Vincent Foster Murder Evidence: Hear U.S. Attorney Miguel Rodriquez

When you go to the URL for this article and click on the "read responses" button, you will find that the WSJ published my response, but did so with heavy editing.

Below is the complete version of what I sent to the WSJ. However, it is good that they published as much as they did. I doubt that the WSJ will ever cover this story to the extent that WorldnetDaily has covered it, or even to the extent NewsMax has covered it, but this is a small victory for the truth.

Regards,

Allan J. Favish

[Begin Full Text of AJF Response]

In "Beyond Fiske," (Aug. 16) the WSJ reprints an editorial from July 5, 1994
about Robert Fiske's investigation of the death of the late Vincent Foster,
Jr. Supporting Fiske's conclusion, the editorial states: "Barring some
unimaginable new disclosure, we find no reason to doubt that the former
Deputy White House Counsel committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park, as first
reported." Although not explicitly stated, it appears that the WSJ feels
the same way today about the matter as it did in July 1994.

If so, it is very unfortunate. There have been very significant disclosures
since that editorial was written proving that Fiske's report and the 1997
report on the death by Kenneth Starr's Office of Independent Counsel cannot
be trusted. Once the credibility of those reports is destroyed, all that
is left to support a belief in the government's story is the raw evidence
itself, not the opinion of Fiske or Starr.

Nearly 3,000 pages of that evidence, mostly documents generated by the
United States Park Police and FBI investigations of the death, were publicly
released by the Senate Whitewater Committee in January 1995. Supposedly
Fiske and Starr based their reports on these official documents and others
that have not yet been publicly released. Yet, when those documents are
analyzed along with other documents that were later discovered in the
National Archives or released pursuant to Freedom of Information Act
requests and lawsuits, it becomes apparent that there is not enough evidence
to support the government's suicide-in-the-park story and more investigation
is needed.

I am an attorney prosecuting a federal Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit
for photographs from that investigation against the Office of Independent
Counsel in federal district court in Los Angeles. On July 12, 2000, a 2-1
decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said:
"Favish, in fact, tenders evidence and argument which, if believed, would
justify his doubts" about the government's official conclusion. See Favish
v. Office of Independent Counsel, 217 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir. 2000). The
court's qualification of "if believed" is significant because I did not ask
the court to believe me. The evidence I tendered consists entirely of
official government documents, mostly from the United States Park Police and
the FBI. My credibility is not at stake; the government's is. The major
media did not report the Ninth Circuit's statement to the public.

On January 11, 2001, the district court ordered the OIC to publicly release
five original Polaroid photos of Foster's body. That also was ignored by
the major media. That decision is on appeal.

My appellate briefs document the following about the government Foster
investigation.

The evidence does not show what one would expect from a .38 caliber
high-velocity gunshot into the mouth: massive amounts of blood coming out of
the nose and mouth, broken teeth from the recoil of the gun, a significant
hole in the back of the head with lots of blood, brain and bone spatter on
the surrounding area.

To the contrary, a United States Park Police officer who examined Foster's
body at the park testified that he saw a "pool of blood under his head, gun
in his right hand, appeared to be a .38 caliber revolver, no sign of a
struggle, no other obvious signs of trauma to the body." This same officer
reported that there "was no blood spatter on the plants or trees surrounding
decedent's head," and testified that he did not observe any "blowout" from
the back of the head. Additionally, an FBI report of its interview with the
only medical doctor to view Foster's body at the park says, "no blood was
recalled on the vegetation around the body." Starr omits these observations
from his report.

Although the official government story holds that Foster was found with a
gun in his hand, the first person who officially found Foster's body said
that there was no gun in his hand. This witness testified that Foster's
hands were palms up and empty. In concluding that this witness "simply did
not see the gun that was in Mr. Foster's hand," Starr cited the witness' FBI
interview in which the witness said that it was possible there was a gun on
the rear of Foster's hand that he might have missed.

