Category Archives: Washington Post

President Trump “I didn’t need to do this” (to win the election), Washington Post, Politicians take out of context and lie, Post awarded nth degree Bozos

President Trump “I didn’t need to do this” (to win the election), Washington Post, Politicians take out of context and lie, Post awarded nth degree Bozos

“I will never waver from my sacred duty to defend this Nation and its people. We will get the job done.”…President Trump

“We believe CNN declined a report from KUSI because we informed them that most Border Patrol Agents we have spoken to told us the barrier does in fact work,“…KUSI TV San Diego

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

Once again the fake news media, politicians and other agenda driven entities have lied about something President Trump has said.

President Trump, since he began running for president and consistently afterwards has spoken about the emergency, the crisis regarding our nation’s security and securing our borders.

IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SPOKEN OF AS AN EMERGENCY!

And it clearly is.

From the fake news Washington Post.

“The idea that the situation at the border is truly a “national emergency” already strained credulity. And at Friday’s news conference, President Trump might have just erased any doubt about his true motivation.

In the Rose Garden, Trump issued the national emergency declaration he has been threatening for more than a month. In the process, he basically admitted he doesn’t even really see the situation at the border as an emergency.

The key quote came when the Q&A portion started. Trump was challenged by NBC’s Peter Alexander on why he couldn’t bend Congress to his will — as he previously said a president should be able to do — rather than take unilateral action.

“I didn’t need to do this,” Trump said. “But I’d rather do it much faster.”

Trump then blamed 2020 politics for Democrats not supporting wall and repeated: “I just want to do it faster.”

If it’s truly an emergency, how can you say you didn’t need to declare an emergency? Trump basically admitted that this was a choice for him — a matter of expediency, quite literally — and not something required by events on the ground.”

Read more (if you can stomach it):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/15/i-didnt-need-do-this-trump-just-kneecapped-his-own-case-national-emergency/?utm_term=.eeb616252691

From the real news, Citizen Wells News.

“Trump “I didn’t need to do this” spoken in context of election and building the wall, He didn’t need to do to get reelected, Faster for nation’s security

President Trump, during his question and answer session following his February 15, 2019 press conference on funding for the border wall, stated the following:

“In fact, the primary fight was on the wall.  Everything else, we have so much, as I said, I don’t know what to do with it we have so much money.  But on the wall, they skimped.

So I did — I was successful, in that sense, but I want to do it faster.  I could do the wall over a longer period of time.  I didn’t need to do this.  But I’d rather do it much faster.  And I don’t have to do it for the election.  I’ve already done a lot of wall, for the election — 2020.  And the only reason we’re up here talking about this is because of the election, because they want to try and win an election, which it looks like they’re not going to be able to do.  And this is one of the ways they think they can possibly win, is by obstruction and a lot of other nonsense.”

“I didn’t need to do this” was spoken in the context of the 2020 election.

He did not need to do it for his benefit.

President Trump said at the end of his speech:

“So the order is signed.  And I’ll sign the final papers as soon as I get into the Oval Office.  And we will have a national emergency, and then we will then be sued, and they will sue us in the Ninth Circuit, even though it shouldn’t be there.  And we will possibly get a bad ruling, and then we’ll get another bad ruling.  And then we’ll end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we’ll get a fair shake.  And we’ll win in the Supreme Court, just like the ban.  They sued us in the Ninth Circuit, and we lost, and then we lost in the appellate division, and then we went to the Supreme Court, and we won.”

“The probably easiest one to win is on declaring a national emergency, because we’re declaring it for virtual invasion purposes: drugs, traffickers, and gangs.  And one of the things, just to finish: We have removed thousands of MS-13 gang monsters.  Thousands.  They’re out of this country.  We take them out by the thousands.  And they are monsters.”

Transcript:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-national-security-humanitarian-crisis-southern-border/

President Trump spent much of his presentation elaborating on why border security and the wall constituted an emergency.

His reasons are clear to any rational, caring American.”

Read more:

http://citizenwells.net/2019/02/17/trump-i-didnt-need-to-do-this-spoken-in-context-of-election-and-building-the-wall-he-didnt-need-to-do-to-get-reelected-faster-for-nations-security/

For their continued efforts to lie, obfuscate and misportray the truth, the Washington Post is awarded nth degree Bozos.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Advertisements

Vince Foster death not far fetched conspiracy theory as Washinton Post states, Donald Trump calls fishy, Foster death very suspicious, Congressman Dan Burton Congressional Record August 2, 1994, Hands were at his side palms up with no gun in either hand, Witness shown ABC photo with gun

Vince Foster death not far fetched conspiracy theory as Washinton Post states, Donald Trump calls fishy, Foster death very suspicious, Congressman Dan Burton Congressional Record August 2, 1994, Hands were at his side palms up with no gun in either hand, Witness shown ABC photo with gun

“There has been a very active coverup by the FBI and the Justice Department. It’s very unlikely that he committed suicide. I’ve never written that he was murdered, but it’s hard to see it otherwise,”…Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Sunday Telegraph, on Vince Foster death

“By July 1993, the Clintons and their associates had established
a pattern of concealment with respect to the Clintons’ involvement
with Whitewater and the Madison S&L. Because of the complexity
of the allegations of misdeeds involving these institutions, documents
and files are critical to any inquiries into the matter. Yet,
at every important turn, crucial files and documents ‘‘disappeared’’
or were withheld from scrutiny whenever questions were raised.…Senate Whitewater report June 13, 1996

“the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.”…Bob Herbert, NY Times February 26, 2001

 

 

Donald Trump in the 90’s had the same problem that most of us had.

There were only a few reliable news sources such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to expose the truth about the Clintons and specifically the Vince Foster death.

And even they had a problem.

The internet in the 90’s, especially in 1993 when Foster died, was a microscopic bit of what it is now and few people were accessing it.

Hillary Clinton and the mainstream media are relying on the same tactics they did then but times have changed.

Citizen Journalism has evolved and young people in particular are using the internet and not MSM for their information.

That is one of the reasons Hillary is not popular among younger Americans.

As you may know, Citizen Wells began resurrecting scrubbed articles on the Clintons starting in 2015.

I knew the media would begin covering for Hillary just as they did in the nineties.

The Washington Post, predictably, is up to their old tricks. Trying to minimize the controversy surrounding Vince Foster’s death and protect Hillary.

From the Washington Post May 23, 2016.

“Trump escalates attack on Bill Clinton”

“Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is reviving some of the ugliest political chapters of the 1990s with escalating personal attacks on Bill Clinton’s character, part of a concerted effort to smother Hillary Clinton’s campaign message with the weight of decades of controversy.”

“The real estate mogul has said in recent interviews that a range of Clinton-related controversies will be at the center of his case against Hillary Clinton.

“They said things about me which were very nasty. And I don’t want to play that game at all. I don’t want to play it — at all. But they said things about me that were very nasty,” Trump told The Washington Post in an interview. “And, you know, as long as they do that, you know, I will play at whatever level I have to play at. I think I’ve proven that.”’

“In one recent interview, Trump said another topic of potential concern is the suicide of former White House aide Vincent Foster, which remains the focus of intense and far-fetched conspiracy theories on the Internet.

“It’s the one thing with her, whether it’s Whitewater or whether it’s Vince or whether it’s Benghazi. It’s always a mess with Hillary,” Trump said in the interview.”

“One issue on Trump’s radar is the 1993 death of Foster, which has been ruled a suicide by law enforcement officials and a subsequent federal investigation. But some voices on the far right have long argued that the Clintons may have been involved in a conspiracy that led to Foster’s death.”

