• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hillary as Secretary Of State? Change?

Did their report directly implicate Hillary Clinton in any criminal wrongdoing?

You see folks, in gdnp's (and all these other *skeptics'*) world the ONLY way that Hillary Clinton can be directly implicated in a crime is if she admits under oath that she personally went to Foster's office and carried out documents related to Whitewater (and who knows what else) and hid them in her closet in the While House residence. That she obviously ordered someone to do that, makes it all ok. :rolleyes:

It makes you wonder what these Obama supporters may allow Obama to get away with during his administration. :D

ETA: You see, BAC, I don't have time to analyze all of the material you have posted on the matter. I don't really have the interest to read it.

You see folks, that's often the response from these folks. They won't even read the facts that are posted about these events. I understand why. It would shatter their whole partisan world view if they did. So they stick their head in the ground and PRETEND they are skeptics. PRETEND they value truth. PRETEND they believe in the rule of law. :rolleyes:
 

Because it's your claim. You do the substantiation.

You obviously claim that Hillary's conversations with Williams immediately before and after Williams searched Foster's office were innocent and unrelated

I claimed no such thing, one way or the other.

It's up to you to substantiate your claims, not for others to answer your questions.

Do you, or do you not, have any evidence that "directly implicates" Hillary Clinton?

So far, you haven't produced any.
 
You see folks, in gdnp's (and all these other *skeptics'*) world the ONLY way that Hillary Clinton can be directly implicated in a crime is if she admits under oath that she personally went to Foster's office and carried out documents related to Whitewater (and who knows what else) and hid them in her closet in the While House residence. That she obviously ordered someone to do that, makes it all ok. :rolleyes:

Some sort of conviction or even a formal charge in a court of law would certainly help. All your "say, isn't this suspicious?" dross cut and pasted from looney websites doesn't replace actual, y'know, evidence.



You see folks, that's often the response from these folks. They won't even read the facts that are posted about these events. I understand why. It would shatter their whole partisan world view if they did. So they stick their head in the ground and PRETEND they are skeptics. PRETEND they value truth. PRETEND they believe in the rule of law. :rolleyes:

I find the parallels between this and "truther" posts over in the 9-11 Conspiracy Theories subforum rather interesting.
 
You see folks, in gdnp's (and all these other *skeptics'*) world the ONLY way that Hillary Clinton can be directly implicated in a crime is if she admits under oath that she personally went to Foster's office and carried out documents related to Whitewater (and who knows what else) and hid them in her closet in the While House residence.
Witnesses would also work. Videotapes. Fingerprints.

That she obviously ordered someone to do that, makes it all ok.
Obvious as long as your initials are B-A-C. Not to anyone else here. I am surprised that you still haven't cottoned on to that fact.

It makes you wonder what these Obama supporters may allow Obama to get away with during his administration.
Wondering seems to be what you are best at.

You see folks, that's often the response from these folks. They won't even read the facts that are posted about these events.
Time is limited. Learn to present your arguments in a concise, unbiased, intelligent fashion and perhaps someone will pay attention.

Sorry, lunch is over. Work to do. :D
 
But if an alleged crime is investigated and the investigators determine that there is not enough evidence to charge someone with, much less punish them for the alleged crime, then it is not a crime.

Not if the investigators are themselves part of the coverup. You are welcome to address the many specific instances I noted where Fiske and Starr LIED about the facts and tampered with evidence in the Foster case. But I note you aren't willing to go near those allegations with a ten foot pole. You just throw out some vague defense instead.


Who is to say snopes is impartial when it comes to Clinton and democrats? I recently proved on this forum that Snopes makes claims they can't back up when they dismiss the allegations regarding William Ayers (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4173209&postcount=29 ). I have proved several times on this forum that Snopes lied about the Ron Brown case at that very link you provided (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3910399&postcount=107 ).

So why should we trust Snopes now?

Notice that Snopes doesn't address any of the facts I noted. They simply ignore them, like you are doing. I don't find that very convincing. It makes me suspect the impartiality of Snopes. You say they dismiss this because they say there were three investigations ... one by the coroner, one by Fiske and one by Starr. But Snopes fails to mentions all the questions surrounding the coroner's work. It fails to mention the many facts proving that Fiske LIED in his claims about Foster's supposed depression. It fails to mention that Starr didn't do much more than regurgitate Fiske's lies and that Starr's top investigator even resigned saying the OIC was covering up foul play.

