wooded park. No grass stains
were mentioned. No soil, yet, almost every garment of
clothing, including his underwear, was covered with multi-
colored carpet fibers.
Fort Marcy isn't carpeted, but an independent study found
that the micro-flecks are present on all vegetation in the
park. The discovery of such flecks on Foster's clothing
mean nothing more than Foster's body was lying on top of
vegetation, according to experts that have reviewed the
matter. Fiske had dismissed the absence of soil on the
basis of flecks of mica found on the clothing The soil in
the park. Fiske noted, is micaceous. He didn't bother
checking out the fibers.
A good detective, it is said, never jumps to conclusions
and always asks good questions. If the bullet is ever
found, it will help fill in just one piece of a large puzzle
of the mysterious death of Vince Foster -- a puzzle that
grows ever larger as the third of a trio of federal
investigation continues, it is Starr's turn. Three balls,
two strikes. The batter is still up but it's the most
precarious of all possible counts.
>In article <DqnJ3...@iglou.com>, mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) wrote:
>>Joseph Bowen (jo...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
>>: Max Kennedy wrote:
>>
>>: > Beyond which, you might want to look at his NOSE....I mean, its been
>awful red
>>: > lately.
>>
>>: Red nose = drug user.
>>: Always thought that bill of rights was a waste of effort.
>>
>>I was being sarcastic. I have other reasons for thinking so.
>>
>Actually, I saw Clinton when he announced he was releasing 12 million gallons
>of oil from the nation's reserve, and if his face and nose had been any redder
> he could start moonlighting as a traffic signal.
>My wife saw it, and put me on the floor with "well, looks like we've been
>snorting a lot since the testimony on Sunday"
Wayne Mann
mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) wrote:
Foster Investigation: Park Witness To Appear Before Starr's Grand Jury
by Christopher Ruddy
(from Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Oct. 29, 1995)
Washington, D.C. A man who says he was at Fort Marcy Park on the
evening
Vincent Foster, Jr., died was served a subpoena last week to appear
before
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's Whitewater grand jury at noon
Wednesday.
Since being served the subpoena, Patrick Knowlton appears to have been
monitored around his Pennsylvania Avenue residence in Georgetown under
a
massive surveillance operation.
A week ago, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of London's Sunday Telegraph
reported
details of Knowlton's account of a tie-in to the Foster case.
Knowlton
was apparently the first person to see Foster's automobile in the
parking
lot at Fort Marcy.
The Telegraph reported that Knowlton was "stunned" when he was shown a
report on his interview with FBI agents working for former Special
Counsel
Robert Fiske. His statements had been falsified, the Telegraph
reported.
Knowlton agrees with part of the FBI statement: that he arrived at the
Fort Marcy parking lot on July 20, 1993, at about 4:30 p.m. Foster's
body
was found more than an hour later.
Details At The Park
Knowlton said that the first car he saw in the lot, a Honda, was
parked to
his immediate left and had Arkansas plates. He said he parked his car
a
few spaces from the Honda and observed another car, a blue sedan with
a
young man sitting in it, who gave Knowlton what he said was a menacing
look. Knowlton described the man as in his 20s and possibly Mexican
or
Cuban.
As Knowlton quickly relieved himself by a nearby tree, the Hispanic
man
got out of his blue sedan and stood leaning over the roof of the car.
Frightened, Knowlton said he quickly left the park, but mentally noted
some of the contents of the Arkansas Honda, including a suit jacket
and a
briefcase. He called the Park Police later the same night after he
heard
on the news of Foster's death. The police took a brief statement from
him
over the phone, which they included in their report even though they
spelled his name wrong.
But Knowlton told the Telegraph that a key statement attributed to him
by
the FBI during the Fiske investigation was "an outright lie." The FBI
agents who interviewed him wrote, "He [Knowlton] could not further
identify this individual [the Hispanic man] and stated he would be
unable
to recognize him in the future."
Sharp Memory For Details
In point of fact, Knowlton said he has a haunting memory of the man.
With
the assistance of a police artist provided by the Telegraph, Knowlton
even
produced a sketch of the man. The composite sketch was published in
the
Telegraph.
Knowlton, who owns a trading business, said, --his friends agree--
that he
has a sharp memory for details. Knowlton told the Telegraph that
interviewing FBI agents Larry Monroe and William Colombell went to
extraordinary lengths to convince him that he saw a blue Honda of
recent
vintage with Arkansas plates. Knowlton insisted that he saw an older
model brown Honda with Arkansas plates.
According to experts familiar with the case, Knowlton's testimony
could be
critical on several points:
*If Foster did not commit suicide, Knowlton likely could positively
identify a person somehow involved in the attorney's death. Key
forensic
and circumstantial evidence led two New York police investigators to
conclude that "overwhelming" evidence indicated Foster's body was
moved to
the park. One source close to Starr's probe has suggested that the
man
Knowlton saw may have been there to "secure" the lot. A rear entrance
to
the park is close to where the body was found and could have, some
theorize, been the actual point of the body's entry.
*He possibly could demonstrate that the FBI covered up key elements in
the
case.
*He possibly could indicate that another car with Arkansas plates,
similar
to Foster's, was placed in the park to leave potential witnesses with
the
impression Foster was in the park earlier than he was. A nagging
problem
with the case is the large amount of unaccounted-for time, five hours
from
the time Foster left his office until his body was found.
Last Thursday, Knowlton said an FBI agent with Starr's office showed
up at
his door to serve him with a subpoena, one of several the agent said
he
had to deliver that day.
Witness Being Watched
Since then, Knowlton has been aware that he is being watched. "He
called
me and said that he and a female friend had been passed twice that
evening
by two men in a dark sedan who gave menacing looks at Patrick,"
reporter
Evans-Pritchard said.
On Thursday night, this reporter visited Knowlton at his residence and
noticed no unusual activity outside. Knowlton appears to be a stable,
credible professional. His friends in the building describe him as a
rather normal person who seems beset in the middle of something much
larger.
He knows little about the larger issues of the Foster controversy and
was
unaware of the political overtones of the case. His foyer wall
proudly
sports a Clinton-Gore bumper sticker.
Knowlton and a female friend recounted Thursday's events. Knowlton
said
that while taking his daily walk for a newspaper, he encountered more
than
a dozen men, all wearing suits, who would be walking toward him or
coming
from behind, then would give him a sudden, purposed stare. His female
friend said he has no history of paranoia. To verify Knowlton's
account,
he agreed the following day to take his daily walk with this reporter.
The surveillance was apparent, almost from the instant we exited his
apartment. He was approached again and again by the same men: dark
suits,
soft-soled shoes, each carrying a pad or newspaper. And as they
passed
us, each gave a pointed, timed stare at Knowlton. After crossing the
first intersection, a man crossing the same street from the other side
met
us at the sidewalk. He looked at Knowlton and shook his head in an
awkward gesture.
Another man, short and Middle Eastern looking, passed us and stared.
After he passed, his walk slowed considerably and he made some comment
to
an African-American man casually dressed and carrying shopping bags,
an
individual we already had passed who had also given us "the stare."
The
short man appeared aimless after passing us, a phenomenon repeated by
the
others.
Several cars appeared to trail us. In one white Honda with Virginia
tags,
two dark men with moustaches appeared to make no bones about their
surveillance. They first caught our attention as we crossed the
intersection, and both gave us a menacing stare. The car entered a
traffic circle, and instead of carrying on, circled back and came
alongside, stopping in the middle of the road just yards in front of
us.
The occupants began to manipulate their mirrors to watch us along the
sidewalk.
Similar Circumstances
In all, at least two dozen and possibly three dozen people were
encountered under similar circumstances from the time Knowlton left
his
apartment until he returned. He said he recognized two of them from
the
day before. We then took a drive around the block; no one appeared to
follow us. But when we first entered the car, a pedestrian came
alongside
and noticeably checked the car's front and rear license plates.
Knowlton took out a camera and photographed the man, who quickly moved
his
hand toward his face.
After midnight that evening, Knowlton called Evans-Pritchard to say
his
apartment doorbell had been rung but no one answered when he asked who
was
there. Then there were four immediate knocks on the door.
Evans-Pritchard said that a license plate Knowlton noted from Thursday
had
checked out with a law enforcement source of Evans-Pritchard's as
being a
Federal government vehicle. His source suggested Knowlton was "being
warned, or there was an attempt being made to destabilize him before
he
appears before the grand jury," Evans-Pritchard recounted.
Knowlton's lawyer has contacted the FBI to complain. There has been
no
return call.
Catching Up
The subpoena is one indication that Starr may be playing catch-up: the
Telegraph reported that three critical crime scene witnesses had never
been called before his Washington grand jury, though Starr says he has
been actively investigating the case for more than a year. In
addition to
Knowlton, Starr never brought two witnesses who said that when they
entered Fort Marcy's lot they saw two men, not Foster, in and around
his
Honda just before the body was found. One man, described as having
long
blond hair, was said to have stood in front of the car with the hood
up,
as was reported in the Tribune-Review months ago.
The failure to aggressively examine these major discrepancies
seemingly
corroborates earlier reports that Starr's lead Foster prosecutor,
Miquel
Rodriguez, resigned after being thwarted by his superiors in
conducting a
full grand jury probe into the death.
Starr's possible passivity with the Foster case seems to have
attracted
some notice on Capitol Hill. A leading Republican member of the
Senate's
"Whitewater" Banking Committee said Thursday night that he was
"disappointed" with Starr's work so far. The senator, previously
believed
to have been a supporter of Starr's, said Starr's work was
"embarrassing"
on the Foster case. The senator suggested that Starr is motivated by
a
desire to be on the Supreme Court. He added, as it stands now, that
any
notion of Starr getting on the court "is finished."
>David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>: In article <DqICz...@iglou.com>, Max Kennedy <mken...@iglou.com> wrote:
>: >I admire the intelligence it takes to scawl a one line insult. I'm sure
>: >you worked your way up from bathroom walls.
>: Don't worry Maxie, one day you'll work your way up too. Till
>I never write one line scawls. *I* wouldn't stoop so low.
>: that time, keep drawing those naughty pictures next to the
>: toilet paper. You're getting better every day!
>Don't you understand how stupid a comment this is? If you are going to
>insult someone, make it an attack on his actual NATURE, put some TRUTH in
>it. We all have flaws, so it ought to be possible for anyone with any
>INTELLIGENCE to sucessfully insult someone else with a little REASON
>behind it.
>Max Kennedy
\\/ayne //\ann
Wayne Mann
ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) wrote:
Subpoenas summoning Arkansans. Whitewater panel in Senate
calls 49
TERRY LEMONS
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Writer
WASHINGTON --Members of the Senate Special Whitewater
Committee reached an agreement Thursday to issue 49 subpoenas
to Arkansans and others embroiled in the Whitewater affair.
In a unanimous vote, committee members decided to issue the
first congressional subpoenas in the case. The vote came after
Republicans bowed to wishes of Democrats and scaled back
document subpoenas sent to President Clinton and first lady
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Senate lawyers said that the last time Congress issued a
subpoena to the White House was 1992 when records on U.S.
servicemen missing or taken prisoner in Vietnam were sought from
the national security adviser. Before that, the most recent
congressional subpoena had gone to the Nixon administration
during the Watergate scandal.
Gov. Jim Guy Tucker is among those receiving subpoenas. The
governor, who is under federal indictment in the Whitewater
affair, will receive a limited subpoena involving a telephone call
made from the White House to the Governor's Mansion on the
night of Vincent Foster's 1993 suicide. A broader subpoena for
Tucker is likely later, sources said.
Whitewater Committee Chairman Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y.,
said the subpoenas will force reluctant parties to turn over
Whitewater documents. D'Amato has accused the Clinton
administration of withholding information.
"We won't be getting bits and drips of information on a
piecemeal basis," D'Amato said. "This way there will be a legal
obligation."
Democrats reluctantly supported the scaled-back subpoena
request, noting that most of the targets complied with earlier
requests. The White House has provided almost 8,500 pages of
documents to the committee.
"D'Amato's political sideshow doesn't affect our approach," said
Mark Fabiani, an associate White House counsel. "We have
cooperated, and we will continue to cooperate."
U.S. marshals should complete delivering the subpoenas today,
sources said.
D'Amato confirmed Thursday that two confidantes of Hillary
Clinton will be brought back before the committee next week to
testify about telephone calls that occurred just before a scheduled
police search of Foster's White House office. Appearing Thursday
will be Margaret Williams, the first lady's chief of staff, and Susan
Thomases, a New York lawyer and close friend of Hillary Clinton.
Williams and Thomases are expected to face questions about a
series of telephone calls on July 22, 1993. Republicans say the
calls are evidence that the first lady orchestrated efforts to keep
federal investigators from reviewing documents in Foster's office.
Foster, a Hope native, was working on Whitewater matters for the
Clintons.
"We need to bring Susan Thomases and Maggie Williams in to
resolve these questions," D'Amato said.
Foster died in a Virginia park of an apparently self-inflicted
gunshot wound on July 20, 1993.
Thomases and Williams testified during Senate hearings this
summer. D'Amato characterized Thomases' earlier testimony as
"very disturbing" and "nonresponsive."
Asked if he would call the first lady to testify, D'Amato said: "We
have to give it serious consideration."
The committee will begin a series of hearings next month to
explore contacts between White House aides and Department of
the Treasury officials concerning Madison Guaranty Savings and
Loan Association. Republicans contend the Clinton administration
tried to influence the Resolution Trust Corp.'s investigation into
Madison's 1989 failure.
Several Arkansans who have worked in the administration
received subpoenas. They include former Little Rock lawyer Bruce
Lindsey, a presidential adviser; former Associate White House
Counsel William Kennedy III, who works at Little Rock's Rose
Law Firm; and former Associate Attorney General Webb Hubbell,
who is serving a federal prison sentence in Pennsylvania for bilking
partners and clients when he was at the Rose firm. The committee
wants home telephone records of the three men's calls to Arkansas
between May 1 and Nov. 30, 1993.
A similar subpoena for phone calls to Washington was issued to
Paula Casey of Little Rock, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern
District of Arkansas. Republicans have questioned the propriety of
contacts between Casey and Hubbell at a time when criminal
charges were being considered in connection with Madison's
failure.
The committee issued a general subpoena to the White House
for phone logs of calls made to Arkansas during a seven-month
period in 1993.
The Tucker subpoena relates to a call made by Helen Dickey,
Chelsea Clinton's former nanny, from the White House to the
Governor's Mansion on the night of Foster's death. Dickey has
disputed published accounts that she told the state trooper who
answered the phone at the mansion that Foster died in the White
House parking lot.
Other individuals and entities from Arkansas receiving
subpoenas include the Rose firm; White House aide Patsy
Thomasson, a Rison native; and James Blair, general counsel for
Tyson Foods Inc. at Springdale.