“When asked in an interview last week about the Foster case, Trump dealt with it as he has with many edgy topics — raising doubts about the official version of events even as he says he does not plan to talk about it on the campaign trail.

He called theories of possible foul play “very serious” and the circumstances of Foster’s death “very fishy.”

“He had intimate knowledge of what was going on,” Trump said, speaking of Foster’s relationship with the Clintons at the time. “He knew everything that was going on, and then all of a sudden he committed suicide.””

Read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-escalates-attack-on-bill-clinton/2016/05/23/ed109acc-2100-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

The Post wrote:

“suicide of former White House aide Vincent Foster, which remains the focus of intense and far-fetched conspiracy theories on the Internet.”

This is their way of trying to discredit Trump’s statements.

The Vince Foster death was never properly investigated but the handling of it was scrutinized and conclusions doubted by many with impressive credentials. One of which was Congressman Dan Burton in the Congressional Record August 2, 1994, presented in full:

"[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 104 (Tuesday, August 2, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
         IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ON VINCE FOSTER SUICIDE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton] is recognized for 60 minutes as the minority leader's designee.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks there 
has been a lot of questions about the death of Vince Foster and the 
connection of his death to the Whitewater investigation, and I have had 
nine people on my staff at the Republican Study Committee and my 
personal staff and some outside sources investigating this, because the 
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs here in the House that 
is doing the Whitewater investigation on a party line vote has limited 
the scope of the investigation to such a degree that one Member said 
that if the same principles had been applied to the O.J. Simpson case, 
the one thing you could ask O.J. Simpson is how was your trip to 
Chicago. You couldn't ask any other questions. That is how limited the 
investigation is. There is a deliberate attempt to minimize the 
investigation and, I think, to cover up a lot of the facts.
  On the Senate side we have a similar problem. It is not quite as bad 
over there, but nevertheless a lot of the information that must come 
out regarding Vince Foster's death and his connection to the Whitewater 
matter needs to be explored.

                              {time}  1920

  So tonight, even though I have been castigated by a lot of the people 
in the media, even though some Members of the Senate committee and the 
House Banking Committee have indicated that we have made some comments 
that are not very understanding as far as Mr. Foster's family is 
concerned, I feel compelled to go through this tonight one more time 
with one addition. Because we have been taken to task because of things 
I have said on the floor, I went out and found the confidential 
witness, the man that found Vince Foster's body, and I got a sworn 
statement. He swore before God the things that I am going to read to 
you tonight are factual.
  So I am going to go into the entire litany, the entire chronology of 
Vince Foster's death and the connection to Whitewater. Then I will read 
to you excerpts, very important excerpts. I would read the whole thing 
to you, but we would be here all night because it is a 50-page sworn 
statement. But I will read to you excerpts that verify everything I 
have been saying before this body.
  On July 20, 1993, Vince Foster left his White House office at 1 p.m. 
He was later found dead by a confidential witness at Fort Marcy Park. 
The confidential witness is the person that gave this sworn testimony 
to me. Nobody knows who he is except two FBI agents, Gordon Liddy, and 
myself.
  Emergency medical service personnel discovered the body shortly after 
they arrived at the park at 6:09 p.m. The confidential witness was 
interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy on March 27. He was interviewed by me on 
July 21st, and in between he was interviewed by the FBI agents who Mr. 
Liddy urged him to talk to.
  The confidential witness told Mr. Liddy and me that he approached to 
within 2\1/2\ to three feet of Vince Foster's head and he leaned over 
and looked directly down into Mr. Foster's eyes. He stated very 
specifically that the head was looking straight up and that the hands 
were at his side, palms up with no gun in either hand.
  The Fiske report quotes the confidential witness as saying that he 
may have been mistaken and that there may have been a gun in Foster's 
hands, that he did not see because of the dense foliage and the 
position of the hand.
  The confidential witness told me that the FBI agents pressed him on 
the issue of the gun, asking him as many as 20 to 25 times if he was 
sure there was no gun. And according to the confidential witness, the 
FBI said, ``what if the trigger guard was around the thumb and the 
thumb was obscured by foliage and the rest of the gun was obscured by 
the foliage and the hand?'' In other words, the trigger guard would be 
around the thumb, the gun would be underneath the thumb and a leaf 
would be over that and you would not see it.
  The confidential witness, after being asked about 20 to 25 times 
said, ``If what you described were the case, then I suppose it could be 
possible because I did not count his fingers, but I am sure that the 
palms were definitely opened and facing up.''
  At this point the confidential witness still had not seen a copy of 
the photograph of Foster's hand that was shown on ABC news. The photo 
showed the right hand palm down with the thumb trapped in the trigger 
guard. He had not seen that. When I went to see this gentleman, I 
showed him the photo. He was sitting at his kitchen table, and he stood 
up and walked around the table twice saying, That is not the way it 
was; that is not the way it was. Those hands, that hand was moved.
  Why did he get so angry when he saw the photo? He told me not only 
that the hand had been moved but some of the things he told the FBI 
were not mentioned in the report. For instance, the vegetation at the 
bottom of the body had been trampled like somebody had been walking 
around there. Why was no mention of the trampled vegetation in the 
Fiske report?
  The confidential witness also reported that he saw a wine cooler 
bottle near Mr. Foster's body. Such a bottle was not noted in the Fiske 
report. We are going to talk about these wine cooler bottles a little 
later. There was in the Fiske report, there was a blood stain on the 
right side of Mr. Foster's face. Mr. Fiske's report noted that the 
blood stains on Foster's right cheek and his right shoulder were 
inconsistent with the head being upright. In other words, if the head 
was sitting up, how did the blood get on the cheek and the right 
shoulder? So somebody had to move the head.
  But the problem is, before the police or anybody got there, the head 
was already straight up. So who moved the head? The report describes 
the stain on his cheek as a contact stain, typical of having been 
caused by a blotting action such as would happen with a blood soaked 
object brought in contact with the side of the face and taken away.
  So at sometime his face had to be in contact with his shoulder 
according to the report. Mr. Fiske's report assumes that one of the 
early emergency personnel that came to the park moved the head. But the 
confidential witness said the head was already moved. And he was the 
first person to see the body before anybody got there.
  In addition, Mr. Fiske, after interviewing all the people at the 
scene, fails to identify anybody that admits to touching the body and 
moving the head. So he assumes it was moved by somebody after the body 
was found, but he does not know who it was. Yet the confidential 
witness that found the body said it was already straight up. Why did 
not Mr. Fiske assume that one of the persons who arrived after the 
confidential witness moved his head, when the confidential witness was 
the first person to find Foster's body? He said the head was facing 
straight up at the time.
  Now, the FBI did not find the bullet or skull fragments at the park. 
On July 20, 1993, the park police conducted a search for the bullet 
that killed Foster using only one metal detector. And they found 
nothing at all after lengthy search. Why did they only use one metal 
detector? This is one of the highest ranking people in the Clinton 
White House. They had one metal detector running around through the 
woods there, and this did not find anything. Then 9 months later, on 
April 4, 1994, 16 FBI agents and experts searched Fort Marcy for the 
bullet and they found 12, not one, not two, but 12 modern day bullets. 
But they did not find the one that killed Vince Foster.
  The FBI searched immediately beneath where Foster's body was found by 
digging and hand sifting the soil and other debris. They excavated down 
a foot and half. They found no bullet and no bone fragments. In the 
search for the bullet, the FBI personnel marked out a grid of the most 
likely area for the bullet to be found after passing through Foster's 
skull. The area was searched using a metal detector. Once against, 12 
modern day bullets were found, but the FBI lab determined that none 
were the ones that shot Vince Foster or came out of his gun.
  Now, I contacted a ballistics expert in California who stated that 
after passing through a man's skull a 38 caliber bullet should travel 
no more than 1,200 to 1,600 feet or about 300 to 500 yards. The FBI 
should have been able to find that bullet with all the people that were 
out there and all the expertise they had, if the bullet was in the 
park. So why was it not found?

