RUSH on VINCENT FOSTER
Hughie2U
RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW
OVER 600 RADIO STATIONS NATIONWIDE
FRIDAY JUNE 21, 1996 12:15pm EDT
FOSTER DEATH IS THE KEY TO SCANDALS
RUSH:
As to the events in Washington, with Whitewater, with Travelgate, with
Filegate. I want to take you people back to shortly after the body of
Vincent Foster was discovered in Fort Marcy Park. There were discussions
about the subject, did he die at somebody else's hand or did he commit
suicide?
Why, in any case is Vince Foster dead? And I said way back, in any case,
it has to be two years ago now, maybe even three. I said, "if you want to
know what all is going on in the White House, if you want to know the
answers to all these questions about all of these various things, find out
why Vince Foster is dead?
And I say if you find out why Vince Foster is dead. And I worded that
very carefully and I do so again now. Find out why Vince Foster was dead
or died and find out what was in his office that everybody wanted and
you'll have the answers to all of this.
And now we have learned that a secret service agent has sworn that he saw
Craig Livingstone, this former bar bouncer and Democratic operative, who
now, we have also learned was engaged in dirty tricks for the Gary Hart
Campaign in Pennsylvania, in 1984. He and [Anthony] Marceca go way back
to 1984 together doing dirty tricks for the Gary Hart Campaign against the
[Walter] Mondale people.
We learn that this same Craig Livingstone, this bar bouncer, this would be
Hollywood producer was seen carrying a box of files out of the White House
in close proximity to Vince Foster's office.
The plot thickens.
END
Swopa
In article <4qpmu9$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, hugh...@aol.com
(Hughie2U) wrote: (excerpt)
> RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW
> OVER 600 RADIO STATIONS NATIONWIDE
> FRIDAY JUNE 21, 1996 12:15pm EDT
>
> FOSTER DEATH IS THE KEY TO SCANDALS
>
>
> RUSH:
>
> As to the events in Washington, with Whitewater, with Travelgate, with
> Filegate. I want to take you people back to shortly after the body of
> Vincent Foster was discovered in Fort Marcy Park. There were discussions
> about the subject, did he die at somebody else's hand or did he commit
> suicide?
>
> Why, in any case is Vince Foster dead? And I said way back, in any case,
> it has to be two years ago now, maybe even three. I said, "if you want to
> know what all is going on in the White House, if you want to know the
> answers to all these questions about all of these various things, find out
> why Vince Foster is dead?
>
> And I say if you find out why Vince Foster is dead. And I worded that
> very carefully and I do so again now. Find out why Vince Foster was dead
> or died and find out what was in his office that everybody wanted and
> you'll have the answers to all of this.
For once in his mercenary existence, Rush has hit it right on the head.
Vince Foster is dead because, as he himself put it, "in Washington ...
ruining people is considered sport." He is dead because the irresponsible
elements of the right wing in this country decided to launch a scorched-
earth battle after losing the 1992 presidential election, doing everything
they could to punish Bill Clinton (and everyone beneath him) politically
AND personally for having the temerity _not_ to be 100% owned and
operated by the big-money elites that think they run this country. (I
wouldn't argue if you said he was 50% to 70% owned and operated,
but even that's not enough for the big-money boys.)
And lo, this is the same source of the Whitewater "scandal," the FBI
files "scandal," the travel office "scandal," ad nauseam -- we're getting
all the "scandals" that the anti-Clinton smoke machine can gin up from
the scraps of tinder in Clinton's past, his current associates, etc.
Unfortunately, the smoke-makers have been crying "Fire!" for so long --
and producing nothing but smoke -- that the public merely yawns when
they see more black clouds, stoked with hot air from the mouths of
D'Amato, Tony Blankley, et al. ... and now by the main windbags Rush,
Dole, and Gingrich as they see the '96 election slipping away as well.
RDElephant
Swopa wrote:
>Vince Foster is dead because, as he himself put it, "in Washington ...