D'Amato's original subpoena request was scaled back after
Democrats complained during a meeting Wednesday. Committee
lawyers met until 1 a.m. Thursday crafting a compromise.
Under the agreement, the committee did not issue a general
subpoena for the president's 1992 presidential campaign records.
D'Amato also put on hold a request to obtain copies of notes taken
during the Clintons' two interviews with Whitewater independent
counsel Kenneth Starr.
Starr has refused to provide transcripts, noting his investigation
is ongoing.
White House attorney Fabiani said the scaled-backed document
request would "cut short the Republican fishing expedition."
Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md., said the staff negotiations
Wednesday night brought "focus and definition to what would
have been overly broad subpoenas."
David Kendall, the Clintons' Washington lawyer, called the
subpoenas "much ado about nothing. We have fully cooperated
without regard to a subpoena and will continue to do so."
This article was published on Friday, October 27, 1995
Copyright 1995, Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. All rights reserved.
>In article <4lroiv$8...@eri1.erinet.com>, Ross LaGue <r...@erinet.com> wrote:
>>In article <4lqjq0$f...@news.cc.utah.edu>, dmm...@cc.utah.edu (david mcintosh) wrote:
>> >: But by your prior post I take it you would never do this if it meant
>> >: there would be a 1% chance you'd get a video of our pinko liberal
>> >: one-worlder president doing cocaine, and if it came out to be a true
>> >: un-modified video you would probably say 'Who cares! everyone has
>> >: problems! that wont affect what he does in the whitehouse!'
>> >:
>> >I would really like to see videos of Newt giving his wife divorce papers
>> >just as she comes out of cancer surgery with their children standing
>> >around that would be a hoot or how about Newt recieving oral sex from
>> >another professors man I'd laugh for days. Or how about Phil Gramm on the
>>
>>Kill file.
>Hey, I disagree with you too Ross. Go ahead and add me to your
>kill file now, lest your right wing virtual reality be upset
>by something as banal as challenging thought.
>>
>>
>>---
>>Ross LaGue < r...@erinet.com > Dayton, Ohio
>-Dave
\\/ayne //\ann
Wayne Mann
riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) wrote:
White House seeks settlement as new Whitewater controversy
arises
(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net<BR>
(c) 1995 Associated Press
<!-- AP Dec 19, 1995 - 14:11 -->
WASHINGTON (Dec 19, 1995 - 14:11 EST) -- While the
White House takes new steps to stave off a politically risky court
battle over Whitewater, Senate investigators are questioning
whether billing records detailing Hillary Rodham Clinton's
Arkansas legal work may have disappeared.
Senate Whitewater Committee Republicans say the 1992 notes
of one of Mrs. Clinton's closest friends suggest that in the 1980s
the first lady may have done more work than she has
acknowledged as a private lawyer for the Madison Guaranty S&L
in Arkansas that is at the center of the Whitewater controversy.
And the notes by New York lawyer Susan Thomases raise the
possibility that the billing records that could shed light on the
matter existed three years ago at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock,
Ark. -- but can't be found by Senate investigators now.
"We have looked high and low ... and we don't have any time
sheets for Mrs. Clinton, so they seem to have disappeared,"
Michael Chertoff, the committee's Republican counsel, disclosed
Monday.
David Kendall, the Clintons' personal attorney, said he believed
Thomases' notes were "perfectly consistent" with the first lady's
account of her work, saying Mrs. Clinton could have billed the
hours as the senior partner responsible for the work without
actually doing the work.
As for the possibility that records disappeared, Kendall added:
"Any records detailing the work would have been kept by Rose or
Madison and not Mrs. Clinton."
The revelation came as the White House began negotiating on
another front with Whitewater prosecutors to see if it could find a
way to turn over to the Senate committee disputed notes taken by
a former presidential aide.
The last-ditch effort came as the Senate prepares Wednesday to
vote on a request from the comittee to authorize a federal court
challenge to President Clinton's refusal to turn over the notes.
Clinton claims the notes taken by former White House aide
William Kennedy during a Nov. 5, 1993, meeting on Whitewater
between the president's private lawyers and White House aides are
protected by attorney-client privilege.
The Senate panel believes it is entitled to the notes as part of
its
probe into whether presidential aides tried to derail two
Whitewater-related criminal investigations in 1993.
On Monday, the White House backed away from several of its
earlier conditions for turning over the notes, and also opened
negotiations designed to avoid a politically damaging court battle.
The White House said it no longer would insist that the Senate
panel agree that the Nov. 5 meeting was privileged. And the White
House would negotiate with other investigative bodies, including
Whitewater prosecutors, to secure one of its key conditions for the
notes' release.
That condition is that key investigative agencies, including
Whitewater prosecutors, would have to agree in advance that
Clinton was not surrendering his legal right to keep conversations
with his lawyers confidential by turning over the documents.
Until Monday, the White House was demanding that the Senate
Whitewater Committee be responsible for securing those
agreements, a condition the panel rejected.
Committee Chairman Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., said the new
White House offer was still unacceptable as he proceeded with
plans to have the Senate vote to authorize a court challenge.
Despite the rejection, the White House made contact with
Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr and other investigative
agencies later Monday seeking to get agreements.
Even if the Senate were to vote, the White House could stave off
the court challenge and turn over the notes if all the agencies
agreed to its conditions.
On Monday, the Senate committee focused its attention on notes
Thomases took in February 1992 during a conversation with
Webster Hubbell, a former law partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose
Law Firm.
The two discussed how to handle media inquiries during the
1992 campaign of the role Mrs. Clinton played in representing the
failing Madison Guaranty before her husband's gubernatorial
administration in Arkansas.
Madison was owned by the Clintons' Whitewater business
partners and failed in 1989 at a cost of at least $60 millions to
taxpayers.
The notes refer to a sale of preferred stock that Madison
proposed to Arkansas regulators in April 1985. The Rose firm
worked on the request.
Thomases' notes include the words: "She did all the billing. HC
(Hillary Clinton) had numerous conf (conferences) ... on both
transactions. She reviewed some doc (documents)."
Chertoff said Thomases' notes appear to contradict Mrs.
Clinton's September 1994 sworn affidavit to the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corp. that she had little or no involvement in the stock
proposal.
The notes also suggest the time sheets the Senate panel has been
seeking may have existed three years ago.
The notes include a notation that read "acc(ording) to time
records."
When asked Monday by Chertoff what happened to them,
Thomases said "I have not seen the time records. I never found the
answer to that question."
>In article <DqLGM...@iglou.com>, Max Kennedy <mken...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>Charlie Armstrong (gre...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>>: In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) pontificated:
>>
>>: > Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
>>: >saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
>>: >
>>
>>: And you base this not-quite-a-factoid on?
>>
>>A good example of how CNN is dumbing down the population. A factoid is
>>"like a fact". Too bad, it ISN'T a fact. Neither is lying or
>>exageration.
>>
>>To be not quite a factoid, could quite honestly mean, to be a fact.
>>
> We're beginning to sound like the feminists; no sense of humor is
>allowed any more.
>
>--
>PIXELODEON PRODUCTIONS | Hand Hammered Special Effects
>Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero
>Will Host A Talk Radio Show For Food.
Wayne Mann
mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) wrote:
TIME Magazine
December 25, 1995/January 1, 1996 Volume 146, No. 26
INVESTIGATIONS
WHITEWATER SHOWDOWN
Despite signs of a compromise, the Senate vows to continue
pressing Clinton for disputed notes
BY JOHN GREENWALD
What are Bill and Hillary Clinton trying to hide? For three years
the First Family has virtually invited that question, and thereby
helped keep the Whitewater affair bubbling, by providing
information only grudgingly. Never mind that they have,
ultimately, turned over some 50,000 pages of evidence to
congressional Whitewater investigators. The perception of
stonewalling persists, and took on new life last week when the
White House became embroiled with Congress in the bitterest
showdown yet over Whitewater materials.
The latest fireworks exploded after the Senate Whitewater
committee set a deadline of 9 a.m. on Dec. 15 for former White
House attorney William Kennedy III to surrender notes taken
during a 1993 meeting between White House lawyers and personal
lawyers for the President. The Administration, insisting the notes
are protected by attorney-client privilege, said Kennedy could not
comply with the subpoena (which, in any case, was never properly
served, as Kennedy's lawyer, Paul Castellitto, informed committee
counsel Michael Chertoff in a phone conversation that became a
shouting match). The ultimate confrontation, a full Senate vote on
whether to take the matter to court, could still be avoided: later on
the day of the deadline, the White House said it was willing to
drop all but one of its unresolved conditions for releasing the
notes.
The Administration has long described the two-hour session at
which Kennedy took his notes as an innocent meeting held to turn
over legal responsibility for handling Whitewater to the private
lawyers. Says Clinton: "I believe that even the President ought to
have a right to have a confidential conversation with his minister,
his doctor, his lawyer." Republicans, however, suspect the notes
may show the lawyers were planning to use confidential
government information on two pending Whitewater investigations
to try to hinder the probes. As the deadline neared, the White
House offered a compromise, agreeing to relinquish the notes
under certain conditions. But a bitterly divided Senate committee
voted 10 to 8 along party lines to reject the deal and seek
enforcement of the subpoena. Soon afterward, the White House
signaled that only one of the disputed conditions really mattered:
other investigative bodies, as well as independent counsel Kenneth
Starr, must agree that even if the notes were turned over, the
White House could still assert attorney-client privilege with respect
to other conversations between the Clintons and their lawyers.
At week's end, in an interview with the Associated Press,
committee chairman Alfonse D'Amato vowed to continue pressing
Clinton to release the notes, but allowed that he would be willing
to write to Starr to tell him, "We do not feel that there would be
any waiver of any privilege" and to urge Starr to "accept the same
position."
The confrontation carries political risk for both parties. The danger
for Clinton is that a public grown weary of Whitewater could find
its interest rekindled and decide that the President is concealing
something, at a time when his approval ratings are surging. The
Republicans risk getting the notes only to find nothing
incriminating in them. That would make D'Amato and friends look
like overzealous bullies.
The politically charged standoff was the most dramatic but hardly
the only Whitewater development last week. Earlier, D'Amato
confronted Margaret Williams, Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, with
discrepancies between her testimony and that of Robert Barnett,
the Clintons' former personal lawyer. For example, Williams did
not recall having arranged for Barnett to come to the White House
on July 27, 1993, to examine files taken from the office of former
deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster, who had committed
suicide seven days earlier. But Barnett told Senators that Williams
personally had set up his visit.
D'Amato also described a letter from Clinton's personal lawyer
David Kendall as a "smoking gun;" because it led investigators to
conclude that during the 1992 presidential campaign, Foster had
removed Whitewater-related files from the Little Rock, Arkansas,
law firm where Foster and Hillary Clinton were partners. Foster
gave the files to Webster Hubbell, another partner, who stored
them in his Washington home while serving as an Associate U.S.
Attorney General. But Kendall testified that Foster took custody of
the files in order to answer Whitewater questions from reporters
and others during the election.
By far the greatest threat to the President, however, is the
showdown over Kennedy's notes, even though legal experts tend
to side with the White House. Says Stephen Gillers, a professor of
legal ethics at New York University Law School, "I would be
reluctant to go into court if I were the Senate committee, because I
think I would lose." Right or wrong, however, just by pressing his
case the President risks losing in another forum, the court of public
opinion.
Reported by J.F.O. McAllister and Viveca Novak/Washington
Copyright 1995 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
>Michael Rivero (riv...@accessone.com) wrote:
>: In article <DqLGM...@iglou.com>, Max Kennedy <mken...@iglou.com> wrote:
>: >Charlie Armstrong (gre...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>: >: In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) pontificated:
>: >
>: >: > Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
>: >: >saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
>: >: >
>: >
>: >: And you base this not-quite-a-factoid on?
>: >
>: >A good example of how CNN is dumbing down the population. A factoid is
>: >"like a fact". Too bad, it ISN'T a fact. Neither is lying or
>: >exageration.
>: >
>: >To be not quite a factoid, could quite honestly mean, to be a fact.
>: >
>: We're beginning to sound like the feminists; no sense of humor is
>: allowed any more.
>It's a pet peeve of mine. CNN has irritated me with the above for well
>over a year.
>Max Kennedy
\\/ayne //\ann
Michael Rivero
In article <Dqnq7...@iglou.com>, Max Kennedy <mken...@iglou.com> wrote:
>David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>
>: Don't worry Maxie, one day you'll work your way up too. Till
>: toilet paper. You're getting better every day!
>
>Don't you understand how stupid a comment this is? If you are going to
>insult someone, make it an attack on his actual NATURE, put some TRUTH in
>it. We all have flaws, so it ought to be possible for anyone with any
>INTELLIGENCE to sucessfully insult someone else with a little REASON
>behind it.
Not on an assembly line, they can't. :)
Wayne Mann
mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) wrote:
Whitewater Chairman Declines to Make Next Move, Blasts White House
Associated Press December 18, 1995
By MARCY GORDON
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate Whitewater Committee's chairman declined
today to head off a possible court challenge of President Clinton's
refusal to turn over notes, saying it was the White House's job to
come up with a new proposal.
Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., said the White House has not put forth a
single proposal to end the dispute since the panel voted last week to
ask the full Senate to authorize a court challenge. A floor vote is
slated for Wednesday.
"We have not received any proposal from the White House counsel,"
D'Amato said, accusing the White House of leaking ideas to the news
media to avoid negotiating with the panel.
"If they do have one ... then I think they should spend less time
spinning to the press about the possibility and more time about making
these documents available," he said.
D'Amato reiterated an offer he made over the weekend that he'd be
willing to send a letter to Whitewater prosecutors urging them to
agree that if Clinton did turn over the notes, the president would not
be giving up his right to keep other conversations with his lawyer
private.
But when pressed by the panel's ranking Democrat, Sen. Paul Sarbanes,
to send the letter immediately, D'Amato said he would not take any
action until the White House came up with an official proposal.
"Under no circumstances are we going to engage in this media
bargaining," D'Amato said, adding if there was no offer from the White
House he would proceed with plans to have the Senate vote Wednesday to
approve the court action.
The White House has cited the concern that Clinton could lose
his attorney-client in privilege as the main reason for not
turning over the notes.
The panel has said it would not consider the surrendering of the notes
a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, but the White House's last
offer Thursday insisted that senators also ensure all investigative
bodies agree to that term.
D'Amato has said the committee deserves the notes unconditionally, and
that it is not the job of senators to negotiate an agreement with
other agencies to appease the White House.
He urged presidential aides to contact prosecutors themselves, or make
an offer to the committee.
At issue are handwritten notes former White House lawyer William
Kennedy took during a Nov. 5, 1993, meeting on Whitewater between
presidential aides and the Clintons' private attorneys.