Note that Snopes states "Vince Foster committed suicide on the night of 20 July 1993 by shooting himself once in the head, a day after he contacted his doctor about his depression." But that claim is untrue. The doctor said Foster contacted him about INSOMNIA and he proscribed medication that was 1/6th the dose normally used to treat depression.

Note that Snopes states "A note in the form of a draft resignation letter was found in the bottom of his briefcase a week after his death" but fails to mention that the briefcase in question was checked earlier in the presence of Park Police and it contained no note. Also unmentioned is that the note was torn into little pieces and that multiple experts say the note is a clear forgery. And unmentioned is the fact that the Police officer who who made the original determination that the note was written by Foster, now says it was NOT. Nor was it mentioned that the note was keep secret for over a day because Hillary didn't even want Bill to know about the note. You see, there's a lot about that note that Snopes conveniently overlooks.

Snopes claims "the 114-page summary of a three-year investigation concluded that Foster shot himself with the pistol discovered in his right hand. There was no sign of a struggle, nor any evidence he'd been drugged or intoxicated or that his body had been moved." What Snopes ignores is that many questions were left unanswered ... many facts simply ignored. Facts that suggest the body was indeed moved and the gun was planted. For starters, check this out: http://www.fbicover-up.com/proof/index.htm .

You are quite simply wrong.

No, you are not really a skeptic ... at least where matters democrat are concerned. :D
 
BAC, is it possible for you to present your points using about 1/3 of the calories of your regular beer? The wall of text is a less than useful tactic, if you are trying to make a point.

I wish there were, DR. But there are so many intertwined facts leading to suspicion in this case it is difficult not to be produce lengthy posts. And as you can see by the behavior in evidence here, that even when my posts are concise and deal with only a single set of suspicious facts, they still are ignored. These posters can't even see that Hillary calling Williams immediately prior to searching Foster's office and then their talking again minutes after Williams finished searching the office is connected. :rolleyes:

But for anyone else out there who might read this thread, hopefully I've provided some details and links they've never known existed. So now they can be skeptical about what they did read regarding the Foster matter ... and Hillary's involvement in it. And then they can ask themselves whether Obama putting Hillary into the Secretary of State slot would bode well for his administration. :rolleyes:
 
So Ken Starr is part of the conspiracy, too. Wow. Just...wow.

So Cleon, what's your explanation for Starr telling the public that the files in Filegate had been returned to the FBI, then Ray admitting years later that the files were still in the White House? :D
 
I have no idea what the phone call in question involved. If you have proof that it involved obstruction of justice, please submit it. Otherwise you lose.

Well folks, that's the logic the Clinton's relied on their entire administration. I wonder if Obama's administration will have the same pillar supporting it?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/22/scandal.glance/

Source who heard parts of the tapes says Lewinsky quotes Clinton as saying, "There is no evidence, so you can deny, deny, deny."

:D
 
Despite the somewhat misleading title of this thread, which I think many would have thought was about how appointing HRC as SecState was same old, same old politics rather change, how exactly is this not a conspiracy theory thread? It is all supposition based, what if, conjecture on topics that have been investigated multiple times. What in particular makes this any less a CT than the shooting of JFK?

And who are the "folks" BAC seems to be constantly addressing? And the "we" and "us" he is always referring to himself as one of? He seems to be pretty much alone in his beliefs here and the "folks" he seems to address are the "so called skeptics here" that he puts down with his next breath.

Oh, must not neglect to :D :D :D
 
I think it's painfully obvious how Obama's cabinet meetings are going to go. In the middle of a discussion, suddenly thunder will crash, the lights will go out, and when they come back on 3 seconds later a cabinet member will be dead with a knife in their back, and Hillary will be casually whistling on the other side of the table. Just repeat this about 13 more times and....

...oh wait, she'd have to off the Speaker, President pro tem of the Senate, and VP as well to be next in line. Never mind.
 

So, no chance that you'll quote the post where I supposedly made that claim?

Didn't think so.

What are here for, Cleon? To play word games? Let's just say that even if you aren't a democrat, you parse as well as a Clinton. :D

I'm not parsing anything. Merely challenging you to substantiate your own claims.

So far, you've been completely unable to. You have, however, been caught in a number of lies.

Which tells me that you're here just to lie out your tukhus and throw :Ds at anyone who calls you on it.
 
I find the parallels between this and "truther" posts over in the 9-11 Conspiracy Theories subforum rather interesting.