But Starr failed to tell the public that one of the body site photos shows a
gun in Foster's right hand that eliminates the possibility of there having
been a gun on the rear of Foster's hand that went unseen by the witness.
This photo, leaked to ABC-TV and published in Time magazine, shows Foster's
gun-hand palm down, while the witness said the hand was palm up and empty.
This photo shows the gun underneath the palm of Foster's right hand with the
rear of Foster's hand facing up. The gun is in a position where the witness
could not have missed it if it was there when he saw Foster's hand. This
means that the only possible condition which the witness agreed would
account for his not seeing the gun, is a condition that did not occur.

Starr also failed to tell the public that the witness testified that his
concession that he could have missed seeing the gun was based on the FBI's
representation that Foster's hands were palms-up with the gun concealed on
the other side of Foster's hand. The witness further testified that the FBI
would not show him the photo. But when he subsequently saw it, he testified
that it was not a picture of what he saw. Therefore, Starr failed to tell
the public that he relied upon a statement by the witness that the witness
later testified was based on a false representation by the FBI.

Identification of the gun was a major problem for the government. Starr
failed to tell the public that his predecessor, Robert Fiske, who also
issued a report on the death, used an invalid gun identification from
Foster's widow, Lisa. Nine days after the death, the Park Police showed
Lisa a photo of the official death gun, which is blued steel and appears
black. Lisa reportedly said she could not identify the gun because it was
not silver. The FBI said that ten months later, in May 1994, it showed Lisa
the official death gun and she "believes that the gun found at Fort Marcy
Park may be the silver gun which she brought up with her" from Arkansas.
Fiske then reported, without mentioning the gun colors, that Lisa identified
the official death gun.

Fiske's use of Lisa's statement clearly was deceptive. If she was shown the
black official death gun at this May 1994 interview and simultaneously
identified it as being silver-colored, then she failed to give a valid
identification of the black official death gun. Likewise, if she was shown
a silver-colored gun at this interview, then she failed to give a valid
identification of the black official death gun. No matter what color gun
Lisa was shown at this interview, given her reported response, it was
deceptive for Fiske to use her response as if it were a valid identification
of the black official death gun.

Starr failed to explain why Fiske used Lisa's invalid gun identification.
Starr also failed to explain why, if Lisa was shown the black official death
gun in May 1994, she reportedly simultaneously described it as silver,
without any of the FBI agents or attorneys present saying anything about
such a bizarre response. Starr also failed to tell the public that Lisa's
reason for not identifying the gun in the photo shown to her nine days after
the death was because it was not silver. Also absent from Starr's report is
that the FBI expressly stated that Lisa believed the gun shown to her in May
1994 was silver.

The effect of Starr's omissions are to obscure the possibility that Lisa was
deliberately shown the wrong gun -- a silver gun -- in May 1994 so that
there would be something in the record that could be presented as a Foster
family member's "identification" of a gun, without telling the public that
she had identified a gun that was not found with the body.

Starr also failed to explain why Park Police Chief Robert Langston falsely
told the public at a press conference on Aug. 10, 1993, that the official
death gun had been identified by the Foster family as one of Foster's guns.
By the time of the press conference, Lisa had not identified the black
official death gun, in part because it was the wrong color, and Foster's
sister, Sharon Bowman, failed to give a credible identification of the
official death gun. By Aug. 10, 1993, nobody in the Foster family
identified the black official death gun as one previously belonging to
Foster. Indeed, Fiske and Starr failed to tell the public that largely
because of its color, the black official death gun could not be identified
by Foster's nephew, who was the surviving family member most familiar with
the family's guns.

Starr's discussion of the medical evidence also is deceptive. The official
government story says there was no neck wound and that Foster shot himself
in the mouth, leaving a one by one and a quarter inch exit hole in the back
of the head, three inches from the top. Starr dismisses a report by one of
the paramedics that there was a small bullet-like entrance wound on the
right side of Foster's neck.