D'Amato's committee subpoenaed Kennedy earlier this month, saying it
needed his notes to determine whether presidential aides tried to
interfere with two ongoing Whitewater criminal investigations in 1993
after he obtained confidential information about what the
investigators were working on. The White House denies interfering with
either probe.
But Clinton has refused to allow Kennedy to surrender the notes,
arguing they are protected by attorney-client privilege because the
meeting was attended by White House and personal lawyers.
Kennedy was given until 3 p.m. today to surrender the notes, although
his lawyers have already told the committee he would not do so until
Clinton gave him permission to do so.
Presidential aides insist there's nothing to hide in the notes, but
they are willing to fight a public and potentially politically
damaging battle to maintain the privilege principle.
>Charlie Armstrong (gre...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>: In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) pontificated:
>: > Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
>: >saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
>: >
>: And you base this not-quite-a-factoid on?
>A good example of how CNN is dumbing down the population. A factoid is
>"like a fact". Too bad, it ISN'T a fact. Neither is lying or
>exageration.
>To be not quite a factoid, could quite honestly mean, to be a fact.
>Max Kennedy
Wayne Mann
riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) wrote:
(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service
Records detailing work by Hillary Clinton missing, Whitewater
panel says
WASHINGTON (Dec 18, 1995 - 22:35 EST) - The Senate
Whitewater panel said on Monday that documents describing
Hillary Rodham Clinton's work for a failing savings and loan
vanished from her former law firm in Little Rock sometime before
President Clinton took office.
Republicans on the committee said the missing papers were crucial
to understanding the role Mrs. Clinton played during the 1980s,
when her firm represented the failing savings and loan association,
Madison Guaranty, before regulators appointed by her husband,
then the governor of Arkansas. The missing documents include
billing records from the Rose Law Firm, where she was a partner,
and time sheets prepared in the 1980s that describe what Mrs.
Clinton did for Madison.
Mrs. Clinton's ties to Madison are an expanding focus of the
Whitewater investigations by the Senate committee and the
independent counsel, Kenneth W. Starr, according to
congressional investigators and witnesses who have spoken with
members of Starr's staff.
The new direction of the probe has grown out of investigators'
efforts to determine whether there was anything improper in the
relationship between the Clintons and the owner of Madison,
James B. McDougal, in the mid-1980s as he struggled to keep the
savings and loan association afloat before it failed at a cost to
taxpayers of $60 million. McDougal was the Clintons' business
partner in the Whitewater real estate venture.
Evidence of the missing records emerged on Monday when the
Whitewater committee released notes taken in 1992 by Susan
Thomases, a New York lawyer who is one of the Clintons' closest
advisers, as she drew up a strategy for answering questions about
Mrs. Clinton's ties to Madison, before the first newspaper article
on Whitewater had appeared. A reference to the missing records
appeared in her notes of a Feb. 24, 1992, conversation between
Ms. Thomases and Webster L. Hubbell, a former law partner of
Mrs. Clinton at the Rose firm.
"We've looked high and low for these records, and we can't find
them," Michael Chertoff, chief counsel to the Republicans on the
Senate Whitewater committee, said on Monday. "We don't have
any time sheets for Mrs. Clinton; they have disappeared."
In the notes, Hubbell gives an account of Mrs. Clinton's role based
on the records that have since vanished. Ms. Thomases writes that,
according to time records, Mrs. Clinton had "numerous"
conferences with Madison executives and an associate at the law
firm about two issues pending in the mid-1980s before state
regulators appointed by Clinton.
Ms. Thomases' notes show that from the earliest days of the
presidential campaign, Clinton aides struggled to put some distance
between Mrs. Clinton and the work the Rose firm did for Madison
before state regulators in 1985. But what exactly she did for
Madison is still being examined by investigators.
Mrs. Clinton has said she played a "very limited" role in
representing the savings and loan association's interests before state
regulators. The Clintons' personal lawyer, David E. Kendall, on
Monday also said that her work for Madison was "by any
standard, very limited."
The new information about Mrs. Clinton's work for Madison was
contained in two pages of notes released on Monday by the Senate
committee. These notes, combined with other documents disclosed
by congressional and federal investigators in recent months, bear
on the account she has given of her work for Madison.
The law firm's remaining records, for instance, show that more
than one-third of the fees charged to Madison were attributed to
her work. These records, which were released by savings and
loans regulators, are vague as to specifics.
In her 1992 notes, Ms. Thomases records how top campaign
officials discussed how to answer questions about Madison and the
Rose firm. Her notes show that Hubbell told her that an associate
in the firm, Richard Massey, "will say he had a lot to do with
getting client in." Mrs. Clinton has also said, in sworn testimony to
regulators, that Massey brought in Madison as a client.
But Massey, now a partner at the Rose firm, has told federal
investigators that he does not know how the firm came to
represent Madison.
Last week, the Senate Whitewater committee heard testimony that
originals of some Rose firm documents relating to Madison
Guaranty were removed from the firm's files after the 1992
presidential campaign. They were stored for several months in the
basement of Hubbell's Washington home when he was associate
attorney general at the Justice Department and returned to the
Rose firm in November 1993.
Separately, in a telephone interview last week, Ronald M. Clark,
the Rose firm's managing partner, said he learned at about that
time that the Madison billing records were missing. Scattered
copies of some of the records have since been recovered from the
archives of Madison. But Clark said the bulk of the billing records
describing the work for Madison remains unaccounted for.
If such documents disappeared before it was known there was a
federal investigation of Madison, prosecutors would have far less
interest in the matter. But it could be a violation of the law if
someone removed or destroyed documents knowing they were
being sought by investigators.
Since 1993, investigators from several different agencies have
been trying to determine if there was anything improper in the
Clintons' relations with McDougal. The Resolution Trust Corp.,
the agency that oversaw the savings and loan bailout, concluded in
a report recently sent to Congress that while McDougal paid a
disproportionate share of Whitewater's losses, there were no
grounds for a civil suit against the Clintons to recover any Madison
funds. The Clintons have described themselves as passive investors
and denied any impropriety.
Hubbell told the Senate committee earlier this month that he had
reviewed the now-missing billing records during the 1992
campaign in response to reporters' inquiries, and found that Mrs.
Clinton had billed Madison for a 15-minute telephone call to
Arkansas' chief savings and loan regulator. That record is also one
of those missing from the Rose Firm.
A former associate of Hubbell who knew about the billing records
before they disappeared said in a recent interview that they showed
that Mrs. Clinton had charged Madison for more than one
conversation with state employees. The associate could not recall
further details about who had been called.
Although Hubbell returned some of the original Rose firm papers
in his possession in November, 1993, he kept others. Another
former associate said in an interview last week that Hubbell never
returned to the firm a file involving another Arkansas bank owned
by McDougal, the Bank of Kingston. The bank had lent Mrs.
Clinton $30,000 as part of the Whitewater deal. The former
associate said Hubbell eventually turned this file over to the
independent counsel.
Hubbell resigned from the Justice Department last year. Earlier
this year, he began serving a 21-month prison sentence for tax and
fraud charges. He has acknowledged bilking his former partners
and clients of nearly $500,000.
Among the issues that congressional investigators and Starr are
examining is how Mrs. Clinton and the Rose firm came to
represent Madison.
McDougal has said that Gov. Clinton stopped by the Madison
Guaranty office in Little Rock while jogging one late summer's day
in 1984.
"He said they were having a hard time financially," McDougal
recalled. "Bill said: Could we give Hillary some legal work? We
got that settled."
The purported meeting came at a delicate moment for Madison.
Federal examiners had just put the savings and loan association
under heightened scrutiny because of its deteriorating financial
condition. Madison, records show, was already paying another
leading Little Rock law firm for legal advice. Nonetheless, the
savings and loan association began paying the Rose Firm $2,000 a
month.
Both Clintons have denied McDougal's account. Clinton said in a
written response to a question in 1992 that he had never discussed
the matter with McDougal.
And Mrs. Clinton said in a sworn statement this year that Massey,
then a first-year associate at the Rose firm, had been contacted by
a friend at Madison Guaranty, John Latham, with a request for
legal help. "I believe Massey approached me about presenting this
proposal to Jim McDougal because he was aware I knew him,"
Mrs. Clinton wrote. "I visited him at his office on April 23, 1985,
and told him that Iunderstood Latham wanted Massey to do some
work for Madison Guaranty."
Three witnesses have failed to back up Mrs. Clinton's version of
events.
Massey, now a partner at the Rose Firm, told federal investigators
he "does not know how or why Madison selected the Rose Law
Firm," according to a summary of his October 1994 interview with
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. And Latham told Resolution
Trust Corp. investigators in July of this year that McDougal had
suggested hiring the firm because he had "friends over there."
McDougal named Mrs. Clinton as one of those friends, according
to a summary of what Latham told the investigators.
Separately, a former Madison official has talked to investigators
for the independent counsel and corroborated McDougal's account
of his meeting with Clinton, the official said. The official spoke on
condition of anonymity.
The Rose Firm submitted its first bill to Madison in May 1985.
That month, the firm won preliminary approval from state
regulators for Madison to raise badly needed capital by selling
preferred stock.
An analysis of compensation records the Rose Firm prepared in
late 1993 after it learned the Madison billing documents were
missing shows the Rose Firm charged Madison $1,878 that month,
with Mrs. Clinton accounting for almost half, or $840. The
analysis contains no details of what any of the four Rose Firm
lawyers did, or to whom they spoke.
Republicans asked Hubbell about the May 1985 bill and about
Mrs. Clinton's assertion in the 1992 presidential campaign that "I
don't do any regulatory work for banks."
Hubbell recalled that after reviewing the Madison billing records in
1992, he warned the campaign against making "flat statements"
denying Mrs. Clinton's involvement with state regulators. Hubbell
told the committee he believed Mrs. Clinton's regulatory work was,
nonetheless, "minimal."
>In article <phenry-2804...@blv-pm1-ip18.halcyon.com>,
>Paul H. Henry <phe...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>>
>>Considering the degree to which you folks blindly hate people who disagree
>>with you, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T "much talk" of such things.
>>That does not make it any less of a scurrilous lie, and it does not make
>>you any less immoral for spreading it.
> I resent the phrase,"blindly hate". In most cases, such as the forged suicide
>note, the lack of blood at the scene where Vincent Foster's body was
>found, the actual FBI records of the evidence tampering, we've been anything
>BUT blind.
> Those who refuse to aknowledge that such evidence even exists, now THEY
>are blind and willfully so.
> There have been numerous witnesses to Clinton's actual cocaine usage
>including Gennifer Flowers herself. Others are interviewed in the documentary,
>"The Clinton Chronicles". And before you commence with the accusations that
>they (and I) are all liers, and that Bill Clinton is the lone purveyor of
>the truth, I remind you that Dr. Houston has come forward with his report
>of treating Bill Clinton for cocaine overdose, which is possibly one reason
>why Bill has never released his medical records, even though he is required
>by law to do so.
> In other words, if you intend to accuse these people of being liers, the
>onus is on you to prove that they have lied.
> I don't expect to actually garner a reasonable response from you, Paul.
>You're here to disinform, and I am responding to you only because I did
>not want others to fight my battles for me (as opposed to with me).
> You and I have crossed swords several time, and each time I've asked for
>your response to the fact that the FBI was tampering with evidence in the
>Vincent Foster affair, and each time I have asked you this you just pretend
>it doesn't exist.
>
>--
>PIXELODEON PRODUCTIONS | Hand Hammered Special Effects
>Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero
>Will Host A Talk Radio Show For Food.
Wayne Mann
Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
12/20/95
WASHINGTON
In a dramatic escalation of the dispute over Whitewater notes,
Republicans Wednesday forced the Senate to debate a court challenge to
President Clinton, declaring ``getting the truth ... has proved to be
rather difficult.''
The floor debate came after the White House narrowed its
differences
with Senate Whitewater investigators but failed to remove a final
roadblock to releasing the notes a presidential aide took during a
1993
meeting about Whitewater.
``We have made every reasonable effort to settle this matter,''
Sen.
Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., Clinton's chief antagonist, told his Senate
colleagues. He urged them to support a legal challenge to the
president's
refusal to release the notes unconditionally.
D'Amato, the Senate Whitewater committee chairman, said White House
attempts to attach conditions were part of a pattern of ``delay and
obfuscation'' to thwart the panel's probe into whether presidential
aides
tried to derail two Whitewater criminal probes in 1993.
``Getting the truth about these matters has proved to be rather
difficult and these notes, we believe, are relevant and will answer
some
of the questions and will lead us to other areas,'' he said.
But Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md., criticized the rush to a court
battle,
saying it could risk ``an adverse precedent'' on a president's right
to
keep communications with his lawyers private.
``In my view, this dispute has escalated needlessly,'' he said,
urging
the Senate to hold off a vote and try more negotiations with the White
House to see if the final roadblock could be removed.
If the Senate, which Republicans control 53-46, approves the
Whitewater Committee's resolution to authorize legal action, Senate
lawyers could initiate civil action in federal court challenging
Clinton's claim of attorney-client privilege and forcing him to turn
over
the notes.
Clinton claims he has the right to keep the notes, taken by former
aide William Kennedy, confidential because the Nov. 5, 1993, meeting
was
attended by his private attorneys and White House lawyers bound by
attorney-client privilege.
Republicans, however, said they did not believe he should declare
privilege on a meeting where many government lawyers were in
attendance.
``I found that a bit of stretch,'' Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, said.
The escalation of the battle has inflicted political damage on the
White House, as Republicans continued to draw parallels between
Clinton's
refusal to turn over the documents and the Watergate scandal two
decade
ago.
``Can you imagine stalling -- imagine Mr. Nixon trying to tell the
Congress for three months, `We're not going to give you the notes.'
That's exactly what this White House did,'' D'Amato said.
By Wednesday, the final roadblock was House Republicans' refusal of
a
condition set by the White House that if the notes are released, they
would agree that Clinton was not waiving his attorney-client privilege
on
other Whitewater matters.
Whitewater prosecutors and the Senate panel, which both have
subpoenaed the notes, have accepted those terms. But key House
Republicans rejected the offer Tuesday, and showed no sign of budging.
The White House earlier Wednesday dropped another of its conditions
for turning over the notes: that senators would have to acknowledge
Clinton has asserted a ``reasonable claim of privilege'' on the
meeting
before getting the notes.
And it pleaded with D'Amato to help get House Republicans to agree
to
the remaining condition.
D'Amato this morning contacted House Banking Committee Chairman Jim
Leach, who refused anew and said no more negotiations were in order.
Only ``if we are given documents at any time, we will cease and
suspend'' the march toward a court battle, D'Amato said.
In a report prepared for senators, Republican staff on the
Whitewater
committee say Kennedy's notes ``may be relevant to at least six areas
of
inquiry'' the panel has undertaken.