  Get this, once again this is very important. There were no 
fingerprints on the gun, and there were no fingerprints on 27 separate 
pieces of the suicide note. Can you imagine a suicide note torn into 27 
pieces without a fingerprint on it? You would have to wear surgical 
gloves. Here is how he explained that. The FBI found no fingerprints on 
the 38 caliber Colt revolver. The Fiske report states, ``the latent 
fingerprints can be destroyed due to exposure to heat.''
  So if it was a real hot day, they are saying the fingerprints could 
have melted off the gun. Yet they do not explain why, when they took 
the trigger guard off the gun, there was a fingerprint on it that had 
been on there probably for years. But the fingerprints of that Vince 
Foster allegedly put on the gun were melted off. I went out to the site 
and walked all over that area. There is no sun that hits the place 
where they found his body. The sun could not have done that. Even on a 
hot day, it is very doubtful, according to forensic experts I talked 
to, that there would be no sign of any fingerprints on the gun but it 
was completely smooth, no fingerprints on the gun, except a little bit 
on the trigger guard where they found his thumb. I do not know how you 
could hold a gun with one or both hands and not leave one fingerprint.
  In addition, the note that was found in Foster's briefcase was torn, 
as I said, in 27 pieces and had no prints. It was not exposed to the 
heat. So why were there no fingerprints found on either the gun or the 
note? Makes no sense.
  There was no dirt on his shoes. There was a little bit of mica, but 
there was no dirt on his shoes. When Mr. Foster's clothing was examined 
by the FBI lab, ``it did not contain any coherent soil.''

                              {time}  1930

  They did find small parcels of mica, which is off of leaves, on much 
of Foster's clothing, including his shoes, which is consistent with the 
soil in Fort Marcy Park.
  The Fiske report states it was dry on the day that Foster died and 
that foliage leading up to and around Foster's body was dense. It 
concludes that ``It was unlikely that there was a great deal of exposed 
moist soil in the park that would have soiled Foster's shoes.''
  Foster would have had to walk a long way from his car to the second 
cannon. I walked all the way from the parking lot up to that second 
cannon, and it was a dry day and I had dust all over my shoes. It is 
about 300 yards.
  For them to say there was no dirt on his shoes does not make any 
sense, unless possible he had been moved to that position. Even on a 
dry day his shoes would have been stained by either grass or dirt or at 
least dust. Why was no dirt or dust or grass found on his shoes?
  Now, there was blond to light brown hair that did not match Mr. 
Foster's hair found on his tee shirt, pants, belt, and socks and shoes. 
In response to a question from Robert Novak, Mr. Fiske said ``While we 
have not concluded where the blond hair came from, there is no evidence 
to suggest that it provides any evidence of circumstances connected to 
his death.'' How does he come to that kind of a conclusion?
  Carpet fibers of various colors were found on his jacket, tie, shirt, 
shorts, pants, belt, socks and shoes. Did they check his office to see 
if the carpet fibers were off of his office carpet? Did they check his 
home to see if the carpet fibers were out of his home, and if they were 
not from either one of those places where did those carpet fibers come 
from?
  It is not mentioned in the report. You just forget about that. Yet 
everybody, the media and everybody, is accepting this report at face 
value, even through the confidential witness that found that body said 
the hands were moved and so was the head.
  Why didn't Mr. Fiske attempt to find out who the blond hair belonged 
to? Why didn't Mr. Fiske attempt to determine where the carpet fibers 
and wool fibers found on Foster's body came from? Why would Mr. Fiske 
assume that this evidence was not relevant without investigating it 
first?
  Then 70 pages of the report are devoted to the credentials of the 
four forensic experts that wrote the report on Mr. Foster's death. They 
had four experts that wrote a report saying it was a suicide at Fort 
Marcy Park, but they based their conclusions, probably 90 percent of 
them, on the coroner's report.
  Now if the coroner made a mistake and he screwed up the report, then 
their report has to be questioned as well. Let us check on the coroner. 
He testified 2 days ago before the Senate.
  Fiske goes to great length to highlight the credentials of the four 
pathologists, as I just mentioned. Their resumes take up 70 pages of 
the report. Yet none of these people ever saw Foster's body, because he 
had been dead and buried for 9 months before they wrote the report. 
Their findings were wholly reliant on Dr. James Beyer, northern 
Virginia's deputy medical examiner.
  He said that Vince Foster's death was consistent with a self-
inflicted wound, but according to the Washington Times, Dr. Beyer, the 
coroner, overlooked critical evidence in the 1989 Timothy Easley 
stabbing and supported a police finding that the death was a suicide. 
The death was later changed to a murder, a homicide, after an outside 
expert, Dr. Harry Bonnell, noted that Dr. Beyer's original report 
contained glaring errors, including a missing stab wound in the 
victim's hand where he was defending himself and getting the color of 
his hair wrong.
  The coroner did not even get the color of his hair right. This is the 
guy on which they are basing the entire forensic report of Vince 
Foster. The autopsy report said Tim Easley's hair was gray when his 
hair was dark brown.
  Regarding the stab wound in his hand, Dr. Bonnell said ``I cannot 
understand how any competent forensic pathologist would miss a stab 
wound in the hand.'' Dr. Beyer later said ``The cut on Easley's right 
hand was consistent with a needle mark,'' though he noted no such mark 
on his report. Forensic pathologists are supposed to make note of 
everything in their reports.
  Dr. Bonnell also said that it was doubtful that the Easley stab wound 
to the chest could have been self-inflicted. He said it could not have 
been self-inflicted, and yet the coroner said it was.
  Eventually it was found out that Easley's girlfriend, Candy Wharton, 
was the killer, and she admitted stabbing Easley to death. So he missed 
it.
  He made a terrible mistake, and he missed very important things that 
any forensic expert would have found, according to Dr. Bonnell, any 
competent expert.
  Then in December 1991, in another autopsy, Dr. Beyer ruled the death 
of Thomas Burkett, Jr., as ``consistent with a self-inflicted wound,'' 
and this was a gunshot to the mouth, much like Vince Foster's. 
According to the New York Post, a second autopsy conducted by a Dr. 
Erik Mitchell detailed serious omissions in the Beyer autopsy.
  This second autopsy came after the family had the body exhumed. They 
dug him up. It noted trauma and discoloration to this gentleman's right 
ear, which could indicate he was beaten to death before the shot was 
fired into his mouth. His ear had been all smashed up, and at the 
funeral they noticed it and they thought he had been shot in the ear, 
but he was not, he had been shot in the mouth.
  Burkett's family noted that the ear was so disfigured and bloody, 
they thought he had been shot there. Dr. Beyer never even mentioned the 
trauma to the man's ear in the report.
  Dr. Beyer also failed to identify a fractured lower jaw. His jaw was 
broken. He did not mention that in the report, which could also 
indicate a beating.