But the only medical doctor to view Foster's body at the park wrote a
two-page report that is internally inconsistent. On the first page it
states that the death shot was "mouth-head," but on the second page it
states that the death shot was "mouth to neck." Moreover, the report
appears to have been improperly altered. Underneath the "mouth-head"
language on page one, there appears to be the remnants of a "whited out"
four-letter word that was replaced with the word "head" slightly to the
right of the concealed word.

Both Fiske and Starr failed to tell the public all the facts about this
medical report. Fiske completely ignored it and Starr quoted from the
apparently altered language, while failing to tell the public about the
apparent alteration, and about the unaltered language mentioning a neck
wound. Starr also failed to explain why the report appears to be altered
and what, if anything, is written underneath the apparent alteration.

Another FOIA lawsuit of mine revealed that the OIC's copy of this medical
report does not contain the apparent remnants of a "whited out" word,
thereby making the OIC's copy of this report different from the copy that
was later obtained from the Virginia Office of Chief Medical Examiner.
Despite this evidence that raises the question of whether the Virginia
authorities presented the OIC with a fraudulently altered version of the
medical report, the OIC and the Department of Justice have given no
indication that they have investigated that possibility.

The medical evidence was further distorted because Starr falsely implied
that the Park Police observed the entire autopsy when they did not do so.
Starr reported that several Park Police officers observed the autopsy, and
quoted one of the officers who wrote that after he briefed the autopsy
doctor, the doctor "started the autopsy." But Starr failed to tell the
public that the next sentence in the officer's report says, "Prior to our
arrival, the victim's tongue had been removed as well as parts of the soft
tissue from the soft pallet (sic)." Starr's omission is significant given
that this is an autopsy of a man who allegedly fired a gun into his mouth
while leaving behind unresolved questions about a right-side neck wound
whose track might have gone through the tongue and soft palate.

Additionally, Starr failed to tell the public that the autopsy doctor
violated policy by beginning the autopsy before the police arrived, and that
the autopsy doctor refused to tell the police the identity of his assistant.

Two days after the autopsy, an FBI agent sent a memo to the director of the
FBI stating, "Preliminary results include the finding that a .38 caliber
revolver, constructed from two different weapons, was fired into the
victim's mouth with no exit wound." Neither Fiske nor Starr mentioned this
memo. Nor did they explain the conditions that would make it possible for a
.38 revolver to be fired in the mouth without making an exit wound. Also
unmentioned is whether the FBI director did anything to resolve the
contradiction between this memo and the official autopsy report of an exit
wound. The memo was released in response to a FOIA lawsuit.

Starr also omitted important evidence about Foster's arrival at the park.
Starr mentioned four people who were in the park at a time when Foster was
probably already dead and his gray car should have been in the park's
parking lot. Starr mentioned that one of these people reported seeing a
brown car, not Foster's gray car. But Starr failed to mention that the
other three people also reported seeing a brown car, not Foster's gray car.
Yet, Starr inexplicably concluded that Foster's gray car was in the lot at
this time.

At this point you might be comparing Starr's OIC with O.J. Simpson's
criminal defense team, and you would have good reason. Simpson's
discredited expert witness, Dr. Henry Lee, was hired by Starr. Starr said
Lee's examination of Foster's clothes revealed no evidence that Foster's
body had been dragged. But Starr failed to tell the public that, according
to the Park Police, they dragged Foster's body when it began to slide down
the hill during an examination. Starr failed to mention these Park Police
descriptions of the body sliding up and down the dirt path and failed to
reconcile them with Lee's apparently erroneous conclusion.

When the WSJ wrote its editorial in July 1994, it did not have the benefit
of being able to compare Fiske's report with the government's own official
investigative record. That excuse is no longer available. To maintain its
own credibility, the WSJ now must explain the basis for its apparent present
support of the government's story. This is especially true given that the
OIC and the DOJ continue to this day to file documents in federal court that
fail to refute the facts as I've presented them and fail to provide a
plausible version of the suicide story. By reprinting the July 1994
editorial without confronting the official facts, the WSJ perpetrates a
fraud upon its readers.