>ruining people is considered sport." He is dead because the
irresponsible
>elements of the right wing in this country decided to launch a scorched-
>earth battle after losing the 1992 presidential election, doing
everything
>they could to punish Bill Clinton (and everyone beneath him) politically
>AND personally for having the temerity _not_ to be 100% owned and
>operated by the big-money elites that think they run this country. (I
>wouldn't argue if you said he was 50% to 70% owned and operated,
>but even that's not enough for the big-money boys.)
>And lo, this is the same source of the Whitewater "scandal," the FBI
>files "scandal," the travel office "scandal," ad nauseam -- we're getting
>all the "scandals" that the anti-Clinton smoke machine can gin up from
>the scraps of tinder in Clinton's past, his current associates, etc.
Have you read Partners in Power yet Swopa? Surely you are not claiming
that Roger Morris is a conservative ? And where do you get the idea that
Bill Clinton is not 100% owned by the elites ? Again, read Partners in
Power or even just look at a list of Clinton's campaign contributors
....surely that $18 million he collected in a single little gathering last
month didn't come from the poor and downtrodden. Tell it to the thousands
of American workers whose jobs have been moved overseas or to Mexico after
NAFTA and GATT or the American taxpayer who was forced to bailout
Clinton's buddies (which even the corrupt Congress refused) at
Golsdman/Sachs after the peso debacle. Tell it to Louis Freeh, Clinton's
OWN F.B.I. appointment... are we to believe he is an arch-conservative,
too ? Tell it to that jury out in Arkansas that convicted Clinton's
McDollar man and his pretty little wife.
I am a Democrat and a liberal. I too got sick of 12 years of Reagan/ Bush.
But Bill Clinton has proven to be even a bigger liar, even more corrupt,
and every bit as much in the pocket of those elites. As such, he is the
ultimate hypocrite and because he is supposedly a Democrat (FDR is
spinning in his grave) all the more dangerous. Give me an honestly
corrupted Republican over a dishonestly owned and secretly corrupted
Democrat any day...
Randy D. Ellison
Keith Preston
Swop...@aol.com (Swopa) wrote:
> For once in his mercenary existence, Rush has hit it right on the head.
>
> Vince Foster is dead because, as he himself put it, "in Washington ...
> ruining people is considered sport."
Gee...that would be relevant....if only Vince had written the note...\
So who is it who suspected that a lot of doo-doo was going to hit the fan
and that the press should be set up to believe that all of it was just a
partisan witch-hunt by the Repubs....so don't be good little journalists
and find it out...
someone who knew all the dirty details....
someone who knew Vince well....
someone who had to make sure the signature part of the note was the one
part missing....
someone who could make the note "appear" for a few days....
Must have been either Eleanor or Gandhi.
K
Red Herring
>Vince Foster is dead because, as he himself put it, "in Washington ...
>ruining people is considered sport."
Are you referring to the "suecide note"?
Swopa
(Billy Beck) wrote:
> Swop...@aol.com (Swopa) wrote:
>
> >Vince Foster is dead because, as he himself put it, "in Washington ...
> >ruining people is considered sport."
>
> But, SwopieBaby: Vince *couldn't* have written that note.
>
> Now...you *know* this. What are you up to?
>
Ahh, Billy, if you only knew what I know! I happen to have in my
possession a detailed rebuttal of the reports of the Strategic Investment
"experts" regarding the Foster note. Actually, rebuttal isn't the right
word -- vivisection is more like it. It's written by a real handwriting
expert, who's got more qualifications than all of the "Three Muckateers"
(his term, not mine) put together. Poor Reginald Alton, who was the
only "expert" naive enough to back up his false conclusion with an
attempt at detailed support, is torn apart in particularly excruciating
fashion -- often by showing how he fails to meet the axioms and
principles he himself sets forth. One of the best parts is how he
critiques the highly amateurish nature of how the "experts" present
their findings ("the three Muckateers know neither what they are
doing nor how to report it properly").
I'll try and post it sometime next week, and I'll make it available for
anyone who wants it for their website, too. In the meantime, you
might want to run and find another issue ... or, I guess, just prepare
your ad hominem attacks.