  The second autopsy also noted that Burkett's lungs had not been 
dissected, although the report said they had been. He said he did a 
complete autopsy, cut open the man's chest, checked his lungs. When 
they exhumed the body and did the second autopsy, they found he lied. 
He did not even do that. This is the man on whom they based their 
findings in the Vince Foster case.
  The second autopsy in this case also found no trace of gunpowder in 
the mouth, and Dr. Beyer said he inadvertently left the section for 
powder burns off of the gunshot wound chart.
  So why did Mr. Fiske's pathologists base so much, if not all of their 
report on the conclusions of a medical examiner who has been challenged 
in the past for flawed and erroneous autopsies? Why did Mr. Fiske's 
pathologists base so much of their report on the autopsy of a medical 
examiner who has a history of omitting important evidence from his 
autopsy reports?
  The Fiske report states that Dr. Beyer was unable to take x rays of 
Mr. Foster's head because his x-ray machine was broken. However, the 
Park Police report, which was submitted last summer, quotes Dr. Beyer 
as stating that the x rays of Mr. Foster's head indicated there was no 
evidence of bullet fragments in his skull.
  Determining if there are bullet fragments in the skull is very 
important to determining how far the bullet would have traveled. Did 
Beyer take x rays of Vince Foster's head or didn't he? At the Senate 
the other day he said he did not, so why did he tell the Park Police he 
did? I don't know.
  Mr. Speaker, the security guards, directly, about 100 yards away from 
the place they found Vince Foster's body, across Chain Bridge Road, 
there is the Saudi Arabian Ambassador's residence. There are five 
trained security guards there all the time. There are three that roam 
around, one in a van and one in a little security guardhouse there.
  There people were there all the time. They even checked that park 
across the street occasionally, because they are concerned about 
somebody trying to get to the Saudi Arabian Ambassador, and they said 
that day they heard no gunshot. The Fiske report says that as result of 
traffic out there and construction traffic, and because with a gun in 
the mouth in that position there would not have been a lot of noise.
  We, at my house, with a homicide detective, tried to re-create a head 
and fired a .38 inch barrel into that, to see if the sound could be 
heard from 100 yards away. Even though there was an earth mover moving 
around in the background, making all kinds of racket, you could hear 
the bullet clearly.
  Now, this is the information that I have used in the past. I went out 
to see the confidential witness, and when I showed him the picture he 
was upset. He told me that rather than me writing down a statement for 
him to sign, he wanted to give me a statement in his own words. I let 
him dictate a statement to me in his own words and he signed it.
  I came back to this body and I gave my colleagues this signed 
statement. I did not give his name, because I promised I would keep his 
confidence. However, I read into the record what he said, and I sent it 
out to many people in the media.
  Mr. Speaker, some people said ``We don't know if Burton is credible 
or not, we do not know if he is making this up,'' so they started 
questioning whether or not I was just once again beating a dead horse.
  What did I do? I called the confidential witness there to get his 
sworn statement.
  So last Thursday night on July 28, I took two other Congressmen, 
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California and Congressman John Mica of 
Florida, with me, and we took a court reporter from the Block Court 
Reporting Services and we recorded 50 pages, 49 pages, of statements 
from the confidential witness.
  So tonight, Mr. Speaker, I want to read into the Record excerpts from 
that which will verify everything that I have said. This man was sworn 
and he took an oath before God that what he is saying is absolutely 
correct.
  So we started off, I said, ``Why don't we start off by reading into 
the record what you said.'' Here is the confidential witness reading 
into the record:

       Involving the statement about the gun in Vince Foster's 
     hand, I made it very clear that the palms of his hands were 
     facing up and at his sides. The agents investigating stated 
     that the gun was hooked on his thumb and partially obscured 
     by the back of his hand. Based on their explanation of how 
     the gun was being held, I conceded that all that was 
     visible--that if all that was visible was the trigger guard 
     on his thumb, and the dense foliage, that I could have missed 
     seeing it. I again stated that I saw both of the man's palms, 
     but did not count his fingers.
       After having seen the photo of the hand and the gun, I am 
     sure, I am sure the hand had been moved, because the palms 
     were both face up when I saw Mr. Foster's body.

                              {time}  1940

  Then I started questioning him as well as did Congressman Rohrabacher 
and Congressman Mica.
  ``Would you tell us how close you were to the body and how close you 
got to his face, his hands and everything else.''
  The confidential witness said, ``I stood directly over the top of his 
head at the head of the berm. My right foot, I'm sure that it was my 
right foot, was somewhere between 24 to 30 inches from the top of his 
head. No closer. At that point, learning over with my left foot 
extended behind me I looked directly down into his eyes from about 3 
foot to 4 foot maximum above his face, my face from his.''
  I said, ``You were directly above him?''
  He said, ``Directly above him looking straight down the body. The 
man's head was facing straight up. If it was tilted, it was tilted very 
slightly because I looked into both eyes. I was questioned numerous 
times by the agents about are you sure the head wasn't tilted, and I 
kept telling, no, I looked straight down into both eyes. Do you want me 
to go on and explain what I say?''
  I said, ``Yeah, Go ahead. Tell us what you saw.''
  He said, ``I saw blood traces on his nose and around his lips. There 
was not streams of blood on the side of his face. There was not 
trickles of blood as indicated in the Foster report. I was looking 
straight down into the man's face and saw the blood.''
  ``On his mouth and nose.''
  Congressman Mica said, ``Was there a gun in the hands?''
  The confidential witness says,``There was no gun in his hand. His--
both palms were face up, thumbs out to the side.''
  Congressman Mica. ``You did not see a gun?''
  He said, ``I did not see a gun next to the body.''
  Congressman Mica, ``Did you touch the body or did you shake him?''
  The confidential witness said, ``Oh, God, no. I wouldn't touch him 
for no amount. I mean, no way would I disturb any evidence, period.''
  Then I said, ``I want you to look at this picture because you say you 
saw no gun in the hands.''
  And I showed him once again the hand that was on ABC News, the 
picture.
  He said, ``I also, when I saw nothing in his hands, I leaned to both 
sides of his head and to the back of his head to see if he had been hit 
in the head and saw nothing visible.''
  Congessman Mica said, ``Did you look at his hands again?''
  He says, ``I did not look back at his hands again because I clearly 
saw his hands were empty and he had no signs that he had, was defending 
himself or something.''
  Then I said, ``Now, you said--what did you see beside the body?''
  He said, ``There was a wine cooler bottle laying I would say 24 to 30 
inches to the right, between his shoulder and his elbow, laying on the 
berm, held up by some twigs, not on the berm but on the down side of 
the hill being held up by some twigs because it's a very steep grade.''
  Then I said, ``Was it sitting straight up or just laying on its 
side?''
  He says, ``Laying sideways still probably one quarter of its contents 
in the bottle.''
  Then Congressman Mica said, ``Did you see--you said the palms were 
out?''
  And the confidential witness said once again. ``The palms were face 
up.''
  I said, ``Both? Both palms?''
  He said, ``Right beside him neatly. Just like that.''
  And he showed us, just like that.
  He said, ``So that they were not in this position? Congressman Mica 
rolled his hands over.''
  He said, ``It was not in that position at all.''
  Then I said, ``Tell me about the picture. You--the FBI--you asked the 
FBI what, about the picture, and the head?''
  The confidential witness said, ``Numerous times.''
  I said, ``What did you ask them about the head and----''
  He said, ``If you will show me the picture.''
  This is what he said to the FBI agents.
  He said, ``If you will show me the picture of the head and the 
picture of his hands that you said there was no gun in--that I said 
there was no gun in and you said there was, then I could tell you point 
blank if somebody had tampered with it, with Mr. Foster's body.''
  Then I said, ``What did they say when you asked them to see the 
pictures?''
  And this is what he said the FBI people said. ``Well, it will 
jeopardize our investigation, I cannot show it to you at this time. We 
will be more than glad to show it to you when all this investigation is 
over and that was the common answer I got from the FBI every time.''

