Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintons - the evidence you never saw

ROTFLMAO!!!!! You Clinton apologists are really funny. Right............ All these women are just money grubbers. Bill Clinton was really telling the truth....



Where are all the "money grubbers" going after any and all Presidents? Where were they under Carter? Where were they under Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, Nixon, Ford????????????????????

Here's a clue - maybe it's because CLINTON IS ACTUALLY GUILTY OF WHAT THEY'RE ACCUSING HIM OF. Maybe since he was convicted for lying under oath and caught on audio tape with Gennifer Flowers telling her to lie to everyone about their affair...he might just be guilty.

You people live a delusional fantasy world.

Your bias is showing all to clearly. Half the purported "facts" are subjective opinions of people paid to come forth. Follow the money as you folks are so fond of saying. Any time someone is paid to say things - anything they say is cast into doubt (in my mind).

Adultry is a matter between the adults involved - and quite frankly should have been kept that way. It has nothing to do with his ability to govern. Is he a womanizer? Of course. Is it good? Well, no - it's hell on his family. I would have divorced him but, that's just me. Is it critical to his ability to govern? I doubt it. I am not so naive as to expect lily white conduct of our leaders or care - as long as they can do the job. I would rather have that then a spotless politician who is incompetent.

The Clinton's are lying scum. This is not a comment on their actions but on their state of being.

Be honest for once.

Are you really this naive? We had a Republican led Congress with an agenda: get Clinton.

The sheer volume of money spent - for pathetically small results - should tell you that.

Since you like inconsistencies, here's one for you, in 1997, Broaddrick filed an affadavit with Paula Jones' lawyers saying Clinton did not assault her. In 1998, Broaddrick changed her tune and told Kenneth Starr's FBI investigators that she was raped. Interesting, using the same logic you apply to the Foster case, the inconsistency automatically makes her a liar.

http://www.slate.com/id/1002027/

Who are you trying to fool? Using your own particular brand of circular reasoning, you've done everything but come out and scream Bill Clinton is a murderer.

He lied about adultery, that makes him a potential murderer. Quite a leap, makes sense to me. Oh boy.

No, it is the only logical reason - since it was done after the fact and since he has a conflict of interest. I'll explain further below.

How could they view it as reasonable doubt? If they were viewing it as mere reasonable doubt - then they're refuting your original point that the FBI and Park Police were qualified and accurate. Why wasn't it good enough if those folks were alleged experts? Doesn't match.

And again, if there were reasonable doubts raised - there should be a specific description of just what those doubts were. So why, precisely, did they feel that the FBI agent and the Park Police officer's analysis were questionable?

Straw Man. The Park Police officer was not a qualified or certified handwriting expert. Now, he could be right, but since he had no professional qualifications or legitimate training in the field, it would be less likely. The FBI agent was only basically qualified, and violated standard handwriting analysis procedures, not only of the profession in general, BUT OF THE FBI'S OWN PROCEDURES. He could be right also, but since he made a critical error in judgment in the analysis itself, such is highly unlikely.

You see why you're such a disingenuous, lying fraud? You desperately want to mischaracterize all of this to protect your lover Clinton.

Actually, if you read the three reports of the first group of experts, you will see that they are far more detailed and address many more anomalies than your expert chose to. They explain their findings in specific detail as well, and the note as well as other Foster handwriting samples are their to back up their conclusions. Again, your expert has a conflict of interest in the matter and there is no attempt by him to explain why his report differs so greatly with 3 other experts who equal or exceed his qualifications in the matter. Again, all 3 investigations chose to simply ignore their analysis.

So now you have 3 to 1. You have 75% saying forgery versus 25% non-forgery. That means you start a murder investigation and since Foster was involved with Whitewater and stated "It's a can of worms you don't want to open," and since numerous files were being stolen from Vince Foster's office right after his death by people hired by the Clinton's, and since Clinton fired the FBI director the day before Foster died - YOU PURSUE BILL CLINTON AS YOUR PRIMARY SUSPECT and question him under oath and ask him to take a lie detector test.

I don't hate the Clintons. The only thing being exposed in this thread is your great love of the Clintons - and your desperate need to defend them for 19+ pages. If it's such a "wacky conspiracy theory" in your opinion, just let it go. What's the big deal? Why are you vehemently defending something you consider to be a crazy idea? What are you scared of, pup? LOL.

Straw Men. Not the reasons I cited as conflict of interest. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

Certainly. One may be expertly qualified and still have a conflict of interest in the matter.

No. Again this is a Straw Man. The Park Police officer was not a qualified or certified handwriting expert. Now, he could be right, but since he had no professional qualifications or legitimate training in the field, it would be less likely. The FBI agent was only basically qualified, and violated standard handwriting analysis procedures, not only of the profession in general, BUT OF THE FBI'S OWN PROCEDURES. He could be right also, but since he made a critical error in judgment in the analysis itself, such is highly unlikely.

The proof that this was reported in the media, as the source states, and the government never refuted it.

I disagree. A President found guilty of MURDER would have been devastating to the credibility of the government and the electoral process. That a murderer was elected as President equates to "no big deal"? You've got to be kidding...