Max Kennedy
>In article <4qsk2e$40...@mule1.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com
>(Billy Beck) wrote:
>> Swop...@aol.com (Swopa) wrote:
>>
>> >Vince Foster is dead because, as he himself put it, "in Washington ...
>> >ruining people is considered sport."
>>
>> But, SwopieBaby: Vince *couldn't* have written that note.
>>
>> Now...you *know* this. What are you up to?
>>
>Ahh, Billy, if you only knew what I know! I happen to have in my
>possession a detailed rebuttal of the reports of the Strategic Investment
>"experts" regarding the Foster note. Actually, rebuttal isn't the right
If this is that "expert" that was on Unknown Mysterious, I'm not impressed with
what you continue with below. The guy made a WHOLE bunch of logical errors.
Billy Beck
Swop...@aol.com (Swopa) wrote:
>In article <4qsk2e$40...@mule1.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com
>(Billy Beck) wrote:
>> But, SwopieBaby: Vince *couldn't* have written that note.
>>
>> Now...you *know* this. What are you up to?
>Ahh, Billy, if you only knew what I know! I happen to have in my
>possession a detailed rebuttal of the reports of the Strategic Investment
>"experts" regarding the Foster note.
Oh, yeah?
Does it describe Vince's fingerprints on the note?
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/free.html
Rant - June 16, 1996
WILLVIN
(Wayne Mann) writes:
> I recall Carter as president. I thought he was not a good
>president, but I NEVER doubted but what he was honest, was
>telling the truth, at least as he thought it to be, and I
>always new he was trying to do what he thought was best for
>the country. President Ford was the same. And I know a lot
Well, where the hell *is* Peanut Boy and his unassailed "integrity" ?
He's hammering nails instead of standing up and verbally hammering
the RAT BASTARDS in the WH who have been pissing on the Constitution
ever since they got their slimey hand on the reins of power !!!
For that matter, what's with Jerry and George ? (Ronnie's excused,
naturally)
Please - no CIA-connected bullshit theories.
Billy Beck
wil...@aol.com (WILLVIN) wrote:
>For that matter, what's with Jerry and George ? (Ronnie's excused,
>naturally)
>Please - no CIA-connected bullshit theories.
Well, that naturally excludes George.
HSprunt
Swop...@aol.com (Swopa) writes:
>Ahh, Billy, if you only knew what I know! I happen to have in my
>possession a detailed rebuttal of the reports of the Strategic Investment
>"experts" regarding the Foster note. Actually, rebuttal isn't the right
>word -- vivisection is more like it. It's written by a real handwriting
>expert, who's got more qualifications than all of the "Three Muckateers"
>(his term, not mine) put together. Poor Reginald Alton, who was the
>only "expert" naive enough to back up his false conclusion with an
>attempt at detailed support, is torn apart in particularly excruciating
>fashion -- often by showing how he fails to meet the axioms and
>principles he himself sets forth. One of the best parts is how he
>critiques the highly amateurish nature of how the "experts" present
>their findings ("the three Muckateers know neither what they are
>doing nor how to report it properly").
>
>I'll try and post it sometime next week, and I'll make it available for
>anyone who wants it for their website, too. In the meantime, you
>might want to run and find another issue ... or, I guess, just prepare
>your ad hominem attacks.
>
>
Actually, the report in question by the SFO expert contains a number of ad
hominen attacks itself (The Three Muckateer comment in the report is one I
assume MM was glad that UM did not air). I had several conversations with
Marcel before the Unsolved Mysteries segment aired and he sent me a copy
of his report to JM of UM. I also made the report of MM available some
months ago to those who asked for it and I believe it is one several web
sites already.
FWIW, MM does not appear particularly unbiased in all this. During one of
our phone calls (completely out of the blue) he launched in an attack of
Reagan. I am not exactly a huge fan of what happened when Reagan was
president, otherwise I might have taken offense at the irrelevance and
other aspects of his attack, but so be it. IT would be a mistake to rely
100% on MM or anyone one other person re the torn note forgery issue.