The GOP report also raised the stakes for any legal battle over the
president's claim of attorney-client privilege, saying ``there may be
other similar meetings (between Clinton lawyers and the White House)
in
which the committee has an investigatory interest.'' In a dramatic
escalation of the dispute over Whitewater notes, Republicans Wednesday
forced the Senate to debate a court challenge to President Clinton,
declaring ``getting the truth ... has proved to be rather difficult.''
The floor debate came after the White House narrowed its
differences
with Senate Whitewater investigators but failed to remove a final
roadblock to releasing the notes a presidential aide took during a
1993
meeting about Whitewater.
``We have made every reasonable effort to settle this matter,''
Sen.
Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., Clinton's chief antagonist, told his Senate
colleagues. He urged them to support a legal challenge to the
president's
refusal to release the notes unconditionally.
D'Amato, the Senate Whitewater committee chairman, said White House
attempts to attach conditions were part of a pattern of ``delay and
obfuscation'' to thwart the panel's probe into whether presidential
aides
tried to derail two Whitewater criminal probes in 1993.
``Getting the truth about these matters has proved to be rather
difficult and these notes, we believe, are relevant and will answer
some
of the questions and will lead us to other areas,'' he said.
But Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md., criticized the rush to a court
battle,
saying it could risk ``an adverse precedent'' on a president's right
to
keep communications with his lawyers private.
``In my view, this dispute has escalated needlessly,'' he said,
urging
the Senate to hold off a vote and try more negotiations with the White
House to see if the final roadblock could be removed.
If the Senate, which Republicans control 53-46, approves the
Whitewater Committee's resolution to authorize legal action, Senate
lawyers could initiate civil action in federal court challenging
Clinton's claim of attorney-client privilege and forcing him to turn
over
the notes.
Clinton claims he has the right to keep the notes, taken by former
aide William Kennedy, confidential because the Nov. 5, 1993, meeting
was
attended by his private attorneys and White House lawyers bound by
attorney-client privilege.
Republicans, however, said they did not believe he should declare
privilege on a meeting where many government lawyers were in
attendance.
``I found that a bit of stretch,'' Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, said.
The escalation of the battle has inflicted political damage on the
White House, as Republicans continued to draw parallels between
Clinton's
refusal to turn over the documents and the Watergate scandal two
decade
ago.
``Can you imagine stalling -- imagine Mr. Nixon trying to tell the
Congress for three months, `We're not going to give you the notes.'
That's exactly what this White House did,'' D'Amato said.
By Wednesday, the final roadblock was House Republicans' refusal of
a
condition set by the White House that if the notes are released, they
would agree that Clinton was not waiving his attorney-client privilege
on
other Whitewater matters.
Whitewater prosecutors and the Senate panel, which both have
subpoenaed the notes, have accepted those terms. But key House
Republicans rejected the offer Tuesday, and showed no sign of budging.
The White House earlier Wednesday dropped another of its conditions
for turning over the notes: that senators would have to acknowledge
Clinton has asserted a ``reasonable claim of privilege'' on the
meeting
before getting the notes.
And it pleaded with D'Amato to help get House Republicans to agree
to
the remaining condition.
D'Amato this morning contacted House Banking Committee Chairman Jim
Leach, who refused anew and said no more negotiations were in order.
Only ``if we are given documents at any time, we will cease and
suspend'' the march toward a court battle, D'Amato said.
In a report prepared for senators, Republican staff on the
Whitewater
committee say Kennedy's notes ``may be relevant to at least six areas
of
inquiry'' the panel has undertaken.
The GOP report also raised the stakes for any legal battle over the
president's claim of attorney-client privilege, saying ``there may be
other similar meetings (between Clinton lawyers and the White House)
in
which the committee has an investigatory interest.''
>ex-drug user.
> JFK September 19, 1960
Paul H. Henry
In article
<Pine.ULT.3.91m.96043...@red3.cac.washington.edu>, Kurt
Warner <kwa...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
[...]
> On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Paul H. Henry wrote:
> > "Clinton is a drug addict"--a defamatory lie; actionable under libel law
>
> of course, Clinton would have to prove this to not be true and any drug
> test of our current President would show heavy drug use...
You are lying. See below.
> Let me just
> put it this way and he can sue me if he wants.. Clinton is a drug using
> womanizing lying cheating stealing coward.
I doubt he'd waste his time with a pusillanimous little shit such as
yourself whose inane babblings carry no weight of reliablity, but he'd
have a damn good case against you if he did. See below.
[...]
> You apparently dojn't understand the "public figure" clause in current
> rulings...
This statement is astounding, coming from you.
[...]
> > It should be noted that the advertisement in question is probably libelous
> > on its face; current libel law allows a public figure to sue and recover
> > damages if the accused libeller makes a statement that s/he knows is
> > false or has acted with reckless disregard for the truth. See New York
> > Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 2524, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964);
> > also Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d
> > 789 (1974).
>
> I suggest you see: NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY V. SULLIVAN
> (1964) that the 1ST AMENDMENT disallowed libel judgements against
> the critics of public officials or public figures unless actual
> malice can be shown.
Yes, moron. That's exactly what I said. "Actual malice" is designed as
"[making] a statement that [the defendant] knows is false or [acting] with
reckless disregard for the truth," exactly as I said. What kind of a
numbskull would refer me to a case I just referenced in detail, anyway?
Your ignorance of the law is shocking.
[...]
> You apparently weren't aware of the difference between "public figures"
> and Joe Sixpack... Of course Clinton would have to undergo drug testing
> if he sued...
No. If he could establish that the defendant made the statement with
absolutely no knowledge of whether it was true or not and knew that it was
defamatory, he would win the suit. You know absolutely nothing about libel
law.
> > > The essence of the point is the notion (try to comprehend this -- I'll
> > > use small words, and type slowly) that if I am telling the truth, and
> > > what *you* say disagrees with what I say, then *you* are telling lies.
> >
> > Utterly irrelevent, as the statement at issue is "Free Speech was never
> > intended to protect liars." You're falling behind again.
>
> It protects lies...
> > > Now, if we have established that liars are not protected by the First
> > > Amendment,
> >
> > Which we have. At least, the Supreme Court has, and I have. You I'm not so
> > sure about.
>
> You have done no such thing and neither has the Supreme Court. Cite the
> case in which lying has been held illegal.
I have not claimed that lying is illegal. I have proved that libel and
false light are actionable torts and that they are not considered
protected speech under the First Amendment. Cases include New York Times
v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 2524, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Gertz v.
Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974);
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 111 L.Ed.2d 1
(1990).
[...]
> > That's called false light. False light is not protected under the First
> > Amendment, and victims can and have sued and recovered damages. See Time
> > Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 87 S.Ct. 534, 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967), and
> > especially Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co., 419 U.S. 245, 95 S.Ct.
> > 465, 42 L.Ed.2d. 419 (1974). You just keep digging yourself in deeper and
> > deeper.
>
> So do you... It was "NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY V. SULLIVAN
> (1964) that the 1ST AMENDMENT disallowed libel judgements against
> the critics of public officials or public figures unless actual
> malice can be shown." and followed by
>
> "Hustler v. Falwell (1988) in which the Supreme Court extended its
> standard of actual malice to suits in which injury to mental well-being,
> rather than reputation, is claimed.
>
> So much for your knowledge of Supreme Court cases.
You are so very, very ignorant of libel law. I've given you the cites. If
you investigate them, you will see how wrong you are. Consider Justice
Byron White's opinion in St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S.Ct.
1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968):
"The defendant in a defamation brought by a public official cannot,
however, automatically insure a favorable verdict by testifiying that he
published with a belief that the statements were true. The finder of fact
must determine whether the publication was made in good faith. Professions
of good faith will be unlikely to prove persuasive, for example, where a
story is fabricated by the defendent, is the product of his imagination,
or is based wholly on an unverified anonymous telephone call. Nor will
they be likely to prevail when the publisher's allegations are so
inerently improbably that only a reckless man would put them in
circulation."
[...]
> > > If you ever find a clue, treasure it.
> >
> > Just a friendly suggestion, kid. Don't argue on points of law about which
> > you know absolutely nothing.
>
> Same to you Henry... Look up the "Public Figure" clauses then get back to
> us...
Here's an idea, Kurt. Instead of dumbly pasting someone else's words into
your posts over and over again, why don't you go to a law library and look
up the meanings of the words you're using? I've given you the cites. If
you don't believe me, you are welcome to try and prove me wrong.
> > This stuff has been settled law for decades.
> > All you're doing is making me look good and making you look bad.
That goes for you too, Kurt.
Paul H. Henry
In article
<Pine.ULT.3.91m.96043...@red3.cac.washington.edu>, Kurt
Warner <kwa...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
[...]
> In Hustler v. Falwell
> (1988), however, the Supreme Court strongly reinforced that decision
> and extended its standard of actual malice to suits in which injury
> to mental well-being, rather than reputation, is claimed.
It occurs to me that I may have been too hasty in dismissing Kurt's
witless citation of Hustler v. Falwell (485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99
L.Ed.2d 41 (1988)). In that case, the Supreme Court found that Falwell was
not entitled to recover damages from Hustler because the damaging
statements made by the latter against the former were so outrageous and
ridiculous that only a profound idiot could believe them to be true.
Clearly, the allegations that the President uses cocaine heavily fall into
this category. If the people who make these claims were to claim in court
that they were being satirical and they couldn't believe that anyone could
be dumb enough to actually swallow them, it is likely that they would
prevail as well.
Paul H. Henry
In article <4m3hau$g...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael
Rivero) wrote:
> In article <phenry-2804...@blv-pm1-ip18.halcyon.com>,
> Paul H. Henry <phe...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> >
> >Considering the degree to which you folks blindly hate people who disagree
> >with you, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T "much talk" of such things.
> >That does not make it any less of a scurrilous lie, and it does not make
> >you any less immoral for spreading it.
>
>
> I resent the phrase,"blindly hate".
You can resent it all you want. It won't make your soul any less cold.
> In most cases, such as the forged suicide
> note, the lack of blood at the scene where Vincent Foster's body was
> found, the actual FBI records of the evidence tampering, we've been anything
> BUT blind.
>
> Those who refuse to aknowledge that such evidence even exists, now THEY
> are blind and willfully so.
"Evidence" from shadowy figures on the appallingly extreme right wing who
take preliminary suggestions as "proof" if they agree with it, and
disregard concrete evidence with which they disagree? I'd sooner trust
evidence supporting the existence of the Easter bunny.
> There have been numerous witnesses to Clinton's actual cocaine usage
> including Gennifer Flowers herself.
You might want to try to find a "witness" who hasn't been paid ten
thousand dollars for her "story" from the Globe tabloid.
> Others are interviewed in the documentary,
> "The Clinton Chronicles".
You keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper, do you know that? That
silly video has been explicitly debunked in detail by the TV program 60
MINUTES. I thought that even the nuttiest conspirazoids had stopped
flogging it.
> And before you commence with the accusations that
> they (and I) are all liers, and that Bill Clinton is the lone purveyor of
> the truth, I remind you that Dr. Houston has come forward with his report
> of treating Bill Clinton for cocaine overdose, which is possibly one reason
> why Bill has never released his medical records, even though he is required
> by law to do so.
The hallmark of the smear artist: a shadowy reference to a "Dr. Houston,"
with no information that would allow the skeptic to investigate the
circumstances of this alleged "report," or even to confirm that he exists.
As it happens, I have a report here from Dr. Murgatroyd swearing that he
once treated you for heroin addiction. What do you think of that?
> In other words, if you intend to accuse these people of being liers, the
> onus is on you to prove that they have lied.
Wrong. Here in America, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the
accused. I'm sure many folks here would be glad to take up a collection to
send you to Baghdad, if you would like to live in a place where the
reverse is true.
> I don't expect to actually garner a reasonable response from you, Paul.
> You're here to disinform, and I am responding to you only because I did
> not want others to fight my battles for me (as opposed to with me).
You'd be better off if you'd let someone who wasn't so hilariously
misinformed fight your battles for you.
> You and I have crossed swords several time, and each time I've asked for
> your response to the fact that the FBI was tampering with evidence in the
> Vincent Foster affair, and each time I have asked you this you just pretend
> it doesn't exist.
See "burden of proof" above. As you and your fellows have never presented
any evidence even remotely suggesting that Vince Foster did anything but
commit suicide, I have nothing to prove whatsoever. You, on the other
hand, have a lot of explaining to do.
Paul H. Henry
> Joseph Bowen (jo...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
> : Max Kennedy wrote:
>
> : > Beyond which, you might want to look at his NOSE....I mean, its been
awful red
> : > lately.
>
> : Red nose = drug user.
> : Always thought that bill of rights was a waste of effort.
>
> I was being sarcastic. I have other reasons for thinking so.
Right. You just don't want to tell us what those reasons may be. Not
nearly as many inconvenient questions and refutations that way.
Wayne Mann
Bob James <knoc...@io.com> wrote:
========
by Wesley Pruden
The Whitewater story, playing out at last in a Senate caucus room, is
still too
complicated to make sense to most of the correspondents who hang out
in
Washington. Trying to find out what it's all about makes their teeth
itch.
This is the excuse, and it's bunk. Their reluctance betrays either
ideological
blindness or laziness, or both.
What Bill and Hillary and their friends the McDougals were doing in
Arkansas
followed in the honored American tradition of Jesse James, Cole
Younger, Ma
Barker, Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow, and of course Willie Sutton.
Like Bill
and Hillary, all those early robbers understood where the money was.
Bonnie and
Clyde were good with guns. Bonnie and Clod were adept at finding the
loopholes
in the law.
Nevertheless, the tedious recital of dates and sums and the convenient
deeds of
the good ol' boys has accumulated on the Washington consciousness like
scum on
Bayou La Fourche as it snakes across the country south of Little Rock
- not far,
in fact, from the Castle Grande scam that Hillary, as usual,
conveniently can't
remember much about. It's enough to stupefy a Yale-trained lawyer
once
advertised as one of the top 100 litigators in America, as Hillary
might say.
The stupefaction has given the Clintons - voluble Bill and slippery
Hillary, the
Bonnie and Clod of Arkansas yuppiedom enough cover to argue that,
well, after a
year of congressional hearings, two special prosecutors and three
years of
charge and countercharge, nobody has actually accused them of a single
lawless
act.
This, too, is bunk, but believable bunk to the credulous, the
complacent, the
compliant and the easily confused. Lots of people, beginning with
angry home
folks, have accused them of shady dealings for years. The Clintons
have
carefully cultivated the myth that the Whitewater investigation is a
Yankee plot
hatched in Washington, another chapter in the unending Republican
cruelty of
Reconstruction. This is a myth abetted by people who know better but
which
might in the end influence the selection of an accommodating judge
(one or two
are auditioning now) and a pliable jury, if it comes to that.