My appellate briefs and other documents, including the OIC's and the DOJ's
responses, are at my website (http://members.aol.com/allanf8702/page1.htm).
My efforts would not have been possible without the work of researchers like
Hugh Sprunt, Hugh Turley, Michael Rivero, Rita Snook, Ray Heizer, John
Clarke, Reed Irvine and others.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Beyond Fiske

Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

(Editor's note: This editorial originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal, July 5, 1994.)

After spending some time with Robert Fiske's first Whitewater report, we have two sets of reactions. Naturally we want to defend our own record against its critics, but more broadly we see the public policy point that Mr. Fiske's criminal investigation is no substitute for political accountability.

The bulk of the report is devoted to forensic evidence on the events surrounding Vincent Foster's death. Here the report is extensive and persuasive. Barring some unimaginable new disclosure, we find no reason to doubt that the former deputy White House counsel committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park, as first reported. This should end much mystery and speculation, and here Mr. Fiske has performed a public service.

Mr. Fiske's question-stilling probe, we'd note in our own behalf, is precisely what we suggested immediately after Mr. Foster's death. For this suggestion--since we'd also been the first to question the mores of the administration's Rose Law Firm transplants--we were pilloried by the White House and our critics in the press. Yet rumor and speculation were entirely predictable results of confused responsibility, leaps to conclusions and a profusion of loose ends. When Lloyd Cutler portrays the White House as a victim of rumor, he should remember that Mr. Fiske located the witness who found the body thanks to G. Gordon Liddy.

Even more to the point, we first learn from Mr. Fiske that before Mr. Foster ever left Arkansas he'd experienced brief periods of depression and panic attacks marked by heavy sweating and a strained voice. And that in 1992 he'd confided to his physician that he was feeling depressed and anxious. The account of his last weeks does indeed paint a picture of clinical depression; much mystery and confusion would have been avoided if the complete facts had been released promptly instead of nearly a year after the death.

Yet after stalling on its promises to release the original Park Service Police report, the Justice Department has in recent weeks hotly resisted our freedom of information suit concerning it; with Mr. Fiske's support, it has refused to submit the earlier report to a judge to see what might be released without compromising investigation now completed and partly reported.

Mr. Fiske's report, too, provides a platform for shedding further blame on us, namely in interviews directed at dismissing the chance that Whitewater "triggered" Mr. Foster's depression. We are accustomed to controversy, but this obscures the central point that depression is a disease. It is not caused by travel office scandals, press criticism or the normal stress of public or private life. It is caused by biochemical changes in the brain, and while these are poorly understood they are treatable. When we wrote that if Mr. Foster's death had purely personal roots we would join the mourning, we had in mind that posthumously he might do for depression what Betty Ford did for alcoholism. But advancing such understanding, we suppose, is not an independent counsel's writ.

Which brings us to the issues of public policy.

Foremost among them is the need for the American public to know what Whitewater and its attendant events were all about. The tenor of the Fiske report should make it clear to a lot of people that the public's need to know and the charge of a special counsel are by no means the same thing.

Mr. Fiske may choose to pursue only indictable offenses. This is fine by us, but the implication is that whatever else he may discover would then be swept into a sealed bin called "insufficient" evidence, with Rule 6-e cited as forbidding him from ever revealing its contents. But it's also true that an election is coming, and it follows that the public should know what its government is up to. A criminal investigation cannot fill this need.

That is--or should be--the purview of Congressional oversight. That has been the function of such hearings stretching back throughout our history--until this. Teapot Dome, yes; the Pecora hearings, yes; the Kefauver hearings, yes; Watergate, yes; Iran-Contra, yes. But for Whitewater an increasingly desperate Democratic majority has erected a series of roadblocks and restrictions.