  Then I said, ``Over how long a period of time--how many times did 
they say that to you?''
  He said, ``4, 5 times I directly inquired, let me see the picture.''
  They never let him see the picture of the hands.
  Congressman Mica said, ``You have never seen this picture before?''
  The confidential witness said, ``I had never seen that picture until 
the Congressman,'' that is me, ``handed it to me. Mr. Liddy had told me 
that that picture had been published somewhere but I had never saw it 
or I would have probably been--I know I would have been screaming.''
  Then I said, ``So you were no more than 2 feet, 3 feet above his 
head?''
  He said, ``I would say 2 to 3 feet. I had said 24 to 30 inches, my 
face was from his face.''
  Then he went on to say that he thought he had been there for a while 
because his clothes were very tight, there was a stain, just about like 
that, he showed me where the stain was on his shoulder.
  Congressman Rohrabacher said, ``What color?''
  Congressman Mica said, ``You are pointing to your shoulder.''
  He said, ``On his right shoulder. It was a--the stain on his shoulder 
was----''
  Congressman Rohrabacher said, ``Was it red? Or was it blood?''
  The confidential witness said, ``No, it was very light purple, almost 
identical color of the wine cooler.''
  I said, ``So you don't think it was blood?''
  He said, ``I do not think it was blood. In the very center of--it 
looked like he had thrown up on his right shoulder. In the very center 
there was one small speck area, probably no larger than a silver dollar 
that was black, that could have been blood in the very center of it.''
  The reason I'm skipping through is there is a lot of repetition here 
because we kept asking the questions over to make sure we had it 
correct.
  Congressman Rohrabacher said, ``Hold on. Let's make this point very 
clear. The FBI when they were talking to you and when they kept going 
on this question referred to the palm being up and the gun being 
underneath the palm?''
  The confidential witness says, ``He, the FBI agent, demonstrated with 
his hand like this with his palm up.''
  And he showed the palm to us like this and said that the trigger 
guard was on the thumb and the gun could have been obscured underneath 
the hand and that leaves might have been covering the thumb so he would 
not have seen the trigger guard.
  Congressman Rohrabacher said, ``So the question--when they claim that 
you had in some way conceded that, well, maybe perhaps you didn't see 
it, if indeed it was below the palm, that was based on a description by 
the FBI that the palm was up and that the gun was underneath the back 
of the hand?''
  Then I said, ``But it's not possible. Look at this.''
  Because I had a gun and I put it on my thumb to show.
  Congressman Rohrabacher said, ``No. But that's not what this picture 
shows.''
  The confidential witness said, ``Exactly.''
  Then I said, ``But if the thumb is in there, look at this, you 
can't----''
  Then Mr. Rohrabacher said, ``The more important part is that the FBI 
was describing something to him that was not----''
  The confidential witness said, ``Exactly right.''
  Then I asked him, ``But in the report they say you believed that the 
palms were up but you say there is no doubt?''
  He said, ``I never said--I said I believe it. I mean, I know it.''
  He said, ``I never said I believe it. I know it.''
  That the palms were up.
  Congressman Rohrabacher said, ``Okay.''
  Then the confidential witness says: ``And he said the confidential 
witness believes it, and that's as straight as they can be.''
  Mr. Mica, ``But you never indicated----''
  He said, ``Otherwise. Those palms were up always.''
  Congressman Mica, ``And both palms?''
  Confidential witness, ``Both palms, neatly at his side and they were 
just like that.''
  Congressman Mica, ``With nothing in them?''
  He said, ``Nothing in the hands.''
  Congressman Rohrabacher. ``And when you made the concession to the 
FBI after repeating that you didn't believe there was a gun in the 
hand, over and over again, when you finally made the concession it was 
based on a description by the FBI that the gun was found with--the man 
was found with his palms up and that gun was underneath the palm?''
  He said, ``That was all that would have been visible was the trigger 
guard, would I have missed seeing a gun, with the dense foliage? If 
that being the case, it's possible I could have missed it.''
  In other words, if it was only the trigger guard and if the gun was 
obscured under the hand. But when we put the gun in the hand in the 
position it was in in the picture and we rolled the hand over, the butt 
of the gun was up or the gun was lying across the palm of the hand. You 
could not have missed it. It would have been impossible. And I do not 
know why Fiske did not check that out. A blind man could see it. Yet 
everybody is accepting this report at face value, saying it is a great 
report, and forensic experts are perfect, everthing else is perfect and 
it is so full of holes you could not put water in it. It is terrible. 
It makes me sick.
  I do not want to upset Mr. Foster's family. I am sure that they would 
like this thing to go away. I am sure that O.J. Simpson, the families 
of the people who lost their lives in the O.J. Simpson case, I am sure 
they would like for it to go away. But you do not stop an investigation 
because people want it to go away, especially if there are questions 
that are not answered. You get to the bottom of it. When a homicide 
detective goes out to investigate a site like Mr. Foster's death scene, 
they assume it is a homicide until they prove it is a suicide. In this 
case, they tried to do just the opposite.
  Other questions.
  Congressman Rohrabacher. ``Well, we have two discrepancies here. We 
have one discrepancy when he says he doesn't--he never saw the gun and 
the other discrepancy is that he is absolutely certain that the palms 
were up. So thus, we have two major descrepancies.''
  Then we go on.
  I said, ``But the point is, see, that gun is shoved under his leg 
partially, but you are saying the palms were definitely----''
  The confidential witness said for about the 90th time. ``The palms 
were up.''
  I said, ``And if the palms were up in that position, you would have 
seen the gun?''I11And he said, ``I would have seen the gun.''
  Other questions.
  I said, ``Okay, now tell us about the cabin.''
  There was a cabin there.
  I said, ``You said you knew the guy that owned that cabin years 
ago.''
  There's a cabin about 175 yards away from the site where they found 
the body.''
  He said, ``I knew a retired Navy commander who lives in that project. 
He was going to set me up with the owner.''
  I said, ``But there is a private road that goes back to that cabin''
  He said, ``There is a private road that goes right back to it from 
the housing development right next to it.''
  I said, ``If somebody came back that road, they wouldn't be seen?''
  He said, ``They would not be seen, period.''
  I said, ``How far is that from the cabin?''
  He said, ``150 to 175 yards.''