Whether it comes to that is a question that Kenneth Starr must answer,
and when
he does it will be a decision composed of equal parts law and
politics.
Charging the president of the United States, to say nothing of a first
lady once
described by her husband as too good to stand on the same platform
with mere
mortal men, is dangerous business.
But to answer the question posed by the Clintons - "What lawless act
has anyone
actually accused us of" - is not difficult. Based on what she has
said and what
others have testified to, Hillary stands plausibly accused of
conspiracy to
commit bank fraud, conspiracy to obstruct justice, lying to a
legitimate federal
inquiry, and conspiracy to defraud the United States.
As careful as he no doubt thought he was, the president himself stands
plausibly
accused of all of these things, too, and sexual harassment besides.
He took out
insurance against that, but not against getting caught at robbing a
bank.
There's conceivably enough here to keep them making license plates for
their
grandchildren.
An accusation is not a conviction, to be sure, and Bonnie and Clod are
just as
innocent in the eyes of the law as Jesse and Cole and Ma and Bonnie
and Clyde
ever were. They were victims of Republicans, too.
So we must not accept accusation as the equivalent of conviction.
But we can certainly understand why, in the teeth of skepticism of
both friend
and foe, the Clintons have never "come clean" to put all the pesky
questions
behind them. Testimony by Mark Gearan, taken Feb. 15 by the Senate
Whitewater
committee, reveals a White House on the knife edge of panic.
The not-so-cryptic notes taken by Mr. Gearan, who was the
communications
director at the White House, describe Harold Ickes, the deputy chief
of staff
and Hillary's faithful liege man, fretting obscenities that Attorney
General
Janet Reno had "shut the door" on efforts to inject the White House
itself into
the decision of whether to appoint a special counsel. Mr. Ickes was
terrified
that she might appoint a "bad guy" to look into Whitewater:
"Special counsel - three major problems: (1) HRC adamantly opposed;
(2) Reno has
shut the door; (3) If we ask, it looks like we have ducked."
Mr. Gearan quotes Bernard Nussbaum, the White House lawyer, as saying:
"Badhearted guy goes in and decides a smell of corruption and can show
things of
those people close around principal." Mr. Gearan reluctantly told the
Senate
committee that the "principal" they were worried about was Mr.
Clinton.
Vince Foster wrote, in the famous suicide note, that "nobody will ever
believe
the Clintons are innocent." What did he know, and when did he know it?
>On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, John Ertel wrote:
>> Bob James wrote:
>> > I would not be surprised at all if evidence about some kind of Clinton
>> > drug use came out. I think he has been instrumental in the deaths of
>> > many people associated with him...the death rate of his friends being higher
>> > than that of pets brought to our local humane society shelter. I think
>> > he is corrupt to the core.
>> >
>> > ***B U T*****
>> >
>> > According to our American system of justice, he is still innocent until
>> > proven guilty. No one is compelled to provide evidence that he DOESN'T
>> > do drugs. Those of us who believe that he is corrupt, a murderer or a
>> > druggie are the ones compelled to bring forth the evidence.
>> >
>> > Bob James knoc...@io.com
>> Hey we're not saying he didn't do it. .we're saying GIVE US THE PROOF! We keep
>> hearing about this video that nobody's ever seen. If you go around and keep saying
>> it exists but don't show it, people will think you're a liar.
>If you re-read what I said, you will note that I said that I believe he
>is corrupt and would not be surprised if he was involved in drug use. I
>also said tht evidence has not come forth yet, especially about the drug
>use. *I* said that it is the responsibility of the ones doing the
>accusing to bring forth the evidence.
>I did not say that any video exists, nor did I say I had proof. I stated
>my opinions based on the character of the man. I guess it is safe to say
>that if Reagan was the Teflon president (because nothing seemed to stick
>to him) then it is even more safe to say that Bill Clinton is the Silver
>Stone (stoned?) president.
>Bob James knoc...@io.com
Wayne Mann
riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) wrote:
========
The Smoking File
by Wesley Pruden
What kind of fools do Bill and Hillary take us all for?
Willing ones, clearly, and you can't blame them for
thinking they can get by with a lot. But time, as time will
do, may be running out.
Carolyn Huber, the Hillary aide who testified yesterday
that the missing Rose Law Firm billing records mysteriously
reappeared on a table in the family quarters at the White
House, finally put something that looked like a smoking gun
before the Senate Whitewater committee.
You don't necessarily need a smoking gun if the files
are smoking, and this morning you can see flames licking at
the thin structure of evasions, distortions and lies the
Clintons have so brazenly built for three years.
Maybe there's something about the White House that
embraces sinister forces. The last time we heard about
something like this it was the 18 1/2-minute gap in Richard
Nixon's dictation tape. His secretary, Rose Mary Woods,
insisted, like Carolyn Huber about the Rose files, that she
didn't know how the gap got there.
When Sen. Lauch Faircloth of North Carolina, who has
been willing to be pilloried by Clinton apologists in both
Congress and the media to as the impolite questions, raises
the possibility that Bill and Hillary might be guilty of
obstruction of justice--a felony, punished by prison--the
reaction from the Democrats on the committee was, for once,
restrained. Said Mr. Faircloth: "We likely have a very
serious case of obstruction of justice." He wants the
committee to formally question the president and Mrs.
Clinton. Richard Ben-Veniste, the Democratic counsel, urges
caution, as any prudent lawyer would in, such delicate
circumstances. "Obstruction of justice ' he says, is "not a
term to throw around lightly." Indeed it is not.
Mr Ben-Veniste, a veteran of the Watergate proceedings
25 years ago, can identify the thin-line that prudent
lawyers do not step across, even in behalf of powerful
clients, and pulled a counter-punch. The Whitewater
committee, he said, cautiously, had a right to determine
"whether there were any shenanigans in the handling of the
documents. Even the Democrats on the committee now seem at
the edge of understanding that shenanigans might have been
the name of the game from the beginning.
But hiding records under lawful subpoena is MORE than a
shenanigan. It's a crime, perhaps a high crime. At last,
compelling evidence of cover-up, and this was not an act of
someone in a long-past time in that mythical land of the
wild boar and the magic huckleberry, but evidence of an
attempt in the White House itself to throw sand in the
wheels of government lest they grind the wrong people.
The Democratic Party line has been consistent enough,
that the Republicans and the "critics" of the Clintons are
merely "obsessed" with Whitewater, that nobody else is
really interested, and besides, nobody has proved the
Clintons did anything wrong.
The men and women charged with enforcing the law are
supposed to be "obsessed" with crimes committed on their
watch, and whether the public at large prefers "NYPD Blue"
to the real thing on C-SPAN is irrelevant. OF COURSE, nobody
has proved that the Clintons did anything wrong--conviction
of crimes is not the role of investigators. Evidence first,
verdict later. The Clintons, and Hillary Clinton in
particular, know that better than most. They went to law
school.
Hillary is under enormous strain, and shows it. For
penance, perhaps, she can now understand how Richard Nixon
felt a quarter of a century ago when she ran with the
hounds, and a president was the quarry. Her recollections of
being beaten up by gangs of 5-year-olds in her "rough"
Chicago neighborhood, as related to book-tour audiences in
Little Rock, Ann Arbor and Chicago, have the ring not of
authenticity, but of fantastical desperation. (She still
can't remember what she did for a client five years ago.)
Stranger still was her interview yesterday with the
Chicago Sun-Times, in which she described life at the White
House astonishingly similar to the tales told of Nixon
roaming the White House with Henry Kissinger in the middle
of the night talking incoherently to his long dead mother an
asking Mr. Kissinger to join him on his knees, as the
consequences of the Watergate cover-up began to close in on
him.
"Sometimes,' Hillary told the Chicago newspaper, "I
turn on music really loud. President Clinton gave me the new
Carly Simon 'Clouds in Your Coffee' CD for Christmas in my
stocking. I turn that one to the highest decibel you can
imagine and go around singing and beating the table in time
to the music."
It's good that she likes high-decibel music. More is on
the way.
>In article <318529...@mail.utexas.edu>,
>Joseph Bowen <jo...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>Max Kennedy wrote:
>>
>>> Beyond which, you might want to look at his NOSE....I mean, its been awful red
>>> lately.
>>
>>Red nose = drug user.
>>Always thought that bill of rights was a waste of effort.
> The lead reindeer is a user!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Is nothing sacred?
>:)
>--
>PIXELODEON PRODUCTIONS | Hand Hammered Special Effects
>Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero
>Will Host A Talk Radio Show For Food.
Wayne Mann
riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) wrote:
By Jerry Seper
The Washington Times
Congressional investigators looking into the Whitewater matter last
week said
they want to ask Susan Thomases, the New York lawyer and close friend
of Hillary
Rodham Clinton, new questions about conversations she says she had
with White
House Deputy Counsel Vincent W. Foster Jr. shortly before his July
1993 death.
Mrs. Thomases, a longtime friend and confidant to President and Mrs.
Clinton, is
quoted in the new book, ";Blood Sport,"; as saying she talked with Mr.
Foster at
a private rooming house in Washington about personal problems he was
having on
the job and at home a few days before he died of a gunshot wound to
his head on
July 20, 1993. Police said he shot himself.
She told James B. Stewart, the author who was once a reporter for the
Wall
Street Journal, that Mr. Foster said he was frustrated over the
";Travelgate";
affair, was overworked and lacked the support staff he had as a
partner at the
Rose Law Firm in Little Rock. He said he was afraid he had ";let the
president
and Hillary down.";
Mr. Foster also told her, according to the book, that his marriage was
not
working out and that his wife, Lisa, had become a ";burden"; because
he was
forced to make all the family's decisions.
Mrs. Thomases also told White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum,
according to the
book's account, that Mr. Foster's demeanor and appearance changed and
she was
worried about him.
The meeting, Mrs. Thomases said, occurred at a boarding house where
she often
stayed while visiting Washington and the White House.
Investigators said, however, that when Mrs. Thomases was interviewed
by the FBI
after Mr. Foster's death, she said she noticed no change in his
";demeanor or
physical appearance"; and that his death came as a ";complete shock to
her.";
She told the FBI in a June 1994 interview that she knew of ";no reason
or
speculation"; why Mr. Foster would kill himself.
";I think we need to ask her about those inconsistencies,"; a
congressional
staff investigator said March 18. ";It certainly can't be both ways.";
It was not clear last week when or even whether Mrs. Thomases, who has
appeared
three times before the special Senate Whitewater committee, would be
questioned.
The committee went out of business Feb. 29, and Democrats, through a
filibuster,
have prevented a vote on a Senate resolution to extend it.
Sen. Alfonse M. D'Amato, New York Republican and committee chairman,
has
threatened to take the investigation before the Senate banking
committee, which
he also heads.
In Mrs. Thomases' appearances before the Whitewater committee, she
evoked
considerable criticism from Republicans, who questioned whether her
testimony
was truthful.
Mr. D'Amato asked the panel's majority counsel to review the testimony
to see
whether perjury charges should be filed. He accused the White House of
having
";demonstrated a pattern of deliberate obstruction"; and cited the
testimony of
Mrs. Thomases and Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret A. Williams,
as ";very
troubling."; Several staff investigators were gathering information
last week.
Meanwhile, an attorney for key Whitewater witness David L. Hale on
March 18
denied published reports suggesting that his client was angry with
independent
counsel Kenneth W. Starr and that he might not testify for the
government in a
fraud-and-conspiracy trial in Little Rock.
Randy Coleman, in a telephone interview, said Hale - now in protective
custody -
plans to testify as scheduled when called in the Whitewater trial of
Arkansas
Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and James and Susan McDougal.
";David Hale's not going south on his testimony,"; Mr. Coleman said.
He declined
to comment about pending state charges but said Hale does not want to
be
sentenced to serve time in an Arkansas state prison. He declined to
elaborate.
Pulaski County prosecutor Mark Stodola, who is active in the Arkansas
Democratic
Party and is a congressional candidate this year, said last month he
intends to
seek felony charges against Hale in the suspected theft of $150,000
from an
insolvent burial-insurance firm Hale controlled.
Mr. Stodola did not return calls to his office.
Hale pleaded guilty in 1994 to federal charges in a $1.5 million
scheme to
defraud the Small Business Administration. He has accused Mr. Clinton
and Mr.
Mc- Dougal of pressuring him to give an illegal $300,000 SBA-backed
loan to Mrs.
McDougal.
At the time, the McDougals were the Clintons' partners in Whitewater
Development
Corp., a real estate venture in the Arkansas Ozarks. The McDougals
owned Madison
Guaranty Savings and Loan Association, which is at the center of the
Little Rock
trial. Three months before the loan check was issued, the McDougals
filed a
financial statement showing a net worth of $2.2 million.
Mr. Clinton and Mr. McDougal have denied Hale's accusation.
Hale, who retired after 14 years as a municipal judge after his 1993
indictment,
told The Washington Times that he was never told how the $300,000 was
to be used
and that he never spoke with Mrs. McDougal about it before handing her
the
check.
He said he approved the loan after meeting with Mr. Clinton in
February 1986 at
the state Capitol - when the governor asked him, ";David, are you
going to be
able to help Jim and me out?"; - and in March 1986 at Mr. McDougal's
office -
when Mr. Clinton said his name could not be tied with the deal
";anywhere in
this, anywhere at all.";
Hale's testimony is expected to be supported by Arkansas Trooper L.D.
Brown, who
was one of Gov. Clinton's bodyguards. He told investigators he
overheard Mr.
Clinton ask Hale for help, saying he and Mr. McDougal needed to raise
some
money.
Copyright 1996, News World Communications, Inc.
>In article <Dqnq7...@iglou.com>, Max Kennedy <mken...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>>
>>: Don't worry Maxie, one day you'll work your way up too. Till
>>: that time, keep drawing those naughty pictures next to the
>>: toilet paper. You're getting better every day!
>>
>>Don't you understand how stupid a comment this is? If you are going to
>>insult someone, make it an attack on his actual NATURE, put some TRUTH in
>>it. We all have flaws, so it ought to be possible for anyone with any
>>INTELLIGENCE to sucessfully insult someone else with a little REASON
>>behind it.
> Not on an assembly line, they can't. :)
Paul H. Henry
In article <4m591t$31g...@pgh.nauticom.net>, odon...@nauticom.net (Jeff
O'Donnell) wrote:
> In article <DqnJ3...@iglou.com>, mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) wrote:
> >Joseph Bowen (jo...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
> >: Max Kennedy wrote:
> >
> >: > Beyond which, you might want to look at his NOSE....I mean, its been
> awful red
> >: > lately.
> >
> >: Red nose = drug user.
> >: Always thought that bill of rights was a waste of effort.
> >
> >I was being sarcastic. I have other reasons for thinking so.
> >
>
> Actually, I saw Clinton when he announced he was releasing 12 million gallons
> of oil from the nation's reserve, and if his face and nose had been any
redder
> he could start moonlighting as a traffic signal.