Warm regards,
Hugh S.
Swopa
the first version (adds in a word I left out)]
In article <4r114d$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, hsp...@aol.com
(HSprunt) wrote:
> In article <SwopaTwo-270...@ppp141-sf2.sirius.com>,
> Swop...@aol.com (Swopa) writes:
>
> >Ahh, Billy, if you only knew what I know! I happen to have in my
> >possession a detailed rebuttal of the reports of the Strategic Investment
> >"experts" regarding the Foster note. Actually, rebuttal isn't the right
> >word -- vivisection is more like it. It's written by a real handwriting
> >expert, who's got more qualifications than all of the "Three Muckateers"
> >(his term, not mine) put together. Poor Reginald Alton, who was the
> >only "expert" naive enough to back up his false conclusion with an
> >attempt at detailed support, is torn apart in particularly excruciating
> >fashion -- often by showing how he fails to meet the axioms and
> >principles he himself sets forth. One of the best parts is how he
> >critiques the highly amateurish nature of how the "experts" present
> >their findings ("the three Muckateers know neither what they are
> >doing nor how to report it properly").
> >
> >I'll try and post it sometime next week, and I'll make it available for
> >anyone who wants it for their website, too. In the meantime, you
> >might want to run and find another issue ... or, I guess, just prepare
> >your ad hominem attacks.
> >
> >
>
> Actually, the report in question by the SFO expert contains a number of ad
> hominen attacks itself (The Three Muckateer comment in the report is one I
> assume MM was glad that UM did not air).
I think any relief he felt at not having that remark aired (assuming that
he really cared) was outweighed by disappointment that UM treated the
SI panel as serious experts (assuming that it did so; I didn't see the show).
> I had several conversations with
> Marcel before the Unsolved Mysteries segment aired and he sent me a copy
> of his report to JM of UM. I also made the report of MM available some
> months ago to those who asked for it and I believe it is one several web
> sites already.
Then I regret not having obtained a copy earlier; we might have been spared
the charade of the "forgery" conclusion being an open-and-shut case.
> FWIW, MM does not appear particularly unbiased in all this. During one of
> our phone calls (completely out of the blue) he launched in an attack of
> Reagan. I am not exactly a huge fan of what happened when Reagan was
> president, otherwise I might have taken offense at the irrelevance and
> other aspects of his attack, but so be it. IT would be a mistake to rely
> 100% on MM or anyone one other person re the torn note forgery issue.
Indeed he is, shall I say, zestful in his opinions. But I believe that he
backs
them up far more thoroughly with references to handwriting theory, and he
points out the contradictions of the SI panel's attempts to do the same --
so we
don't have to simply take his word as gospel.
I'll be happy to hash through all this when I post the materials, perhaps as
soon as this weekend. I think it might be of particular interest to compare Mr.
Matley's credentials with those of the SI panel -- and especially to compare
the size and reputation of the professional associations to which Matley
belongs (the National Association of Document Examiners, American
Handwriting Analysis Foundation, American Association of Handwriting
Analysts, International Graphonomics Society, American Society for Testing
and Materials, among others) with the American Board of Forensic Examiners,
whose certification is cited by Rice and Scalice of the SI panel. Matley claims
that he resigned from the latter group after attending one conference and
learning of its low ethical standards (I have no way of verifying this claim one
way or the other).
John Q. Public
> .
>
> I'll be happy to hash through all this when I post the materials, perhaps as
> soon as this weekend. I think it might be of particular interest to compare Mr.
> Matley's credentials with those of the SI panel --
Several posters to a.c-e.c.w newsgroup noted that the facsimile of the
"note" as presented in the WSJ appeared to feature several oddities,
not the least of which was the different appearance of the handwriting
in the last third. These articles were posted well before the SI
panel's existence was known, and are still available in the ng archives
and via Deja News. M. Liebert was in the forefronttg of the posters
who noted details that gave rise to questions about authenticity.