                              {time}  1950

  Congressman Burton. ``So they could have walked around that and come 
right up----''
  He says, ``They are dead in the woods all the way, and there is a 
path that leads right straight up to where they found the body.
  I do not know if somebody brought the body in that way or not. I had 
no idea. But that was something that was not investigated, because when 
they told the FBI about it they did not even know there was a cabin 
back there. He had to go show them.
  Then we started talking about when he left to call the police after 
he found the body. He said,
  I went, got in my van, started up the parkway because I was on the 
parkway, I got up to where the park headquarters are, about two, two 
and a half miles, maybe a little further up the road, the right-hand 
side. There is a little phone sign right there. I pulled in, there was 
a couple of vehicles on the left. I had never been in there before. 
There is two phones there. I never saw them because I saw the guys 
there, the phones sat back behind the trees over here on the right 
side. I saw the guys there. I was looking at them, drove by, still 
didn't see any phones, looked both ways but apparently drove right by 
the phones and never saw them, backed up, turned around, started back 
out, was going to ask them to use the phone, motioned for them to come 
over. The younger white man walked over. I asked him for a phone. He 
stated that, you know, why? And I says, well, it's an emergency, I need 
to use the phone. Can you get me to a phone? Yes, but why? And he 
says--I think he said it the third time. At that point I went, wait a 
minute. Fine. Are you familiar with Fort Marcy? Oh, yeah, I know it 
well. Do you know where the two cannons are? Oh, yes, I know it well. 
Do you know the one up on the hill to the right? Oh, yeah. The next 
Chain Bridge Road now. Not the one on the left up there, the one on the 
right all the way up on top. Oh, yeah, I know it well. I says, right 
beside it, down over the bank is a dead man. You call the police and 
tell them. Oh, sure, great. I don't need the headaches that go with 
possibilities of going to courts and hearings and crap that all I done 
was come onto a body. That's all. Hey, I done my duty, I'm gone. He 
went to call the police, I simply drove off. And I stayed quiet for 
approximately six months.''
  The reason he stayed quiet for 6 months was because he was afraid. He 
found this body under mysterious circumstances and did not want to get 
into it.
  Now he got into it, decided to become semi-public when he was coming 
back from Africa. He went over there to take some pictures of some 
animals. And I said, ``Now, you were coming back from Africa, you went 
to Kenya. Tell them about coming back from Africa and how you decided 
to call Gordon Liddy,'' to talk about it.
  He said: ``When I got back from Africa I was reading--the London 
Times was eating that story up and I was sitting in the hotel reading 
it.''
  Congressman Burton. ``This was what month?''
  He said ``This was April. Yeah. It was, I believe it was in April. It 
was either April or May.'' He is talking to his girlfriend:
  ``Hun, when was I in Africa?''
  She says: ``I don't know. I didn't go. You left me home, remember?''
  Congressman Burton. ``Okay. Go ahead.''
  CW. ``And it's when I got back, my brother came over and told me, 
says you hear the story that the New York Times printed about the two 
park rangers have changed their story and stated that they had made up 
the story about the guy in the white van, that they had snuck off down 
to the park to have a drink and discovered the body and to cover 
themselves they made this story and at that point I went wait a minute. 
Who in the world can put that kind of pressure on two career employees 
to make them tell that kind of garbage? I better cover my hind 
quarters. So I was thinking about what to do and my brother had been 
listening a lot to Liddy and I have also respected Liddy for his word. 
And he went into his background and he said, ``And he was really 
hammering on the evidence, you know, that was being presented about the 
Foster case and the doubts.''

  So he called Gordon Liddy.
  He said, ``But having read about him, I decided that would be as good 
a--what I knew would become public and if there was a threat to me, 
that, that possibility of danger would be greatly, greatly reduced 
simply by the fact that what I knew would have been now made 
official.''
  Congressman Burton, ``So you called Liddy because you wanted to get 
the facts out number one and number two you thought you would be safer 
if the facts were?''
  CW, ``Exactly right.''
  Then Congressman Rohrabacher said, ``There wasn't any--foliage didn't 
seem to be--did it seem like somebody dragged him up there?''
  The confidential witness says, ``Now, I did not read anything in this 
report and this has been stated numerous times. Below this man's feet, 
all the way down into the bottom of the ditch, approximately ten feet 
or better, up the berm on the other side, over the hill to the walking 
trail, everything had been trampled completely flat like the man had 
walked back and forth at least a dozen times or better. It was, at 
least 24, maybe 30 inches wide that everything was trampled completely 
flat. Every twig, every leaf trampled from the bottom of his feet all 
the way down the valley and over the hill?''
  CW, ``Completely flat.''
  Congressman Burton, ``Like somebody had been walking back and forth 
there?''
  CW, ``He had paced back and forth many times. At least a dozen times. 
You can't trample down that flat.''
  Congressman Burton, ``And they didn't put that in that report?''
  CW, ``Nothing in the report that I read. That I have read.''
  That is not in the report. Below the body somebody had walked back 
and forth along this ditch, along this hill.
  Congressman Burton: ``Let me get this straight. You are saying that 
there was a path almost from the bottom of his body down into the 
bottom, up over this other hill?''
  CW: ``And out to the walking trail on the other side. As I showed you 
here, from here, down and out over that hill. This is, this was very, 
very dense.''
  Congressman Burton: ``And it was flattened out?''
  CW: ``It was walked completely flat. The agents had known about this 
and known about this. Nothing in that report. I don't know. I don't 
know. Did it disappear or what happened ?''
  Congressman Rohrabacher: ``Your analysis----''
  Congressman Burton: ``Wait a minute. This is very important. You are 
saying that you told the agents this?''
  CW: ``Oh, I told them numerous times.''
  But it was not in the report.
  Congressman Burton: ``That the ground was----
  Then I said, ``Let me finish here. You went out to the site with the 
FBI and you told them at the site where the ground was trampled and how 
far it went?''
  CW: ``Yes. I also walked them--that doesn't make any sense was their 
statement about, why would they bring him in this way. It was simple 
from the cabin. What cabin is what their answer was. The one right over 
there.''
  Congressman Burton: ``So they said, that makes no sense, why would 
there be a path here like this and you said because that's where the 
cabin and the driveway is?
  CW: ``Uh-huh. And they did not know about the cabin and I walked them 
back there and showed it to them.''
  Then Congressman Rohrabacher says, ``Is it conceivable that somebody 
could have been on that path when you were relieving yourself without 
you seeing them?''
  The confidential witness went into the park to relieve himself 
because of the traffic. And so Congressman Rohrabacher was asking him 
is it conceivable somebody could have been there with the body and 
hiding in the woods while you were there. The guy says, the 
confidential witness says, ``Absolutely. Absolutely. It was that 
dense,'' that they could have been hiding in the trees.
  Congressman Mica says, ``And you didn't see any--you didn't see any 
evidence that someone had committed suicide, any blood in, say around 
the grass or anything behind the head?''
  CW: ``We had no significant rain for 30 days. The ground at the top 
of the hill in this area might get a small amount of sun a day because 
there is very big trees around that area. Anything over that berm and 
down that berm never gets any sun; completely shaded out.'' Yet they 
say the fingerprints melted off of the gun.
  Congressman Mica: ``But around the head----''
  CW: ``There was no--I mean I bent over and looked. I didn't lay my 
head flat on the ground. I probably lent my head down to within 16 
inches of the ground. No signs, not a sign of,'' blood around the head.
  Then I said, ``But you didn't see any blood as close as you got 
around the head or anything like that?''
  CW: ``None.''
  Then Congressman Mica talking about when he went back out to his car 
after he found the body. ``Did you look at the cars when you came 
back?''
  CW: ``As I walked down the hill, you are coming off and you are 
parked in the parking lot. You go up on either side of the parking lot 
to a walking area that's elevated well above the parking, up to a sign 
with the description of the fort area and what it was all about and the 
history. As you are walking back down, which I'm walking back down the 
hill to go back to my van, as you are coming down the hill you can see 
right down into the car and the car was parked either second or 
third.''
  Congressman Mica: ``What kind of a car was it?''
  CW: ``White Honda and it was a light brown or a cream colored 
Japanese made car on the other end of the parking lot. On the passenger 
seat of the white Honda was a folded jacket, very, very similar in 
color to suit pants,'' worn by Mr. Foster. ``The FBI tells me I have 
got the wrong car, that was not his. They said the brown one was his.''
  Congressman Rohrabacher: ``Say that again.''
  CW: ``The FBI said that that was not his car. I thought sure that was 
his car because the jacket was so similar to the pants he had on.''
  Congressman Burton: ``Yeah.''
  CW: ``In the passenger floor board was a four-pack wine cooler, two 
gone.''
  You remember the wine cooler bottle by his body, and there were two 
wine coolers gone out of the four pack.
  Congressman Rohrabacher says, ``This was in the car the FBI said did 
not belong?''
  CW: ``Was not belong. And I asked them, how well did you check out 
those other two people that were still in the park when you got there? 
Oh, there is no doubt, they were just two lovers up there.''