>
> My wife saw it, and put me on the floor with "well, looks like we've been
> snorting a lot since the testimony on Sunday"
While I must admit that the thought of you on the floor is a somewhat
heartening one, I feel compelled to note that Rush Limbaugh, among others,
often gets very red-faced when speaking. Can I assume that Rush is a
habitual cocaine user as well? Or are only Democrats shot without trial in
Jeff World?
kathy kasten
viewer
phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote:
[yada yada yada relegated to bit-bucket-bliss]
>Your inane example did not make a single assertion of objective fact, and
>as such is neither true nor a lie. Claiming that Bill Clinton habitually
>uses cocaine is an assertion of objective fact, and if it can be shown
>that the person or entity that made the accusation knew it was a lie or
>said it with reckless disregard for the truth, guess what?--THAT'S LIBEL.
Then again, if it's true, it's a whole 'nuther ball game, sonny.
>> If you ever find a clue, treasure it.
>
>Just a friendly suggestion, kid. Don't argue on points of law about which
^^^
Is that your subjective opinion, or are you libeling me?
>you know absolutely nothing. This stuff has been settled law for decades.
>All you're doing is making me look good and making you look bad.
I guess this means if you ever find a clue, you won't treasure it?
Steven H. Findeiss
: > Roger Clinton and Lassiter were pardoned for their coke use. By the Governor
: > himself..
Joe Bowen replied:
: Actually, the truth is that Mr. Clinton declined to interfere with Roger's
: trial and sentancing, despite his personal desires to the contrary.
This is a masterful half-truth, as it is clearly designed to give the
impression that it rebuts the first statement above. But in fact,
Slick did grant Lasater a pardon after he had served six months. The
ostensible reason for this was so that Lasater could get a hunting
license. Yeah, right.
For the record: There are a lot of bad things Clinton *hasn't* done.
This commendable restraint hardly makes him a paragon of virtue.
Wayne Mann
Kurt Warner <kwa...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
Foster Death Discrepancies are Abundant:
Did His Neck Suffer Trauma
By Chris Ruddy
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's probe into the death of
Vincent Foster has opened up some discrepancies in the case-
including strong evidence that the White House aide may have
suffered trauma or a wound to his neck.
Homicide experts say that in any investigation of a suicide,
several inconsistencies and discrepancies should arouse suspicion.
In the case of President Bill Clinton's close friend, the
inconsistencies and discrepancies number in the several dozens.
"Freak things can happen in violent death," explains Vincent
Sealise, a former New York City homicide detective. "But the
laws of nature cannot be suspended and inconsistencies don't
range into the dozens as in this case."
The Tribune-Review reported that Associate Independent
Counsel Miguel Rodriguez resigned from Starr's staff after he was
thwarted in his efforts to investigate such inconsistencies.
Rodriguez was unavailable for comment and referred all calls to
Starr's Little Rock office.
In addition to the several dozen inconsistencies, here are some
significant problems Rodriguez turned up.
*NECK TRAUMA*
A key element in the suicide ruling has been official reports
noting the absence of additional wounds to Foster's body and no
signs of struggle at the crime scene.
An Independent pathology team for Special Counsel Robert
Fiske also reached that conclusion after reviewing the autopsy and
Polaroid photos of the scene. The only wounds on Foster's body,
according to official accounts, was an entry wound in his mouth
and an exit wound out the back of the head--consistent with a self-
inflicted gunshot wound.
But photographic evidence unavailable to Fiske's Pathology
team may have led them to a different conclusion.
Rodriguez and other prosecutors reviewed the original
Polaroid's never used by the Fiske Investigation. These originals
were enhanced by a specialized lab outside the FBI.
One enhanced Polaroid showed what "appears to be a wound,
puncture or other trauma" to the right side of Foster's neck, the
source said.
Two emergency rescue workers, trained in the identification of
wounds and other trauma, said the neck appeared to have suffered
trauma when they first arrived on the scene.
A Fairfax County EMS technician, Richard Arthur, who was
present at the scene on the night of Foster's death told the FBI last
year that "he noted what appeared to be a small caliber bullet hole
in Foster's neck on the right side just under the jaw line about
halfway between the ear and the tip of the chin."
Arthur has told the same story to Starr's Investigators.
Lead paramedic George Gonzalez told Fiske's investigators he
thought he saw a bullet wound in Foster's forehead. After
reviewing the new photographic evidence, Gonzalez told Starr's
probe that the neck trauma is consistent with the appearance of
Foster's body when he arrived at the scene, a source said.
"These wounds did not exist. The autopsy results , the
photographs taken at the scene, and the observations made by the
park police investigators conclusively show that there were no such
wounds," said Fiske.
*PHOTOS DISTORTED*
Investigators for Fiske said Arthur confused the wound with a
contact blood stain on Foster's neck-- a blood stain the FBI lab
said was produced when Foster's jaw came in contact with his
bloodied shirt.
An FBI blood splatter analysis identified the stain from a crime
scene Polaroid.
But Rodriguez discovered that Fiske's pathology team, as well
as the FBI lab, analyzed not the original photos, but third-
generation photos said to be distorted and obscured.
According to a well-placed source, the FBI, for unexplained
reasons, first took Polaroid shots of the original 13 crime scene
Polaroid's.
After Polaroid's were made of the Polaroid's, the FBI lab then
took 35mm pictures of the second-generation Polaroid's.
It is the 35mm, third generation photos that were reviewed by
the FBI and Fiske pathology team.
"Each time you make a copy of a copy, you lose definition,"
Fred Santucci said. "Polaroid's aren't sharp in definition to begin
with."
Santucci, a former New York City police homicide expert spent
15 years as a forensic crime scene photographer for the
department.
"The only thing I can think why this was done," Santucci said
of the use of the third generation photos, "is because someone
wanted to hide something."
Santucci said a 35mm shot should have been taken of the
original Polaroid. Another method is to use hi-tech computer
scanning which allows for enhancement with little distortion.
Park police said the crime scene photos taken by a 35mm
camera were underexposed in the lab.
An autopsy prepared by a Virginia medical examiner makes no
notation of wounds or trauma to Foster's neck. But a source who
reviewed the autopsy photos said they show the right side of the
neck depict "black crater-like indention's" where the scene Polaroid
indicted trauma.
*NO FINGERPRINTS*
Despite Foster's position as a high federal official, with
appropriate security clearances, the government claims to have no
set of fingerprints for Foster, according to two sources close to the
Starr investigation.
The fingerprints would be important for the investigation
because eight unidentified fingerprints were found on Foster's
1989 Honda , a palm print was found on a note torn into 28 pieces
and two fingerprint were found on Foster's gun.
Despite the Starr inquiry claim that there are no fingerprints,
FBI lab reports attached to the Fiske report state otherwise.
The park police report states that during the autopsy
'...fingerprints were taken from the victim...'
A handwritten document in the police file states that May 26
Fiske's staff apparently acquired the autopsy fingerprint card from
the park police case packet. It was signed for by FBI Agent
William Colombell.
Apparently the autopsy fingerprint card Colombell took
possession of was turned over to the FBI lab May 31. The FBI
stated the autopsy prints were unusable and it could make no
identification based on those prints.
The police and Fiske's investigations found no prints on any
outside surface of the gun. During the FBI analysis for Fiske, the
FBI found two prints, each under the plates on the hand grip after
they had been unscrewed.
Recently Starr's investigation has asked for an extensive search
of Vince Foster's late father's military records in St. Louis seeking
his fingerprints in hopes of linking him to the gun.
The gun's ownership has been another glaring inconsistency in
the investigation. Both the park police and Fiske intimate the gun
was passed onto Foster after his father's death. Yet, grandson of
Foster's father, intimately knowledgeable of his grandfather's guns
said the revolver did not match any he remembered.
*MISSING POLAROID'S*
Glossed over by official investigations are missing Polaroid's
taken by a second park police officer on the scene, Franz Ferstl.
He told FBI investigators for Robert Fiske that he believed he
took seven Polaroid's.
The park police have accounted for only 13 photos taken by
two other officers.
According to a source, Ferstl told the grand jury earlier this
year photos he saw of the 13 Polaroid's didn't match his memory.
For example, Ferstl said when he first came upon the body he
found Foster lying on the ground with the palms of his hands up.
Current scene Polaroid's show Foster's palms down.
A confidential witness who is said to have found Foster's body
also claims to have found Foster with his palms up.
Other evidence indicates Foster's hand was moved.
Photographic evidence uncovered in the Rodriguez probe showed
vegetation protruding through the fingers that were different in
another Polaroid of the same scene.
>On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Paul H. Henry wrote:
>> In article <318388ee...@news.netonecom.net>, vie...@view.city.org wrote:
>>
>> > phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote:
>> >
>> > >In article
>> > ><Pine.ULT.3.91m.96042...@red5.cac.washington.edu>, Kurt
>> > >Warner <kwa...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > >> ah... so now the liberals are stating they are against free speech....
>> > >
>> > >You're an idiot, Kurt. Free speech does not protect liars. Ever heard of
>> > >libel law? If you tell a lie that defames someone, that is not protected
>> > >speech and that person can sue you for damages. Read a book, Kurt.
>> >
>> > You start out by calling him "an idiot" in a public forum, and then lecture
>> > him on defamation and libel issues? Chutzpah, if nothing else.
>>
>> Hardly. The expression of an opinion is protected speech under the First,
>> and notwithstanding the outdated medical definition of the word "idiot,"
>> "You're an idiot" is the expression of an opinion.
>>
>> Try to keep up:
>>
>> "Clinton is a drug addict"--a defamatory lie; actionable under libel law
>of course, Clinton would have to prove this to not be true and any drug
>test of our current President would show heavy drug use... Let me just
>put it this way and he can sue me if he wants.. Clinton is a drug using
>womanizing lying cheating stealing coward.
>>
>> "Clinton is an idiot"--defamatory but a statement of opinion; protected
>> under the First Amendment
>>
>> See? It's not that hard if you try.
>You apparently dojn't understand the "public figure" clause in current
>rulings...
>>
>> > But we digress.
>>
>> Speak for yourself.
>>
>> > His point, (that thing that you may have noticed flying right over your
>> > head) is that when they assert that "free speech" doesn't "protect liars",
>> > they indeed saying that "free speech" only extends to those who agree
>> > with them.
>>
>> In fact, that is not his point at all, as you would know if you cared
>> enough to pay attention. Kurt was replying to Joseph Bowen, who asserted
>> that an advertisement offering to sell a video "showing" the President
>> using cocaine was a lie, noting that "Free Speech was never intended to
>> protect liars." THIS IS A TRUE STATEMENT
>It is not... lying is not illegal... defamation is hard to prove for a
>public figure and much more leaway is allowed to the defamer...
>> , regardless of the specifics of
>> the lie. This is exactly what libel law addresses, hence its relevance.
>>
>> Kurt then let fly with the moronic (opinion!!) and grammatically incorrect
>> (verifiably true!) comment, " ah... so now the liberals are stating they
>> are against free speech...." Kurt's statement is not supported by the
>> evidence with which he has been presented, and also implies that he
>I assumed you knew something about "public figures" and the libel laws...
>Apparently I was wrong...
>> doesn't know jack shit about First Amendment law (neither do you,
>> apparently).
>>
>> It should be noted that the advertisement in question is probably libelous
>> on its face; current libel law allows a public figure to sue and recover
>> damages if the accused libeller makes a statement that s/he knows is
>> false or has acted with reckless disregard for the truth. See New York
>> Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 2524, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964);
>> also Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d
>> 789 (1974).
>I suggest you see: NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY V. SULLIVAN
> (1964) that the 1ST AMENDMENT disallowed libel judgements against
> the critics of public officials or public figures unless actual
> malice can be shown.
>and
> In Hustler v. Falwell
> (1988), however, the Supreme Court strongly reinforced that decision
> and extended its standard of actual malice to suits in which injury
> to mental well-being, rather than reputation, is claimed.
>You apparently weren't aware of the difference between "public figures"
>and Joe Sixpack... Of course Clinton would have to undergo drug testing
>if he sued...
>>
>> > The essence of the point is the notion (try to comprehend this -- I'll
>> > use small words, and type slowly) that if I am telling the truth, and
>> > what *you* say disagrees with what I say, then *you* are telling lies.
>>
>> Utterly irrelevent, as the statement at issue is "Free Speech was never
>> intended to protect liars." You're falling behind again.
>It protects lies...
>>
>> > Now, if we have established that liars are not protected by the First
>> > Amendment,
>>
>> Which we have. At least, the Supreme Court has, and I have. You I'm not so
>> sure about.
>You have done no such thing and neither has the Supreme Court. Cite the
>case in which lying has been held illegal.
>>
>> > and, we have established (to at least *my* satisfaction) that
>> > I am "right", and *you* are "wrong", then your speech is obviously not
>> > protected.
>>
>> Only if I have in some way made an assertion of fact, and that assertion
>> is incorrect and defaatory.
>>
>> > Now, as to your poorly-crafted attempt to reframe the debate from one of
>> > free speech, to one of libel: this is not a binary decision. One can
>> > speak lies, yet never approach even the fringe of "libel".
>>
>> That's called false light. False light is not protected under the First
>> Amendment, and victims can and have sued and recovered damages. See Time
>> Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 87 S.Ct. 534, 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967), and
>> especially Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co., 419 U.S. 245, 95 S.Ct.
>> 465, 42 L.Ed.2d. 419 (1974). You just keep digging yourself in deeper and
>> deeper.
>So do you... It was "NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY V. SULLIVAN
> (1964) that the 1ST AMENDMENT disallowed libel judgements against
> the critics of public officials or public figures unless actual
> malice can be shown." and followed by
>"Hustler v. Falwell (1988) in which the Supreme Court extended its
>standard of actual malice to suits in which injury to mental well-being,
>rather than reputation, is claimed.
>So much for your knowledge of Supreme Court cases.
>>
>> > For example,
>> > try this one out for size, and tell me if Our Glorious Leaders could
>> > find my words actionable:
>> >
>> > "Our President, and his First Lady, are sterling examples of the proud
>> > American tradition of elevating our very best and brightest to positions
>> > of leadership and authority, and they do every American proud!"
>> >
>> > A lie? Certainly.
>>
>> Not a lie, a statement of opinion. In the strictest sense, you lied when
>> you said it was a lie.
>>
>> > Libelous? Somehow I think not.
>>
>> Of course not. Statements of opinion that do not imply assertions of
>> objective fact are not affected by libel law. I'm hoping that if I keep
>> hammering this into your head, you'll come to accept it someday. Witness:
>>
>> "Sterling examples"--subjective.
>>
>> "proud"--subjective.
>>
>> "best and brightest"--subjective.