You seriously need to put down the Kool Aid.

Your bias is showing all too clearly. A desperate attempt to protect the politician that you love so dearly.

Look at the Clintons' bank accounts...

Until they stop lying, they are liars. I wish they would stop, but I'll call them liars until they do.

So you admit that the inconsistencies I've pointed out in the Foster case are accuate... ROTFL. I love it!!!!

Not until you consider the nature of rape and the fact that many women, due to overpowering guilt or shame, usually wait too long to report the crime, or change their story. It's an emotionally devastating event. There have been numerous anomalies involving the report of rape by women over the years.

I was addressing Popeye's naive implication that Clinton is not constantly pursuing women.

And the problem is THEY'RE TRYING TO GET A PERSON WHO HOLDS THE MOST POWERFUL POSITION IN THE WORLD. A person who can fire the head of the federal law enforcement office and put in his own appoitment. A person who can pardon himself from any crime. You're trying to make it out to be a very simple matter, and it's not...

Unlike you, I don't claim to be completely unbiased. As I outlined in a prior post, I think Clinton was a relatively decent president though we must wait for history to really make an accurate assessment.

So when are you going to stop pretending you are unbiased and objective?

So, in other words, you only believe in following some money? Who paid for all these people to suddenly come forth? Who paid all their expenses? You don't find that in the least bit...odd? Of course not. Because your bias is set: he is guilty of everything alleged. Information to the contrary is disregarded. He may be guilty of somethings - certainly lying under oath but you are so set you even deny there was any sort of witchhunt.

And of course - no one else could possibly be lying

Now go ahead, call me a Clinton apologist for daring to contradict your conspiracy theory.

You are a bit misguided about how the government actually works. The Chief Executive's power is balanced by Congress and Judicial. After all, Congress brought Nixon to an accounting. That is it's job in part. You keep glossing over the fact that this was a very powerful, unified and hostile GoP Congress with a mandate: regime change and a contract with America. If they could have found him guilty of more then they did do you seriously doubt the wouldn't have? People tend to think the President is much more powerful then he is because he is one, clearly identified person, unlike Congress. But unless you have a Congress and a President that are very closely aligned - like the previous Congress and Bush, that is not often the case.

You'll jump on anything, in your attempt to further your case. Needing to do so, is indicative of how weak your argument really is, and that you're very much aware of it.

I should have said imagined inconsistencies, as opposed to the very real story changing by Broaddrick.

That's a most convenient excuse. Unless you have some evidence, to automatically assume that it applies to Broaddrick, is making another giant leap.

In fact, almost all of your points, in regard to Bill Clinton, necessitate a suspension of logic and common sense, in order to make them, even the least bit, believable. This seems to be true of all conspiracy theories, as they can't stand close scrutiny, and are wholly unable to stand on their own.

I think you'll find most of those women waited until enough money was offered to come "out" and claim "rape".

Somehow that makes those allegations very unconvincing.

I said you demonstrate your low level of intelligence constantly, and you keep proving me right... It's just pointless to try and talk any sense into you. One, because your love of Clinton is so great - not the man himself, but most of the political views he represents. Plus, you just don't want to see the Democrats damaged because of your hatred for Bush and the Republicans.

And two, because you believe you know what you're talking about, and you're clueless. Case in point, Congress ultimately didn't hold Nixon to task... He resigned to deny them impeachment. My point is that President's can thwart their will and stop criminal prosecutions. And Gerald Ford did just that by then pardoning Nixon so that Congress couldn't pursue him.

What would further investigations have uncovered? We'll never know... Nixon was pure authoritarian scum, so I have no doubt there were a lot of skeletons in his closet.

Prove that was their motive. You like to attack speculation so much, and yet you hypocritically rely on it here to save your lover Clinton.

No, I'll point out when you say something contradictory - and leave you changing your story... But wait, you just criticized Broaddrick for changing her story... LOL.

I love how you word this... It reveals so much. "All of my points IN REGARD TO BILL CLINTON..." ROTFL. In regard to other people, they're accurate, but not dear, sweet Bill Clinton...

Again, you Clinton apologists are funny. You'll use any means necessary to defend your former master.

Decent President... So in other words, you thought he did a pretty good job. You'd like for history to give him a thumbs up - especially since you voted for him, or would have voted for him if you were old enough... I still think you're a teenager.

Anyway, being proven as being behind the murder of one of his staff members would kind of destroy that image...now wouldn't it?

I am not biased in favor of either of the two major parties, unlike you. I wouildn't mind seeing Bush or Cheney investigated further.

No, that's not what I said at all.

Ah....... So someone has paid these women? They haven't existed for any other President, but for your dear lover Clinton, someone must be paying them because Clinton is such a great guy... ROTFL.

If you claim they were paid, THEN PRODUCE AND PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE.

More of your irrational crap. No, it doesn't mean that no one else could be lying, but it doesn't mean that Bill Clinton isn't a proven, convicted liar on multiple counts. If other people are lying in your opinion, then YOU NEED TO PRODUCE AND PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THEY LIED. That evidence is conclusive with Bill Clinton. We know he will lie repeatedly to cover his ass.