Under this strategy, Henry Gonzalez's House Banking hearings will call as their first witness Special Counsel Robert Fiske, who will once again describe all the things he doesn't want anyone to talk about for fear this information might mar his pursuit of an imprisonable felon somewhere. Thereupon, all relevant parties who follow him before the committee will read from the same script by taking the Fiske. Like the Fiske interviews, the Park Police report, the FBI report or anything else anyone actually would like to know about, their lips are sealed by the special counsel's needs.

Rep. Jim Leach, the committee's ranking minority member, has already submitted a list of witnesses he would like to call to open up the Whitewater history. It is a credible and relevant witness list. It most certainly will include inquiries into the White House-RTC contacts, which constituted the Fiske reports' biggest surprise: There were 20, not just the three acknowledged by the White House. Clearly, whatever was going on there needs to be opened up, but just as clearly we're not going to get credible answers unless the minority party is somehow empowered to responsibly pursue the issue. Perhaps the most relevant legal proceeding is Rep. Leach's lawsuit to force agencies to comply with minority requests for relevant documents; a good precedent here would do more than any independent counsel law to open government.

If in the end the Democrats thwart any such public airing, voters should hold the majority party responsible in the fall elections. As to Mr. Fiske himself, we trust no one understands better than he that the office of independent counsel, which has just been reauthorized and signed into law, is no substitute for an open system that conveys to the American people an understanding of something that has vital relevance to their political interests. The Democrats, invoking the special counsel at every turn, are now trying to pretend that Mr. Fiske is a substitute for the political process. Unless he wants to advance the coverup, he should not let them get away with it.

Dying to Tell: The Mysterious Deaths of Clinton Colleagues

April 14, 1998

The mysterious deaths of a number of people, linked in one way or another to Bill Clinton, have generated numerous conspiracy theories. But are these deaths part of an actual conspiracy ... or just coincidence? CBN News reporter Gary Lane attempts to unravel the mysteries.

Gary Lane, reporter

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Resources:

The Mighty Clinton Spin Machine, March 26

Ron Brown's Death: "Blunt Force" ... or Bullet? Feb. 13

Ron Brown's Death: Plane Crash or Pistol? Dec. 11, 1997

------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 6, 1997 -- A quiet Georgetown neighborhood in the nation's capital is stunned by a gangland-style murder at the Starbucks' café ?. One of the three victims, assistant manager Mary "Caity" Mahoney, an avowed lesbian, had served as an intern at the White House. Was it robbery ... or a hit?

November 1996, The U.S. Commerce Department -- The partially nude body of 14-year employee Barbara Wise is found in a fourth floor office following Thanksgiving weekend.

"She worked in the same section as John Huang," says Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch. "She was found naked in an office after a long weekend at the Commerce Department. Does one die naked in a government office? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out something's being covered up."

District of Columbia police say the Commerce Department death is no mystery at all: the DC medical examiner determined that 48-year-old Barbara Wise died of natural causes. DC homicide detectives refused to talk to CBN News about the Mahoney case, saying the Starbucks murders are still under investigation.

But from Arkansas to Washington, DC, unanswered questions surrounding the mysterious deaths of people connected to Bill Clinton continue to cast a cloud over the White House.

"I can't think of any other President that this has happened to," says conservative analyst James Dale Davidson. "It may be that we know more about people in the nether reaches of his association than we do about some other Presidents, but I don't think that Jimmy Carter had a lot of associates that died mysteriously."

The most notable in the Clinton administration? The deaths of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster.

Foster's body was found in Ft. Marcy Park in July 1993. Investigators for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr concluded that Foster committed suicide. Davidson is unconvinced.

"The fact that the photographs are disappearing, the x-rays were allegedly taken and disappeared, the fact that all the things that you would do if you were trying to cover up and disguise the evidence have been done in this case, where the testimony of the witnesses was changed in the FBI reports -- it doesn't add up," says Davidson. "The Hardy Boys would laugh at this report; it's totally ridiculous."