                              {time}  2000

  Then I said, ``But you're saying in this car you saw a jacket that 
looked like the one that matched the pants on the body?'' He said, 
``Exactly.'' I said, ``You said that also you saw a wine cooler pack on 
the floor?'' The confidential witness said, ``A four-pack wine cooler 
with two gone, the same color as it was--it had a light pink-like 
label.'' I said, ``OK, but did it look like the bottle you saw beside 
the body?'' He said, ``Exactly like the bottle beside the body.'' But 
that was not in the report. The confidential witness said, ``Strange 
thing, when I went back with the agents, one of the agents spent about 
15 minutes kicking around all of the leaves and everything looking for 
the wine cooler bottle,'' but that was 9 months later, for crying out 
loud.
  ``The palms were up, you say?'' This is, once again, talking to the 
confidential witness. He said, ``Absolutely,'' about the 90th time. 
``How sure are you the palms were up,'' Congressman Mica said. The 
confidential witness says, ``As sure as I am standing right here, I am 
absolutely and totally, unequivocally, the palms were up. I looked at 
both palms. There was nothing in his hands. I didn't look at one and 
assume the other. I looked at both of them.''
  This is the man that found the body.
  Congressman Mica, ``How long did you spend over the body, 5 seconds, 
10 seconds?'' He said, ``Oh, no, 2 minutes.'' Congressman Mica, ``Two 
or 3 minutes?'' ``Not--well, that is a tough one. Because I wasn't 
panicked. I think I was fairly deliberate in studying.''
  That is the end of the relevant information in the report. This is a 
sworn report by the only person to find the body. He says the Fiske 
report is wrong, and yet nobody is paying any attention to it.
  Mr. Fiske, who is a friend of Bernie Nussbaum's, a close associate of 
Presidents Clinton's, has worked with him on Wall Street, he is the 
special counsel. Mr. Fiske has chosen not to pursue these very 
important questions. It is just terrible.
  And yet we are supposed to walk away and not even talk about it.
  Now, they said there is no connection between Vince Foster's office 
and the Whitewater files that were taken out of his office.
  I am going to try to finish up this. I want to go through this 
hurriedly, because there are a lot of things that need to be talked 
about.
  I am going to tell my friends and my colleagues now why I believe 
there is a connection between Vince Foster's death and the Whitewater 
investigation that is not being pursued.
  First of all, he died under very mysterious circumstances. His body 
was moved. There is no question about it. Yet nobody accepts that.
  At 6 p.m. on July 20, 1993, Vincent Foster was found dead in Fort 
Marcey Park. Shortly after 9 p.m., White House Chief of Staff Mack 
McLarty was informed of his death. McLarty ordered the Vince Foster 
office sealed. However, the office remained unlocked overnight. They 
did not seal it even though they were told to by the chief of staff. 
Despite this order, less than 3 hours after the body was found, White 
House officials removed records, business deals between President 
Clinton and his wife and the Whitewater Development Corp. from Foster's 
office without telling the Federal authorities about it.
  They were the people that went in there. Bernie Nussbaum, the White 
House counsel, the President's special assistant, Patsy Thomasson, and 
Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret Williams.
  Bernie Nussbaum said they were in there 10 minutes, but the Park 
Police said they were in there over 2 hours.
  During this first search, Whitewater files and President's Clinton's 
tax returns were removed and turned over to David Kendall, President 
Clinton's attorney. Why did they not give them to the FBI? Why did they 
not give them to the people investigating his death?
  White House officials did not confirm the July 20 search of Foster's 
office until December. They did not even tell anybody they were in 
there taking those files out until December. Why? This is an 
investigation of a man's death, for crying out loud.
  Then there was a second search 2 days later on July 22. Mr. Nussbaum 
and White House officials searched Foster's office for a second time. 
They got more documents. Some were sent to President Clinton's 
attorney, and others were sent to Vince Foster's attorney, James 
Hamilton.
  During the second search, Mr. Nussbaum, citing executive privilege, 
kept Park Police and FBI agents from going through and watching them go 
through the files. Dee Dee Myers, the White House press secretary, said 
Bernie Nussbaum went through and sort of described contents of each of 
the files and what was in the drawers while representatives of the 
Justice Department, the Secret Service, the FBI, and other members of 
the counsel's office were present.
  According to other White House sources, however, FBI agents and Park 
Police were ordered to sit on chairs right in the hallway right at the 
entrance while White House staff went through the documents, and Mr. 
Nussbaum gave the FBI agents and Park Police no indication of what he 
was taking. One FBI agent was reprimanded when he stood up and peered 
into the room to see what was going on.
  Park Police later discovered Whitewater records had been removed from 
Foster's office during the second search after they visited James 
Hamilton, Foster's lawyer, a week after the death, to review a personal 
diary that was also taken during one of the searches.
  Hamilton allowed the Park Police to briefly inspect Vince Foster's 
dairy and other documents. However, he did not allow them to make 
copies, citing privacy concerns. He refused to request for access 
to the diary and documents from the Justice Department.