I'll rightly call you a Clinton apologist, because you are one. Again, here you are for 20 pages defending this man non-stop, against information you claim is utterly baseless. If it's baseless, then why bother? I rest my case.

I'm an independent. I actually like certain Republicans and dislike certain Democrats. I am a liberal. Obviously. But there are certain conservative and even libertarian viewpoints I am in agreement with. Unlike you - I don't think I'm an ideologue.

Do I hate Bush and the "neocons" who comprise much of his administration? You bet. And unlike you - I'm honest enough to admit it.

Do I want or not want to see the Democrats damaged? If I feel if individuals conducted themselves badly enough I want them out - as individuals - but with all politicians, of all parties - I think it is important to look at the whole picture not just judge them on one small piece. Are you even capable of overcoming your hatred enough to do that? I doubt it. You can't even admit hatred.

It's especially important to make those determinations on sound evidence - not conspiracy theories, not internet hearsay, amateur detective work and innuendos, not witchhunts. Sound evidence says Clinton perjured himself. The rest is bull**** until proven in a court of law. Remember - what the law says - innocent until proven guilty or do you think it only applies to some people (those you like?).

At this time, the only Congressmen I have serious respect for are the 27 Republicans and Democrats who voted against the war.

It doesn't matter that he resigned rather than impeached. Talk about clueless. Your quest for "justice" (better termed "vengeance") doesn't care a bit about whether an action is good for the country as a whole as long as you get your piece of meat. Nixon resigned a broken, humiliated man. Impeachment, in the context of the times (maybe you are too young to remember this) would have torn an already damaged country apart and served no good purpose. Congress did it's job. And Ford did something that took more balls and moral conscience then you could possibly understand. He made a politically unpopular decision (that would haunt his career for the rest of his life) for the good of the country. Not many people would do that.

I doubt there is a single politician out there with out skeletons. If you think so, you are incredibly naive. Your quest for public vengeance overcomes good sense and more - the concept of a greater good.

Yes, I thought he did a decent job. But as I stated, that is my opinion. I am perfectly willing to wait until history passes it's judgement as, unlike you, I am not arrogant enough to presume to know everything. Would I "like" for history to give him a thumbs up? It doesn't matter to me one way or the other as long as it's an honest accounting and we are far to close to the original events to be able to give an honest accounting. I voted for Carter too and he ended up being one of the worst President's ever (though that might be surpassed by Bush). Reality is that sometimes you vote for a good one, sometimes a bad one, sometimes it just seems that way and you have to stand back and wait for history to make it's judgement. I don't think you are old enough (or mature enough) to understand that.

No it wouldn't because I don't have an image to defend I'm perfectly happy to let history make it's call and accept it. I also try not to base my opinions on conspiracy theories, poorly constructed logic or emotional hearsay - there are just too many red flags. I also value common sense and common sense says that 3 seperate investigations including one led by and funded by a hostile GoP controlled Congress failed to come up with the conclusion you so badly want. Now who's image is really in danger here?

No. You are biased against both of the major parties. That doesn't make you unbiased.

Your posts say otherwise since you completely avoid the other money trail.

Google it yourself. You will find that GoP special interest's groups paid for all of their expenses - legal and otherwise. There is no mystery there.

Once again you are not being logical.

First: Clinton was proven in a court of law to lie once - he committed perjury. This is undeniable and inarguable. That is the only instance where you can say that with certainty as he was under oath.

Secondly - despite what those other people said, no convictions resulted from it. Therefore they were either wrong, mistaken, or lying. And keep in mind how easy it is to claim things like sexual harrassment - there is an enormous grey area that includes consent.

Those two things are the only things you can be 100% certain of in relation to lying.

The other illogical fallacy is this: just because one person is known to lie doesn't mean that the other person is telling the truth.

You started a debate and continued it for 20 pages. You just can't stand it when someone contradicts you can you? That makes me a Clinton apologist? No, I simply despise poorly constructed irrational conspiracy theories and I despise witchhunts. I did the same for Bush and 9/11. I despise him, but he certainly didn't deliberately engineer 9/11.

To bad you can't be intellectually honest and have to resort to name calling and other childish behavior.

Slight correction...I was counting back and realized I did NOT vote for Carter, I was one year too young. But, I'll admit - I so wanted to, I thought he was so honest and so ethical...I kept telling my parents vote for him!!!!

Just goes to show how naive we can be when we are young and that honest and ethical (which I still firmly believe he is) doesn't equal a good President :?

Once again, you are skewing the truth. Clinton lied to the american people on national TV - verifiable. He lied about Gennifer Flowers - verifiable due to her audio tapes. And the list goes on... One doesn't have to be under oath to be proven a liar.

You're a really sick truth-twister, Coyote. And I'm sick of reading your tripe.

You really need to take off your blue dress and your black wig, get up off your knees, and take Clinton's dogma out of your mouth.

Keep swallowing his dogma and you'll wind up in the next Starr Report when he's First Husband.

Don't say I didn't warn you...