Tuesday, March 1, 2016

WHAT DO VINCE FOSTER, SCALIA HAVE IN COMMON?

THE GOVERNMENT – THE LATEST MOLE REPORT

Temecula, CA – With the media push-down of the Scalia death, the players involved all have common threads to each other. Kissinger picked Obama out for public service. Obama and Hillary were competitors for the 2008 elections before the Bilderburgs decided who would be point man after GWB ruined the country [the 'lost weekend' meeting when both candidates went missing for 72 hours].

Hillary Clinton being ahead of Obama at that point in the polls and in delegates was made to stand down, a position she clearly didn't like, so how could they get their way? Money, power, perhaps but more likely it was their inside knowledge about Vince Foster, a major skeleton in the Clinton cupboard [the closets are all full]. Scalia was part of the Foster cover-up. Scalia even hinted that he knew 'secrets' about the Bushes. All those secrets did him no good as the TPP, TISA, TTIP, and Paris Climate Accord come forward to rid America of its individual rights of sovereignty.

How does the government get away with this crap and people not catch on? After the jump we reveal the Vince Foster [Clinton hit] testimony showing the sidestep and the 17 Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin. You see, strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.
In its article about the controversy around his death, The Washington Post describes recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as, “The man known for his elegant legal opinions and profound intellect….” Post columnist George Will on the same day, in his usual faux-authoritative manner, declared Scalia to be “…one of the most formidable thinkers among the 112 justices who have served on the court…”

Salon is even calling it “this generation’s Vince Foster on Twitter.” If, in fact, he was murdered and the murder is being covered up, one can’t help noticing the irony, in view of the eminent jurist’s performance in the Foster case.  Noticing, in fact, Scalia’s consistent opposition to openness in government, one can’t help but think that there might be poetic justice at work.  Here we see on Wikipedia a brief description of his work for the Gerald Ford administration as Assistant Attorney General for the Legal Counsel:

In the aftermath of Watergate, the Ford administration was engaged in a number of conflicts with Congress. Scalia repeatedly testified before congressional committees, defending Ford administration assertions of executive privilege regarding its refusal to turn over documents. Within the administration, Scalia advocated a presidential veto for a bill to amend the Freedom of Information Act, greatly increasing its scope. Scalia's view prevailed and Ford vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode it.

On December 3, 2003, Justice Scalia was given the opportunity to bring that supposed towering intellect of his to bear on the question of key evidence related to the manner of Foster’s death. 

Being argued before the court was the lawsuit of California attorney Allan Favish to make public some photographs of Foster’s body taken by police at the scene.  “The case arose” as Favish explains on his web site, “from my Freedom of Information Act request seeking some of the photographs taken by the Government as part of its investigation into the death of President Bill Clinton’s Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster, who was found dead in Virginia’s Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993. The Government ruled that Foster committed suicide by firing a revolver into his mouth with the bullet exiting the back of his head.”

Unfortunately for the government’s case, there is official evidence that there was a bullet wound in Foster’s neck.  One such piece of evidence is the eyewitness testimony of Fairfax County paramedic Richard Arthur.

At the end of the same week in July in which [Kenneth] Starr made his long-awaited announcement, Hugh Sprunt and the aggrieved witness, [Patrick] Knowlton, paid a visit to the National Archives in Washington to examine the latest hearing records of the Senate Whitewater Committee which were recently made available, and while they were at it, to see if there was anything that might have been missed in the earlier records of the Foster case. And, as luck would have it, there was. Dr. Donald Haut, Chief Medical Examiner of the Northern Virginia District had already had his 15 minutes of fame when he appeared on the 60 Minutes episode in which he contradicted [Christopher] Ruddy with respect to the amount of blood he saw on and around Foster's body at Fort Marcy Park. What reporter Mike Wallace did not say is that he also contradicted what he had previously said on the record and what he had told Ruddy in an interview that Ruddy had recorded. The controversy over what Haut, the official medical recorder of the scene and the only physician at Fort Marcy Park that night, did or did not see made it all the more noticeable that in the massive two volumes of Senate documents his official written incident report was missing. Well, Knowlton found it, and Sprunt, hesitant at first, quickly recognized its significance.