What is interesting is that you don't see that *I'm* the one acting like the anti-truthers. I'm the one linking facts that prove things. You folks are the ones avoiding them. You folks are the ones using the *truther* method of debate. For example, what characteristics do we associate with 911 *Truthers*?

1) They ignore any fact that proves them wrong. But I've addressed every single point made by my opponents on this thread. It has been YOUR side that has had to ignore factual points over and over.

2) They ignore or dismiss what real experts on the subject say. I'm the one quoting the experts as far as hand writing analysis is concerned. I'm the one quoting the witness statements gathered by Park Police and the FBI in this matter. It is YOUR side that is been ignoring or dismissing out of hand what they say.

3) They throw out red herrings and employ countless strawmen. Again, that's not a tactic I've used here. That's a tactic YOUR side in this debate seems to be employing. Whether Hillary was indicted or convicted of a crime is irrelevant to whether she actually obstructed justice by sending Williams to Fosters office to remove items. Whether or not Williams was convicted of perjury, she clearly did in her testimony before Congress.

Now I can see what you hope to do at this point. Finding yourself unable to effectively challenge the many facts I've presented, you hope to have the thread removed to the CT forum. A tactic of last resort in this case. But hopefully, the administration of this forum will see that these allegations clearly have substance and should be discussed before a Clinton again represents the US as a member of the Executive Branch.
 
Witnesses would also work. Videotapes. Fingerprints.

Well the witnesses say that Williams lied when she claimed not to have removed anything from Foster's office. The witnesses say that Filegate conspirators talked about Hillary being the mastermind behind the effort. The videotapes of Foster leaving the Whitehouse that night ARE CURIOUSLY MISSING. So are a few documents that Foster's secretary says were in his safe. And Hillary's fingerprints were found on documents she claimed not to have seen. The documents they found in Hillary's residence two years after prosecutors searched high and low for them. :D

But you go on hiding in your hole, democrat.
 
It is all supposition based, what if, conjecture on topics that have been investigated multiple times.

Not true. As the many facts I've cited on this thread show. And this has not been investigated many times. It's been ignored. By people like you who always seem to show up on threads to defend the Clintons from any allegation of misconduct beyond a bj in the Oval Office. :D

What in particular makes this any less a CT than the shooting of JFK?

That fact that I can prove Williams, Fiske, Starr and many others in the Clinton administration lied about the facts? :D

He seems to be pretty much alone in his beliefs here

Well maybe you folks "here" need yours eyes opened if you hope to maintain any credibility where skepticism is concerned. :D
 
Okay, Ken Starr and Snopes are in on the conspiracy to keep this silent, as well as every member of every investigative team and every judge that found there was no criminal activity. Who else? We need to start a list.
 
Okay, Ken Starr and Snopes are in on the conspiracy to keep this silent, as well as every member of every investigative team and every judge that found there was no criminal activity. Who else? We need to start a list.

Well, there are the obvious culprits, like the Liberal Media Elitetm.
 
Having trouble addressing the facts I cited, Lonewulf? Maybe if rank and file democrats showed a little more interest in the rule of law and truth where the Clintons were concerned, you wouldn't need to be so sensitive when I call one of you a ... democrat. :D
What's unfortunate is there are shreds of damning facts about Hillary that are buried by the morass of CT nonsense you've posted.
 
Having trouble addressing the facts I cited, Lonewulf? Maybe if rank and file democrats showed a little more interest in the rule of law and truth where the Clintons were concerned, you wouldn't need to be so sensitive when I call one of you a ... democrat. :D

I'm pretty sure that others in this thread have done a good enough job of demolishing what you've said.

By the way, I'm an independent voter. I'm not a "rank and file democrat", whatever the hell that means.

I'm all for rule of law. If the law finds something to bust Bill or Hillary Clinton on, call me and tell me. I'd be interested to know.

I'm only "so sensitive" because of the way you used that word. I mean, I'm willing to bet that most likely you're a Caucasian male. I just said this as a statement of fact.

Well, enjoy your life, you Caucasian male. I just added a hint of insult to it.

By the way, generalizing to the degree you've been doing, and the prejudice you've shown, demonstrates that political bigotry is just as humorous and prevalent as any other; especially when you tell them how they act and think. There are over 72 million registered Democratic voters. When you tell me that you can tell me what all 72 million think and how they act, then I kindly remind you that there's an offer for $1 million for such an extraordinary ability here at the JREF.
 

Back
Top Bottom