A majority of Americans apparently also have their doubts. A recent poll conducted for the Western Journalism Center by Zogby International found that 68 percent of those polled were either not sure that Foster committed suicide or believe he was murdered. And 77 percent of those questioned would not disagree that a cover-up of Foster's death had taken place.

In the death of former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, the former head of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology photography unit, Kathleen Janoski, alleges that evidence of a possible homicide was intentionally destroyed.

Brown was on a trade mission to Croatia when his military plane slammed into the side of a mountain. Although military pathologists noticed a possible bullet hole in Brown's skull, no autopsy was ever performed.

"Surely he should be given as much attention as any Joe Blow would get if he were on the streets of Washington found dead," says radio talk show host Alan Keyes. "An autopsy would be performed. So, we have a cabinet officer die, and we don't want to do him the courtesy of making sure what the truth is."

Nolanda Hill, Brown's former business partner and confidante says that Brown met with the President just days before he was sent on the trade mission to Croatia. She alleges that Brown told the President that he was going to cut a deal with the independent counsel who was investigating him.

Hill testified in court that First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton decided that Commerce Department trade missions would be used to raise money for the Democratic party. She alleges that business executives were required to pay $50,000 to join the trips.

The deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster have been the most publicized, but there are others. The internet is abuzz with a long list of the so-called "Whitewater body count." Among those on the list is Victor Raisner, the national finance co-chair for Clinton for President. He died in an airplane crash in July 1992. Then there's Paul Tulley, who was on the Democratic National Committee. He was found dead of unknown causes in his hotel room in September 1992. And then there is John Parnel Walker. An investigator for the RTC, he was looking into the Whitewater scandal. He fell from the top of the Lincoln Towers building.

Also on the list:

* Jim Wilhite, former vice chairman of Arkla, Inc., the Arkansas/Louisiana gas company, a friend of President Clinton and a former chief of staff Mac McClarty. He was killed in a 1992 skiing accident.

* Stanley Heard, a Hot Springs, Arkansas, chiropractor was killed in a plane crash in 1993. He reportedly treated members of Clinton's family.

* Paul Wilcher, a Washington attorney who was investigating federal corruption and drug running in Mena, Arkansas. He was found dead in his Capitol Hill apartment in July 1993.

* The body of Kathy Ferguson was found near Little Rock in May 1994. She was the ex-wife of trooper Danny Ferguson. He was named as a defendant in the Paula Jones lawsuit five days after his ex-wife's death. Ferguson's death was ruled a suicide, but friends who worked with her at the Baptist Memorial Hospital say they believe she was murdered because she knew about Clinton's alleged sexual infidelities.

About a month after Ferguson's death, the body of her boyfriend, Sherwood police officer Bill Shelton, was found on Ferguson's grave. It was ruled another suicide.

* And then there's the story of Jerry Parks, who was gunned down gangland-style while returning from church in September 1993. Parks worked security for the Clinton campaign in 1992. His son Gary says his dad was investigating Mr. Clinton's sex life; Little Rock police have yet to solve the Parks murder.

Coincidence or deliberate? No one really knows for sure, but unanswered questions and incomplete investigations only seem to help perpetuate conspiracy theories.

When the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke last January, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton lashed out against the so-called right wing conspiracy. But some of those who fear the capabilities of the Clinton administration are not right-wingers. Take Monica Lewinsky, for example -- she's hardly considered a conservative.

Lewinsky reportedly told Linda Tripp that Tripp and her children were in danger if Tripp did not give testimony favorable to the President concerning the Kathleen Willey episode.

And Nolanda Hill was a liberal Democratic insider.

"She told me and a colleague at Judicial Watch that in her view, based on statements that were made by Brown, Ron believed that this administration was capable of killing people," says Klayman.

From sexual misconduct to unexplained deaths, Alan Keyes says all these allegations erode the confidence Americans need in their leaders and institutions.

"Liberty cannot survive on lies," he says. "It cannot survive on deceit, and if we tolerate it, then we will lose our liberty for sure."