Credentials don't mean anything against the preponderance of evidence
that is apparent even to untrained but careful observers.
Michael Rivero
>In article <SwopaTwo-270...@ppp141-sf2.sirius.com>,
>Swop...@aol.com (Swopa) writes:
>
>>Ahh, Billy, if you only knew what I know! I happen to have in my
>>possession a detailed rebuttal of the reports of the Strategic Investment
>
>>"experts" regarding the Foster note. Actually, rebuttal isn't the right
>>word -- vivisection is more like it. It's written by a real handwriting
>>expert, who's got more qualifications than all of the "Three Muckateers"
>>(his term, not mine) put together. Poor Reginald Alton, who was the
>>only "expert" naive enough to back up his false conclusion with an
>>attempt at detailed support, is torn apart in particularly excruciating
>>fashion -- often by showing how he fails to meet the axioms and
>>principles he himself sets forth. One of the best parts is how he
>>critiques the highly amateurish nature of how the "experts" present
>>their findings ("the three Muckateers know neither what they are
>>doing nor how to report it properly").
>>
>>I'll try and post it sometime next week, and I'll make it available for
>>anyone who wants it for their website, too. In the meantime, you
>>might want to run and find another issue ... or, I guess, just prepare
>>your ad hominem attacks.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, the report in question by the SFO expert contains a number of ad
>hominen attacks itself (The Three Muckateer comment in the report is one I
>Marcel before the Unsolved Mysteries segment aired and he sent me a copy
>of his report to JM of UM. I also made the report of MM available some
>months ago to those who asked for it and I believe it is one several web
>sites already.
>
>our phone calls (completely out of the blue) he launched in an attack of
>Reagan. I am not exactly a huge fan of what happened when Reagan was
>president, otherwise I might have taken offense at the irrelevance and
>other aspects of his attack, but so be it. IT would be a mistake to rely
>100% on MM or anyone one other person re the torn note forgery issue.
>
>Hugh S.
As Matt Allison keeps saying, what is needed is courtroom worthy
evidence on this matter and Marcel seems to have forgotten (as has Swopa)
that whereas photocopies are suitable for proving a forgery, a photocopy
of a document is inadmissable as evidence to authenticate.
Any claims of authenticity Marcel has made from a photocopy are useless.
For him to promote that claim despite it's inadmissability calls into question
his credability as an "expert"".
I spoke via phone with the production office for "Unsolved Mysteries".
Marcel was literally the only document examiner they could find in the
country who would take the position that the note was genuine. Every
other examiner, including the four on the "Unsolved Mysteries" segment
on Foster were convinced it's a forgery. Marcel was invited on the show
for "balance".
--
PIXELODEON PRODUCTIONS | Hand Hammered Special Effects
Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero
The White House must be scared. More black churches have burned.
Swopa
In article <4r4sv7$5...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
(Michael Rivero) wrote:
This is a pretty neat logical trick you're trying to pull -- since the
only public
version of the note is a photocopy, ANY claim that it's real must be false
because it wouldn't be admissable in a courtroom. I'll leave it to Matley to
point out how the SI panel's reports would be inadmissable as evidence,
and to show how his findings are infinitely more grounded in courtroom-
accepted theories.
Oh, and speaking of phony logic: I dropped by your website and saw that
you'd added a staged-reproduction photo of a blued-steel gun. One
simple question: Was the bluing on the gun weathered to reflect 81 YEARS
of wear and tear? If not, it's misleading, it's dishonest, and it has no place
on a website supposedly dedicated to the "truth" about Foster's death.
>
> I spoke via phone with the production office for "Unsolved Mysteries".
> Marcel was literally the only document examiner they could find in the
> country who would take the position that the note was genuine. Every
> other examiner, including the four on the "Unsolved Mysteries" segment
> on Foster were convinced it's a forgery. Marcel was invited on the show
> for "balance".
I don't know who the fourth examiner was, but I do know that Matley's
credentials are far stronger than the three SI panel members _combined_.
But we'll hash all this out soon.