>>
>> Your inane example did not make a single assertion of objective fact, and
>> as such is neither true nor a lie. Claiming that Bill Clinton habitually
>> uses cocaine is an assertion of objective fact, and if it can be shown
>> that the person or entity that made the accusation knew it was a lie or
>> said it with reckless disregard for the truth, guess what?--THAT'S LIBEL.
>And of course the only way to show it would be for Mr. Clintoon to
>undergo drug testing.. personally I welcome the opportunity... of course
>he admitted to using marijuana and cheating on his wife...
>>
>> > If you ever find a clue, treasure it.
>>
>> Just a friendly suggestion, kid. Don't argue on points of law about which
>> you know absolutely nothing.
>Same to you Henry... Look up the "Public Figure" clauses then get back to
>us...
>> This stuff has been settled law for decades.
>> All you're doing is making me look good and making you look bad.
>>
>> --
>> =============================================================================
>> _ (phe...@halcyon.com) || I N M E M O R Y
>> |_) || Oklahoma City * April 19, 1995
>> | aul H. Henry - Seattle, Wash.|| Remember the Victims of Extremism and Hate
>> ====================== http://www.halcyon.com/phenry/ =====================
>>
>>
Wayne Mann
Kurt Warner <kwa...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
Foster Eyewitness Ignored
by Chris Ruddy
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
6/14/95
A couple present at Ft. Marcy Park on the evening of the
Vincent Foster's death told the FBI last year that at least two
individuals were in or around the White House aide's car shortly
before his body was found.
The witness statements, which they claim were incorrectly
recorded by the U.S. Park police, "were completely ignored" by
the staff of the Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
With the resignation of Associate Whitewater Counsel Miguel
Rodriguez in March, Starr's staff has apparently also chosen not to
re-investigate the matter.
The witness statements add to the several dozen inconsistencies
and discrepancies in the suicide ruling, homicide experts say.
FIRST SIGHTINGS
Foster's body was found in the Civil War roadside park shortly
after 6 p.m. July 20, 1993--approximately five hours after he had
left the White House West Wing.
No one saw him alive, as far as authorities are concerned, from
the time he passed a Secret Service checkpoint at 1 p.m. that
fateful afternoon until his lifeless body was discovered at Ft.
Marcy.
According to one FBI report:
The first firm sighting of his car was approximately 4:30 p.m.,
by a motorist who entered the small parking lot off the George
Washington Memorial Parkway.
The motorist noted a Honda with Arkansas plates in one of the
first spots in the lot, fitting the location and description of
Foster's
car. He also observed another car, probably of Japanese make,
parked several spots past Foster's car. The car was occupied by an
individual described as male in his late 20's probably Mexican or
Cuban, with a dark complexion.
When the motorist left his car to urinate in nearby woods, he
said the male occupant left his car and followed him, making the
motorist "feel extremely nervous and uneasy."
The motorist quickly relieved himself and left.
KEY STATEMENTS
Shortly after 5 p.m. a couple who have sought to keep their
identities secret drove up to the park to enjoy a late picnic.
Both told Fiske's FBI investigators just over a year ago that
when they entered the parking lot there was only one car parked in
the lot, and their descriptions are generally consistent with Foster's
1989 Honda and its placement in the lot.
The female visitor told the FBI she believed that "a white male
was seated in the driver's seat' of the vehicle. She said he had dark
hair and "could have been bare chested."
As the driver of the car, she had an unobstructed view of
Foster's car. which was parked to her immediate left.
Her male companion told the FBI that he remembered the hood
of the vehicle was up and a white male was standing near the hood
of Foster's car. He was described as "mid to late 40s,
approximately 6 feet in height, medium build, long blonde hair and
beard, appeared unclean and unkept."
The male witness said he saw the unkept man standing near
Foster's car after the had backed into the parking spot, giving him
a clear view of Foster's car to his right
The couple said they sat in their car until about 6 p.m., and
then exited the car to have their picnic. They first learned of a
problem, they said, when emergency workers stumbled upon them
during a search for the body shortly after 6 p.m.
The park police report gives a decidedly different representation
of their accounts.
The scene investigation report, prepared by plainclothes
investigator Cheryl Braum, contains the only witness statements of
persons found in the park after police arrived. That report cites the
couple as having observed "a small car with a man without a shirt
sitting in it' who the couple was quoted as saying "left shortly after
their arrival."
The man with the long blond hair who had the hood raised is
described in this way: "The final vehicle the observed was a light
colored older model that pulled in next to the deceased vehicle."
The driver then pulled his hood up, went into the woods for a
short time and then left.
After being shown the park police statement of her account, the
female witness told the FBI that the police statement was not true,
and did not match her recollection of what she had told them.
The police statement implies that two cars, in addition to
Foster's Honda, were observed by the couple, who saw persons
either in a car or with the hood up.
The FBI witness statements make clear that the male and
female both saw only one car, apparently Foster's, and individuals
in or around it.
In two interviews this year, the female told the Tribune-review
that she stood by her account to the FBI, which she said is
consistent with her male friend's statement of seeing only one car
in the parking lot.
The only other vehicle that parked in the lot while they were
there was a white utility van. Fiske's investigators concluded the
van driver was the first person to find Foster's body.
The female witness stated she has never been contacted by
anyone on Starr's staff, nor has she or her friend been summoned
before a grand jury.
A spokesman for the park police, Maj. Robert Hines, said
Officer Braum was not available for comment on the case. He
added that the park police stood by her report and police report.
STATEMENTS OVERLOOKED
Fiske's 58-page report makes no mention of the witness
statements, which were part of his investigation and released by
the Senate Banking Committee this year.
According to a source close to the investigation, Rodriguez
believed the witness statements were supportive of evidence
Foster's body had been transported to the park.
No time has ever been nailed down for Foster's death, and the
Fiske report concludes death could have occurred from the time
Foster left the White House up until the time the body was found.
>On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, David Salvador Flores wrote:
>> In article <318388ee...@news.netonecom.net>,
>> viewer <vie...@view.city.org> wrote:
>> >phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article
>> >><Pine.ULT.3.91m.96042...@red5.cac.washington.edu>, Kurt
>> >>Warner <kwa...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >>> ah... so now the liberals are stating they are against free speech....
>> >>
>> >>You're an idiot, Kurt. Free speech does not protect liars. Ever heard of
>> >>libel law? If you tell a lie that defames someone, that is not protected
>> >>speech and that person can sue you for damages. Read a book, Kurt.
>> >
>> >You start out by calling him "an idiot" in a public forum, and then lecture
>> >him on defamation and libel issues? Chutzpah, if nothing else.
>>
>> No, Kurt *is* an idiot. Libel's got nothin to do with it.
>At least you're not as stupid as P. H. Henry... who knows nothing about
>the "Public Figure" clauses of the libel laws...
>>
>>
>> -Dave
Wayne Mann
phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote:
(c) 1995 Times Newspapers. All
rights. reserved.
08678539 Whitewater lawyer reviews
death of Clinton confidant; Kenneth
Starr; Death of Vincent Foster Times
of London (TL) - Saturday, June 10,
1995 By: From Martin Fletcher in
Washington Section: Overseas news
Word Count: 496
KENNETH STARR, the Whitewater
special prosecutor, has asked Henry
Lee, a renowned forensic scientist
from Connecticut, to review the 1993
death of Vincent Foster, the deputy
White House counsel and Arkansas
friend of the Clintons.
Mr. Foster was the Clintons'
personal lawyer before moving to
Washington, and was heavily
involved in the Whitewater case. His
body was found in a suburban
Virginia park but, despite two
investigations that concluded he
killed himself, questions are being
asked about how and where he died.
The appointment of Mr. Lee, who
is also involved in the murder trial
of O. J. Simpson, suggests Mr. Starr
may also have developed doubts after
months of inquiry.
Mr. Starr's investigation of
events in Arkansas during the 1980s
is gathering pace and again
threatening to ensnare Mr. Clinton. A
day after the grand jury indictment
of Guy Tucker, the Governor of
Arkansas, another of Mr. Clinton's
Little Rock associates has pleaded
guilty to charges brought by Mr.
Starr and agreed to co-operate with
his
investigation.
Stephen Smith, a senior aide
of Mr. Clinton during his early years
as Governor, admitted dipping into
the same pot of government-backed
loans for the poor that Mr. Tucker is
accused of defrauding.
That pot was a Small Business
Administration program administered
by a former judge named David Hale
and his company, Capital Management
Services. Investigators believe it
was used as a "piggy bank" by
the Arkansas political elite "that's
just the way business is done in
Arkansas", Mr. Hale told one
interviewer. Mr. Hale, who is co-
operating with Mr. Starr in return
for reduced charges, claims Mr.
Clinton also pressed him to make a
large illegal loan from the program.
Mr. Tucker, only the tenth
sitting Governor this century to be
indicted, is accused with a
business partner of lying to obtain a
$300,000 (Pounds 189,000) loan for
their personal use. Mr. Smith,
now a communications professor at
Arkansas University, admitted
illegally obtaining a $65,000 loan to
pay off a debt incurred by his Kings
River property company.
Mr. Hale has accused Mr.
Clinton of putting pressure on him to
make a $300,000 loan to Susan
McDougal, wife of James McDougal,
the Clintons' partner in the
Whitewater Development Corporation.
Mr. Clinton has called Mr. Hale's
allegation "bull" but the loan was
made, never repaid, and $100,000 of
it went to Whitewater. The charges
against Mr. Tucker and Mr. Smith are
based largely on information
provided by Mr. Hale, who is under
government protection.
Mr. Smith's partners in the
Kings River company were Mr. Tucker
and Mr. McDougal. Mr. Smith was
also president of the small Bank of
Kingston owned by Mr. McDougal that
made a questionable $30,000 loan to
Hillary Clinton to build a model home
on Whitewater's land.
Mr. McDougal also owned the
now-bankrupt Madison Guaranty Bank.
The central allegation of the
Whitewater affair is that Madison
funds were illegally funneled to
Mr. Clinton's campaigns in return
for regulatory favors that stalled
its foreclosure.
>In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael
>Rivero) wrote:
>> In article <4lsnp0$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>> CHill3644 <chil...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >Let me get this straight. Clinton is a jazz saxophonist wannabe who
>> >"didn't inhale", Vietnam draft dodger, ladies' man, and he occasionally
>> >does a couple of lines of blow. I knew there was a reason I voted for him.
>>
>>
>> Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
>> saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
>Boy, that's a strong statement. I'm sure you're prepared to back it up
>with some evidence. Unless, of course, your mind is so diseased by hate
>that you're just making this stuff up because you want it to be true.
>--
>=============================================================================
> _ (phe...@halcyon.com) || I N M E M O R Y
>|_) || Oklahoma City * April 19, 1995
>| aul H. Henry - Seattle, Wash.|| Remember the Victims of Extremism and Hate
>====================== http://www.halcyon.com/phenry/ =====================
Wayne Mann
Kurt Warner <kwa...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
The Electronic Telegraph March 20, 1995
DOUBTS LINGER OVER CLINTON AIDE'S 'SUICIDE'
BY Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Little Rock
THE ghost of Vince Foster is coming back to haunt the White
House. Once again Washington is buzzing with gossip about what
really happened to the friend of the Clintons who handled the
family private financial affairs until he was found dead in a
Virginia park in July 1993.
A series of US media reports has stated that Kenneth Starr, the
special counsel probing the Whitewater scandal over an unsuccessful
Arkansas development company half-owned by Bill and Hillary
Clinton, is wrapping up his probe of Foster's death. Starr's
conclusion, the newspaper and magazine articles over the past three
months have said, is that it was a straightforward suicide without
any evidence of foul play.
But Starr's persistent failure to oblige is now drawing comment.
Indeed, if anything, he has been stepping up his investigation. He
has called 11 witnesses before a federal grand jury in Washington,
and has elicited testimony from three of them that suggests the
body was moved and that the crime scene was tampered with in a
police cover-up. Last month a group of Park Police officers was
made to sit through a pointed reading of the federal perjury
statutes.
Now The Telegraph has learned that Foster's widow, Lisa, his
three children and one of his sisters, Sharon Bowman, have been
summoned to Washington for questioning this month by Starr's
staff. This will be the first time that the three children, all
grown-up, have been asked about the events leading up to their
father's death.
The Park Police, who originally handled the case, were refused
permission to talk to the children by James Hamilton, a Washington
lawyer, who had take on the role of family attorney. In the
subsequent Whitewater probe conducted by Robert Fiske - whom a
panel of judges later replaced with their own appointment - the
children did meet investigators but only to be briefed, not to
answer questions. "Starr's people were absolutely stunned when they
found this out; they couldn't believe the way the investigation had
been handled," said a source close to the probe.
CONFLICTING TESTIMONY ABOUT FOSTER'S STATE OF MIND BEFORE HIS
DEATH
It is not clear what Starr expects to learn from talking to the
family, but sources say that his investigators are disturbed by
conflicting testimony from witnesses about Foster's state of mind
before his death. Key figures have changed their stories, raising
suspicions that there may have been an orchestrated attempt after
the fact to make it look as if Foster was in the grip of a deep
depression.
There is no doubt that Foster was suffering a degree of
depression. Lisa Foster told investigators that he was sleeping
badly and suffering from a pounding heart. A week before his death
he told his sister, Sheila Anthony, a top Justice Department
official that he wanted to talk to a psychiatrist but needed
assurances that nothing revealed in counseling sessions could be
flushed out by subpoena at a later date.
A psychiatrist told the FBI that he was contacted on July 16 by
Anthony, who explained that Foster was working on "Top Secret"
issues at the White House and "that his depression was directly
related to highly sensitive and confidential matters" (FBI
file 29D-LR-35063). This gives the lie to farcical theories that
Foster took his own life because of criticism by the Wall Street
Journal. The psychiatrist never actually spoke to Foster in person.
It is not known what Anthony meant by "top secret", but the
Starr investigation has had discussions about Foster's possible
involvement in a clandestine operation run by the National Security
Agency. The scheme involved use of an Arkansas computer firm as a
front to help install software in foreign banks, central banks and
intelligence agencies around the world.
FOSTER HAD PLANNED TO TAKE CHILDREN OUT ON THE NIGHT HIS BODY
WAS
FOUND
The software, known as PROMIS, was allegedly used to track money
flows on behalf of US intelligence. Sources say that one of the
files removed from Foster's office by a White House raiding party
on the night of his death contained documents related to this
operation. Foster's children are unlikely to know anything about
such matters but they may have insights into his state of mind. His
youngest son Brugh, now a university student in Virginia, was
struck by the calm mood of his father as they chatted at their
Georgetown home on the night before his death, according to sources
close to the family. Foster was making plans in a matter-of-fact
way and even discussed buying a boat to use at weekends. The next
day Foster drove to work late, dropping his eldest son Vince Jr.