At least in the case of Ron Brown, why aren't Americans aggressively pushing Congress and the Justice Department to get at the truth? James Dale Davidson has a theory:

"We're in the point of a hillbilly song, and the line was, 'We really don't want to know.' I really don't want to know. People sometimes shy away from unhappy truths."

clinton: "There isn't a shred of evidence."

15. Mr. Grafeld told me, referring to Judicial Watch's allegations that Commerce Department trade mission seats were sold in exchange for campaign contributions, that "(Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel) Klayman is right on target" but that he believes that the trade mission issues were "only the tip of the iceberg -- that the really big money went towards Presidential access." Mr. Grafeld indicated to me that he believes that Ms. Moss was asking for political contributions in exchange for seats on Commerce Department trade missions, likely at the direction of Hillary Rodham Clinton, but that documents showing this illegal activity had "left the building." In fact, there were effectively no security procedures at the Commerce Department to ensure that sensitive and secret documents and/or any documents which might evidence criminal activity stayed in the building. The purported letters referenced by Mr. Grafeld and Nolanda Hill could easily have "left the building" absent sufficient procedures to secure them.

---from DECLARATION OF SONYA STEWART

WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 (UPI) -- President Clinton [upon the discovery of the body of Barbara Wise in the Commerce Department offices] briefly interrupted his Thanksgiving holiday weekend at Camp David Friday with a quick trip to the White House to gather data...and then returned to the mountaintop retreat...

The president, still suffering from a raspy voice, and ordered by his doctor to rest his vocal chords, carried a briefcase as he strolled to the waiting helicopter to return to Camp David. He wore a leather jacket and was followed by an aide carrying a huge box ...

Clinton reviewing inaugural plans, Helen Thomas, 29-NOV-1996

connect the dots, Helen...

"I did not have any involvement in the pardons that were granted or not granted," insisted Sen. KnowNothing, seeming to forget her presence at the New-Square/Oval-Office schmooze that secured pardons for the four Hasidic felons who set up a phony school in Brooklyn to swindle the government out of millions intended for the poor.

Mia T, Sen. KnowNothing Victim Clinton Effectively Pleads 5TH in Press Conference by Invoking Spousal Privilege

clinton: "There isn't a shred of evidence."

Actually, of course, when the Clintons say there is "no evidence" of their wrongdoing, there is in reality an abundance of admissible evidence of whatever they are trying to deny. Consider, for example, the following standard jury instructions on the admissibility of evidence:

Jury INSTRUCTION NO. 2.00

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; INFERENCES

Evidence means testimony, writings, material objects or other things presented to the senses and offered to prove the existence or non-existence of a fact.

Evidence is either direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence proves a fact without an inference and, if true, conclusively establishes that fact. Circumstantial evidence proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn.

An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts established by the evidence.

The law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence as to the degree of proof required; each is a reasonable method of proof. Each is respected for such convincing force as it may carry

Jury INSTRUCTION NO. 2.26

ADMISSIONS IMPLIED FROM SILENCE OR EVASION

If you find that following the incident involved in this case that a party (1) [failed to reply] [or] [made an evasive answer] to a statement concerning such party's conduct in relation to the incident ;(2) heard and understood the statement; (3) had a reasonable opportunity to reply; (4) was in such physical and mental condition that a reasonable person in such condition could be expected to reply; and (5) the statement was made under such circumstances that it would normally call for an answer, you may, but are not required to, infer that the party adopted the statement or believed it to be true.

If you do not find each of the five circumstances to exist you must disregard any evidence of the party's silence or evasive answer

****

That the Clinton's accepted massive donations from Denise Rich, that plausibly were channeled from her ex-husband on whose behalf she sought a pardon from Clinton. The fact that a Clinton crony was involved in the last minute scheme to by-pass standard procedures for scruting of a pardon application. The fact that it is indefensible to pardon a multimillionaire fugitive on any grounds when he is unwilling to present his case in court on the merits, all combined with the fact that Clinton has been unable to present a coherent explanation of why he gave the pardon, even mistakenly, and the fact that such explanations as he has given are inconsistent and incomplete, these facts are all credible, admissible evidence of a criminal conspiracy to solicit and accept a bribe in return for undertaking an official act.