The first thing one would notice in reading the pre-printed form is that Haut hardly earned his money that night. In the 48 boxes under "Description of Body," which includes spaces for noting incidence of blood, among a lot of other things, everything is blank. In the 10 blocks under "Fatal Wounds (Gunshot, Stab, etc.)," same thing. Finally, under "Manner of Death: (check one only) we hit some pay dirt. The choices are "Accident," "Natural," "Suicide," "Homicide," "Undetermined," and "Pending." No doubt here. The block by "Suicide" has an "x" mark. And there beside it in the "Cause of Death" block is a short narrative in all capitals: PERFORATING GUNSHOT WOUND MOUTH- [space] HEAD. (The odd blank space is not exactly as I have shown it. It actually starts a second line.) Turning to the second page of the two-page form we find more blank spaces: "Found Dead By." nothing; "Last Seen Alive By," nothing; "Witnesses to Injury or Illness and Death," nothing. Then under the concluding "Narrative Summary of Circumstances Surrounding Death" we have this:

"JULY 20, 1993 After anonymous call was received at 18:04 hours US Park Police officers found 48 yrs Caucasian male with self-inflicted gunshot wound mouth to neck on a foot path in Marcey (sic) Park. His car was parked in the parking lot but no note was found. MEDICAL HISTORY Unknown."

Mouth to neck!?!? But didn't he say mouth-head on the first page? Yes, but there was that curious space between the words. Oh, look! A four-letter word has been incompletely mechanically "lifted off" there, it would appear. Well, what do you know? The original word sure does look a lot like "NECK."

So there you have it. Kenneth Starr just got through telling us that the death was a suicide just like Robert Fiske said it was, and the autopsy doctor upon whom Fiske relied produced a diagram showing that the bullet came out through the crown of the head, but the doctor at the park saw a neck instead of a head wound. There's certainly no confusing the neck and the crown of the head. Somebody, to make the written record of the two doctors agree, went back and "corrected" "NECK" and put "HEAD" down beside it. But this was a government worker. He did a slovenly job on the first page and overlooked the words entirely on the second page.

Justice Scalia confused the medical examiner's report by Dr. Donald Haut with the autopsy report by Dr. James Beyer.  Had Scalia even bothered to read Kenneth Starr's Report on Foster's death he would surely have known about the vital evidence of Foster's neck wound in the medical examiner's report and in the testimony of paramedic Richard Arthur, and he could not have failed to recognize its significance.   

Scalia would also have known about the intimidation of grand jury witness Patrick Knowlton, who had inconveniently testified that Foster's car was not at the park when Foster was dead.  He would have known as well that Foster did not own the gun said to have been found in his hand, that crime scene photos and x-rays had vanished, and that the FBI had obstructed justice.  All of this information was ordered included in Starr’s report by the Special Division of the U.S. Court of appeals that appointed Starr.

Scalia also repeated the popular error that there were five investigations.  The only investigations were done by the FBI,  first with the Park Police, then with Robert Fiske, and finally with the same FBI agents with Kenneth Starr.  The Senate Banking Committee held hearings, but under Resolution 229, agreed not to investigate Foster's death.  The other report that has been cited was the “Summary Report” authored by Congressmen William Clinger.  This report was only 6 pages and was based on information supplied by the FBI, Fiske’s staff, and the Park Police.

It ain't Fight Club but it's close. Here's the steps to the Hillary-Obama foxtrot of public scrutiny
  • Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
  • Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.
  • Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")
  • Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
  • Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.
  • Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).
  • Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
  • Dismiss the charges as "old news."
  • Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.
  • Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
  • Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.
  • Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
  • Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.
  • Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.
  • Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.
  • Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.
  • Flood the Internet with agents [shills]. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.
And now the mole's report on Scalia. You should be sitting down for this, my friends.

















No comments:

Post a Comment