(who was then employed as an aide in Arkansas Senator David Pryor's
office, and now works for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange) at a
metro station. He then took his daughter Laura to work. Once again
he seemed to be in a good mood.
Both Brugh and Laura, currently at university in Arkansas, have
told friends they find it difficult to believe that their father
took his own life. But they have never spoken out publicly.
Foster's sister, Sharon Bowman, is puzzled because she had flown up
to Washington from Little Rock with her daughter Mary on July 20,
1993, to spend a few days visiting the Fosters. They actually
arrived the same evening the body was found. Foster had made plans
to entertain them and show them a bit of Washington. He had even
invited Mary for a special treat lunch in the White House mess.
REPORTS CLAIMING STARR HAS ALREADY MADE UP HIS MIND ARE
PATENTLY
FALSE
Last July, just nine days before the Senate Banking Committee
opened hearings into Foster's death, the family issued a statement
endorsing the suicide verdict of the Fiske Report. It said: "The
family believe that questions as to how and why Vince died are now
answered as best they can be. There is now no justification for
painful, repetitious examination of these issues. The principal
advocates for doing this appear chiefly motivated by mean-spirited
partisanship." The wording was drafted by Sheila Anthony, then
Associate Attorney-General in charge of selecting US federal
marshals, prosecutors, and judges - a very powerful position. Her
husband, Beryl Anthony, was also involved. He is a former US
Congressman from Arkansas and used to be Treasurer of the
Democratic National Committee. They are both Democratic insiders
with extremely close tie the Clinton White House. The rest of the
family were hardly involved in the matter, according to sources in
Little Rock. However, the statement was effective in deterring
Republican senators from asking tough questions in the hearings.
Senator Lauch Faircloth wanted to conduct a proper inquiry but
came under intense pressure from colleagues to back off.
The Starr investigation may ultimately conclude that there was
no foul play in Foster's death, but news reports claiming that Starr
has already made up his mind are patently false - and appear to
emanate from those interested in trying to put pressure on the
judicial process.
>On 21 Apr 1996, Joseph Bowen wrote:
>> nano...@netcom.com (Albert Nanomius) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Clinton Cocaine Video Surfaces in Little Rock"
>> >
>> >Free Speech Newspaper has obtained exclusive information from a source
>> >associated with the Arkansas State Police in Little Rock that a sensational
>> >video of then Governor Bill Clinton involving the illicit use of the drug
>> >cocaine will be released to the media nationally during the next week.
>>
>> Still waiting...no video. Checked out the "newspaper" link again...no
>> video, and no pictures.
>>
>> There IS, though a COPY of an ADVERTISMENT offering to SELL this lie to
>> anybody stupid enough to offer money. Even supporters of Rush aren't
>> that stupid, I suspect.
>>
>> Free Speech was never intended to protect liars.
>ah... so now the liberals are stating they are against free speech.... We
>all know they have never supported it unless you're saying what they want
>you to say, but in the past they at least paid lip-service...
>>
>> Joe Bowen
Wayne Mann
phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote:
requested that the White House make no comment about the
content of the
interviews.
Meanwhile, The Washington Post reported in Sunday's
editions that a
White House lawyer has told Senate investigators that a
confidant of
Mrs. Clinton told the White House counsel's office the first
lady was
concerned about giving investigators full access to the
papers of
deputy counsel Vincent Foster Jr. after his July 1993 death.
Without identifying its sources, the paper said Steven
Neuwirth has
told staffers of the Senate Whitewater committee that then-
White House
counsel Bernard Nussbaum discussed the upcoming search of
Foster's
office with Susan Thomases, a New York lawyer who is a close
friend of
the Clintons.
Neuwirth said Thomases told Nussbaum of Mrs. Clinton's
desire to
limit the search and that Nussbaum relayed that information
to him, the
Post reported.
Neuwirth helped Nussbaum sort Foster's papers and has
been
identified as the person who belatedly found Foster's
despairing note
about public life in Washington.
The Post quoted Nussbaum's lawyer as saying Nussbaum does
not recall
ever discussing Hillary Clinton's views on the matter with
Thomases or
Neuwirth. It said neither Thomases nor her lawyer returned
calls for
comment, but that sources familiar with her account said she
has denied
that Hillary Clinton ever weighed in on the issue of
searching Foster's
office.
White House press secretary Mike McCurry said Clinton's
interview
with Starr lasted 3 1/2 hours and was conducted separately
from the
session with Mrs. Clinton. Hillary Rodham Clinton's session
lasted
about two hours.
Clinton has now been interviewed three times by
Whitewater
investigators, the first time in June 1994 by previous
independent
counsel Robert Fiske, whom Starr replaced. Starr first
interviewed
Clinton in April, also on a Saturday afternoon.
The investigation stems from the Clintons' involvement in
the failed
Whitewater land deal in Arkansas in the 1970s. Questions for
the
investigators center on whether money was funneled to
Clinton's
Arkansas gubernatorial campaigns from banks linked to the
Whitewater
investment, the gunshot death of White House deputy counsel
Vincent
Foster and allegations of White House meddling in the
investigation.
The Whitewater dealings also are the focus of a new set
of hearings
on Capitol Hill. Questioning last week centered on a tug-of-
war between
the Justice Department and White House officials over
documents in
Foster's of
fice at the time of his 1993 suicide. The papers included
documents
about Whitewater.
The Clintons were accompanied during their interviews by
Mikva and
others from the White House counsel's office and by their
outside
attorney, David Kendall and others from his office.
White House special counsel Jane Sherburne, who was among
those in
attendance, said the multiple interviews with Starr were
"all part of
the process" and declined to specify whether the latest
session covered
new groun
d or returned to familiar territory.
She said it was unclear whether there would be additional
sessions
with Starr.
_______________
>In article <4lqjq0$f...@news.cc.utah.edu>, dmm...@cc.utah.edu (david
>mcintosh) wrote:
>> : But by your prior post I take it you would never do this if it meant
>> : there would be a 1% chance you'd get a video of our pinko liberal
>> : one-worlder president doing cocaine, and if it came out to be a true
>> : un-modified video you would probably say 'Who cares! everyone has
>> : problems! that wont affect what he does in the whitehouse!'
>> :
>> I would really like to see videos of Newt giving his wife divorce papers
>> just as she comes out of cancer surgery with their children standing
>> around that would be a hoot or how about Newt recieving oral sex from
>> another professors man I'd laugh for days.
>I guess that's the difference between you and me. If I saw a video of Newt
>Gingrich receiving oral sex, I doubt I'd ever be able to sleep without
>nightmares again.
>--
>=============================================================================
> _ (phe...@halcyon.com) || I N M E M O R Y
>|_) || Oklahoma City * April 19, 1995
>| aul H. Henry - Seattle, Wash.|| Remember the Victims of Extremism and Hate
>====================== http://www.halcyon.com/phenry/ =====================
AriesJay
In article <4mc5k5$b...@ionews.ionet.net>, s...@ionet.net (Steven H.
Findeiss) writes:
>: > Roger Clinton and Lassiter were pardoned for their coke use. By the
>Governor
>: > himself..
>
>Joe Bowen replied:
>: Actually, the truth is that Mr. Clinton declined to interfere with
Roger's
>: trial and sentancing, despite his personal desires to the contrary.
>
>This is a masterful half-truth, as it is clearly designed to give the
>impression that it rebuts the first statement above. But in fact,
>Slick did grant Lasater a pardon after he had served six months. The
>ostensible reason for this was so that Lasater could get a hunting
>license. Yeah, right.
>
Actually, I believe it was so that he could obtain a gun permit, not a
hunting license.
Jay A.
Bob James
On Wed, 1 May 1996, Paul H. Henry wrote:
> In article <4m3hau$g...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael
> Rivero) wrote:
>
> > In article <phenry-2804...@blv-pm1-ip18.halcyon.com>,
> > Paul H. Henry <phe...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>
> > In most cases, such as the forged suicide
> > note, the lack of blood at the scene where Vincent Foster's body was
> > found, the actual FBI records of the evidence tampering, we've been anything
> > BUT blind.
> >
> > Those who refuse to aknowledge that such evidence even exists, now THEY
> > are blind and willfully so.
>
> "Evidence" from shadowy figures on the appallingly extreme right wing who
> take preliminary suggestions as "proof" if they agree with it, and
> disregard concrete evidence with which they disagree? I'd sooner trust
> evidence supporting the existence of the Easter bunny.
>
That's right, Michael. Will you please STOP going to the original
sources and pointing out the discrepancies. Who cares that the picture
of Vince Foster shows a black gun and the gun they showed to Mrs. Foster
was silver. Why do you get so enmeshed in details. Clinton supporters
KNOW the truth and they don't need to be confused with the facts!
> > There have been numerous witnesses to Clinton's actual cocaine usage
> > including Gennifer Flowers herself.
>
> You might want to try to find a "witness" who hasn't been paid ten
> thousand dollars for her "story" from the Globe tabloid.
>
That's right....we have the finest example of veracity in the world
saying that he didn't do anything wrong. He was never even with
Gennifer Flowers. Oh, BTW, I AM interested in that Arizona swampland.
Thanks for your assertion that the EPA won't take it as "wetlands."
> > Others are interviewed in the documentary,
> > "The Clinton Chronicles".
>
> You keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper, do you know that? That
> silly video has been explicitly debunked in detail by the TV program 60
> MINUTES. I thought that even the nuttiest conspirazoids had stopped
> flogging it.
>
Hey, wait a minute. given the journalistic integrity of 60 minutes,
their debunking of the video might give it some credibility. Never
having really worried about that video before, now I am worried.
> > And before you commence with the accusations that
> > they (and I) are all liers, and that Bill Clinton is the lone purveyor of
> > the truth, I remind you that Dr. Houston has come forward with his report
> > of treating Bill Clinton for cocaine overdose, which is possibly one reason
> > why Bill has never released his medical records, even though he is required
> > by law to do so.
>
> The hallmark of the smear artist: a shadowy reference to a "Dr. Houston,"
> with no information that would allow the skeptic to investigate the
> circumstances of this alleged "report," or even to confirm that he exists.
Does my memory fail me or did somebody report here that this shodowy
doctor was Clinton's personal physician before he retired? Probably not,
Paul doesn't even know that he exists and Paul knows EVERYthing.
> As it happens, I have a report here from Dr. Murgatroyd swearing that he
> once treated you for heroin addiction. What do you think of that?
>
I KNEW it you leftist! You told me those tracks were nothing more than
part of your special effects for a movie. Michael, I am devastated!
> > In other words, if you intend to accuse these people of being liers, the
> > onus is on you to prove that they have lied.
>
> Wrong. Here in America, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the
> accused. I'm sure many folks here would be glad to take up a collection to
We might like things like photos of actual documents. Analysis that would
show discrepancies in actual reports would be nice to. Why not set up a
web page that would show all of these things. I got an idea! Why not
call it "Rancho Runnamucka" with an address like
"http://www.accessone.com/~rivero. So put up or shut up Michael Rivero!
>
> See "burden of proof" above. As you and your fellows have never presented
> any evidence even remotely suggesting that Vince Foster did anything but
> commit suicide, I have nothing to prove whatsoever. You, on the other
> hand, have a lot of explaining to do.
>
Tell you what, Paul, take your hands off your eyes. Open your eyes.
Look at the posts. If you do that, you will see the evidence. If the
posts don't show you, get the original documents from Michael's web page.
But why argue with you. Your mind is made up and it won't do any good to
confuse you with the facts.
Bob James knoc...@io.com
Jeff O'Donnell
In article <phenry-0205...@blv-pm1-ip20.halcyon.com>,
>heartening one, I feel compelled to note that Rush Limbaugh, among others,
>often gets very red-faced when speaking. Can I assume that Rush is a
>habitual cocaine user as well? Or are only Democrats shot without trial in
>Jeff World?
Red is one thing. Being qualified to guide Santa's sleigh is quite another.
I have two E.R. nurses in the family who see a lot of Cocaine overdose
patients... they also feel chances are good he's a heavy user. But go ahead
and think whatever you want. Despite your guy's best efforts, its still a
free country.
Jeff
Robert Knight
Paul H. Henry (phe...@halcyon.com) wrote:
: > I was being sarcastic. I have other reasons for thinking so.
: Right. You just don't want to tell us what those reasons may be. Not
: nearly as many inconvenient questions and refutations that way.
You haven't been listening. We've gone over those reasons again and
again. My post is addressed to those who have been listening, and well,
those who don't have red noses.
At least it isn't growing.
Max Kennedy
Robert Knight
Paul H. Henry (phe...@halcyon.com) wrote:
: heartening one, I feel compelled to note that Rush Limbaugh, among others,
: often gets very red-faced when speaking. Can I assume that Rush is a
: habitual cocaine user as well?
No, that would more likely be a sign of drinking, if a sign of anything.
Do you have any supporting evidence of Rush drinking heavily? Like
numerous witnesses, a former doctor that treated him, lots of friends
busted for it, etc etc?
Max Kennnedy
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
hm$j...@alterdial.UU.NET>
: Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution:
Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
: >I'll leave other signs of drug use in Clinton's manner and looks to other
: >users. I wouldn't want to look like an ex-drug user or something... Might
: >have the DEA sieze what little property I have left after taxes. 'Course
: >Roger Clinton and Lassiter were pardoned for their coke use. By the Governor
: >himself..
: >
: >Max Kennedy
: ex-drug user.
: Fess up, Max, what kind of drugs are you on right now?
X-Lax.
--
Buddy K
Max Kennedy
Jeff O'Donnell (odon...@nauticom.net) wrote:
: Red is one thing. Being qualified to guide Santa's sleigh is quite another.
: I have two E.R. nurses in the family who see a lot of Cocaine overdose
: patients... they also feel chances are good he's a heavy user. But go ahead
: and think whatever you want. Despite your guy's best efforts, its still a
: free country.
In one sense, the only reason I care about it is the hypocrisy it took him
to raise prison sentences for crack cocaine. But I'm sure his friends
use better quality stuff.
Hence, the nationwide prison riots awhile back. I'm sure quite a few
people rotting in jail for daring to choose to take a drug are aware of it
also.
Max Kennedy
David Feustel
Terry Romine (romi...@quickmail.apple.com) wrote:
: hm$j...@alterdial.UU.NET>
: Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
: : ex-drug user.
: X-Lax.
: --
: Buddy K
Dear Mr. Buddy,
Thanks very much for providing irrefutable evidence that your postings
are not worth taking any time to read. Your postings are now being
automatically ignored by my newsreader. I do appreciate your taking
the time to make this decision so straightforward.
--
feu...@netcom.com
Dave Feustel N9MYI - NRA Life
Fort Wayne, IN For PGP Public Key, finger feu...@netcom.com
219-483-1857 Or else access http://www.mixi.net/~feustel/