10 Posted on 02/17/2001 14:41:45 PST by Gail Wynand

HEY, HEY MARY JO!

So many pardons 4 sale.

So many rodhams & clintons to nail.

Hey, hey Mary Jo!

Can you spell R-I-C-O?

THE INTERMINABLE clintons It's time to take out the trash... A Senate en passant capture is THE MOVE...

NEW AUDIO! Hear Bill Bennett (PARDONGATE) epilogue .

CLINTON LEGACY OF LYNCHING

evidence of consciousness of guilt
at Ron Brown's funeral

missus clinton's REAL virtual office update
Q ERTY8^ping

Must! read later.

*wheels grinding slowly, but exceedingly fine...*

Why am I thinking Hillary while reading this? I suggest another inquiry - look under that sprayed mass of bleached blonde hair for a telltale 666.

Why am I thinking Hillary while reading this?

Well, because you are probably of 'sound mind and body', that's why---unlike both of the Clintoons.

I suggest people read the 2 books Christopher Ruddy has published on Vince Fosters 'Murder' and suggest it 'wasn't one'.

OOPS! should've read "...and attempt to suggest it wasn't one."

This is something I've had in my personal bookmarks for quite some time (I'm actually quite surprised it's still active)...Hillary's Call. Is it HRC?? It doesn't sound like her to me, but I hardly ever listen to the shrew, so I'm not an expert. Perhaps others who are more familiar with her screech can verify or debunk. Make up your own mind...

Will check this out tonight at home where I can listen to it. Thanks.

Thats a tough one beanie, I'm at a loss, but lets ask someone that might. Hey Shrew, check out post #8... think it sounds like your namesake?..;)

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Vince owned a silver colored stainless steel or nickel plated automatic.

I also seemt o tremember there being two photos of vince holding a gun.
One a revolver, the other an automatic, neither silver in color.
But, I wasn't really paying much attention at the time so I might be mistaken.

But then again, considering they were still planting Vince's body when he was initially found as shown by the witness saying no gun was seen at first, there may actually be two photos in existence.
Especially since they searched his body three or five times and didn't find his car keys.
Then they go back and huddle, then miraculously the keys appear in Vince's pocket.
Never mind the so-called suicide note, not in Vince's handwriting, that appeared out of nowhere in his briefcase in shreds.

Hmm..

The meeting held in Bernard Nusbaum office that followed the raid on Foster's white house office, was damning enough for me.. Yet the press didn't flinch one bit. Or the box of records that disappeared into the West Wing full of evidence was nothing but old bingo tickets as far as the press was concerned, but they never even asked the press secretary about them in any press conference ... But make any statement that could be misinterpreted by any partisan and your name starts with BUS ...any you had better duck and cover, or resign.

I just listened to the audio clip. This was the first time I had heard anyone discuss the details of the case and the attempts by the media and the government to conceal and destroy evidence. It's damning, but just like everything else the Clintons got away with, the truth will never come to light. We all know Vince Foster didn't take his own life.
Trick is to penetrate that teflon shield they built around themselves. But how many will also meet Foster's fate in that attempt?

Chilling.. I really hate to think of just how much those people have gotten away with... Just remember, they will answer for what they have done..someday!

Regarding the tragic and (un)timely death of Vince Foster,
note clinton's upper-right comment and the translation..

The truth from psychopaths like the clintons comes in inadvertent disgorgements.

the translation
(requires Flash Player 6)
Flash Player 6 download

Just remember, they will answer for what they have done..someday!

I hope you're right! I hope I'm still around to see it.

in memoriam bump

Bumping for the 13th anniversary of Vincent Foster's death