  Did Fiske review Vince Foster's diary? His report says nothing about 
it. Foster's diary might help to identify whom the blond hair on his 
clothes belonged to, maybe where he was that day, and maybe they could 
find out from the carpet samples. This is important evidence.
  On July 27, 1993, the White House officials revealed on July 26 they 
found a note supposedly written by Vince Foster at the bottom of his 
briefcase in his office torn into 27 pieces with no fingerprints on it. 
Now, you go home tonight and tear a piece of paper into 27 pieces and 
tell me there is no fingerprint on it. It cannot be done. It was not 
out in the sun. Those fingerprints did not melt off of that.
  And yet they said they did not explain why there were no fingerprints 
on it. They said they missed the note in their first two searches even 
though they had looked in the briefcase. How can you miss all of that 
torn-up paper in the briefcase if you looked in there twice? Maybe 
because it was not in there. I do not know.
  Now, we have a million questions we want to ask about all of this. I 
am not going to go into the questions now. I think I have pretty well 
covered that.
  Now, I want to go to the Rose Law Firm down in Little Rock, AR.
  Jeremy Hedges, a part-time courier at the Rose Law Firm, told a grand 
jury he was told to shred documents from the files of Vince Foster 
after Special Prosecutor Robert Fiske had announced he would look into 
Foster's death. Fiske was appointed on January 20, 1994.
  Even before a subpoena is issued, the law prohibits people from 
intentionally impeding an investigation by destroying evidence they 
know investigators want, and yet even though after they had picked the 
special counsel, they were down there shredding these documents.
  In February after Fiske served subpoenas on the law firm's employees, 
Jeremy Hedges and the other couriers employed by the firm were called 
to a meeting with Ron Clark and Jerry Jones, two of the Rose Law Firm's 
partners. Jones said to Hedges, he challenged his recollection that he 
had shredded documents belonging to Foster. He cautioned him about 
relating assumptions to investigators. ``I said,'' Hedges recounted, 
``I shredded some documents of Vincent Foster's 3 weeks ago.'' And 
Jones, the partner, replied, ``How do you know they were Foster's? 
Don't assume something you don't know,'' trying to lead him. Hedges 
said he was certain they were Foster's files. Jones then said, ``Don't 
assume they had anything to do with Whitewater.'' It is funny.
  The box Hedges was told to shred and all its file folders were marked 
``VWF,'' Foster's initials. None of the documents he saw related to the 
Whitewater Development, Hedges said, but how would he know when he was 
shredding as fast as he could.
  However, another Rose employee told the Washington Times that 
documents showing the Clintons' involvement in the Whitewater projects 
had also been ordered destroyed, and the shredding reportedly occurred 
February 3, 1994, at the Rose Law Firm.
  During the 1992 Presidential campaign, three current or former Rose 
employees said that the couriers from the Rose Law Firm were summoned 
to the Arkansas Governor's Mansion by Hillary Clinton, who personally 
handed over records to be shredded at the Rose Law Firm downtown. The 
shredding began after the New York Times reported on March 8, 1992, the 
involvement of Governor Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton in the 
Whitewater deal.
  Couriers made at least six other runs during the campaign. They were 
given sealed, unmarked envelopes with instructions that they were to be 
shredded at the firm. The shredding continued through the November 3 
general election. Records belonging to Webster Hubbell, Vincent Foster, 
William H. Kennedy III were also shredded.
  A current employee said a conservative estimate would be that more 
than a dozen boxes of documents were ultimately destroyed. A lot of 
people say, well, are you sure those were Whitewater documents? Why 
would you think they were Whitewater documents? They were at the 
Governor's Mansion. Well, let us look into that.
  James McDougal and his wife, Susan, who are now divorced, have said 
they personally delivered all the Whitewater records to the Governor's 
Mansion in December 1987 at Mrs. Clinton's request, and she was the one 
giving the couriers the documents to go back over to the Rose Law Firm 
to be shredded after the New York Times article in 1992 during the 
President's campaign.
  And then during the Presidential campaign, President Clinton and his 
wife said that the records had disappeared.
  Now, where do you think they disappeared to?
  Today in the Washington Post, Margaret Williams, and remember 
Margaret Williams is Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, and I want you 
to listen to this:

       A Whitewater file taken from the office of White House 
     Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster after his death last year was 
     given to Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief of staff and, at the 
     First Lady's direction, transferred to the White House 
     residence before being turned over to the Clintons' personal 
     lawyer, administration officials said yesterday. It was 
     unclear yesterday why then-White House Counsel Bernard 
     Nussbaum gave the file to the First Lady's chief of staff, 
     Margaret Williams, rather than transferring it directly to 
     Robert Barnett, the Clintons' personal lawyer at the time.

  Why did they not give it to the police? They were the ones 
investigating this case.
  ``A White House official said Williams, after being asked by Nussbaum 
to take charge of the documents, checked with the First Lady in Little 
Rock, AR. Hillary Clinton told Williams to check with another White 
House employee about a safe place in the residence to store the 
documents, the official said.''

                              {time}  2010

  The files were moved from the west wing of the White House where 
Williams and Nussbaum worked, to a locked closet on the third floor of 
the White House residence, where other personal papers were kept. 
Williams had a key to the closet, the official said. Barnett picked up 
the documents 5 days later.
  Now, get the rest of this: After Foster's death, officials said his 
personal papers were given to the Foster family lawyer and his official 
files were distributed among other lawyers in the counsel's office.
  In December the White House disclosed that a Whitewater file also had 
been found in Foster's office. The revelation helped fuel the White 
House controversy and raised suspicion the White House was not 
providing a fair picture of the events. I wonder why.
  At that time the White House did not reveal Williams' involvement or 
the fact that the files were kept at the residence. They did not tell 
anybody that. The statement at the time by communications director Mark 
Gearan said only that the files were sent to the Clinton personal 
attorney. White House sources said that the statement was drafted by 
Nussbaum and that he, Gearan, did not know of Williams' involvement at 
the time. They did not even tell this guy they were giving the report 
out that Williams had taken the files up to Hillary's residence and 
locked them in her closet.
  Sources familiar with the handling of the file said Nussbaum called 
Williams 2 days after Foster's death to ask her to take charge of 
Clinton's personal papers. Williams checked with Hillary Clinton, who 
agreed that the papers should be given to Barnett. Then they said that 
the President and the First Lady never looked at the papers before they 
gave them to the attorney.
  They took them upstairs, she was instructed to take them up there and 
lock them in their closet, and then they later gave them to their 
attorney, but they said they never looked at the papers.
  Well, the bottom line is the Fiske report is inaccurate, the Fiske 
report has glaring holes in it, the Fiske report, as it is presently 
constituted, is not worth the paper it is written on.
  I do not care about the credentials of the four forensic experts. I 
am sure they were very competent men, but they based their findings on 
the coroner's report 9 months earlier and the coroner has been proven 
on two separate occasions to be incompetent as far as autopsies are 
concerned.
  There just is no question about the major question about the death of 
Vince Foster. The man who found the body said the hands were moved. He 
swears before God that the hands were moved in a court report. He 
swears the head was moved. There were no fingerprints on the gun. There 
were no fingerprints on the suicide note.
  The counsel, Mr. Fiske, never checked the carpet samples from his 
office to see if those were the same ones on his clothes. At least he 
did not say so in the report. He did not check his house to see if the 
carpet samples were off his home. Where did those carpet samples come 
from? There is just a ton of questions that need to be answered.
  For any intelligent person to hear what I have said tonight and to 
read this report and to conclude that this is accurate, they just must 
have their eyes closed. I just do not know how they can believe that.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as I conclude my remarks, let me say once again that 
this investigation should not be closed, it should be reopened. We 
should bring the confidential witness, keep his confidentiality, we 
should bring the confidential witness in a confidential way so he can 
be protected before the people that are involved and let me them see 
what I have seen. In fact, if you do not bring him forth, take my 
report before anybody in the Congress, take my document here that is 
sworn before a court reporter, and at least look at it, at least look 
at it.
  You know, there is a poem by Cesar Gilbert Horn, Mr. Speaker, which 
says, in part: ``Long rules the land and waiting justice sleeps.'' And 
I think that is the case with Vince Foster.
  He may have committed suicide, I do not know, but I do not this: That 
body was moved, and if the body was moved, the report is wrong, and if 
the report is wrong, we need to ask Mr. Fiske why."

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1994-08-02/html/CREC-1994-08-02-pt1-PgH102.htm

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

The Washington Post, for their efforts to obfuscate the significance of the Vince Foster death controversy and ties to Hillary Clinton, is awarded 4 Orwells.

Orwells4

NC Governor Pat McCrory Kathleen Parker and other ‘elites’ falsely attack state, Demagoguing and misinforming the public about North Carolina, Washington Post media hypocrisy, Charlotte’s ridiculous ordinance

NC Governor Pat McCrory Kathleen Parker and other ‘elites’ falsely attack state, Demagoguing and misinforming the public about North Carolina, Washington Post media hypocrisy, Charlotte’s ridiculous ordinance

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”…Karl Marx

“You can’t fix stupid.”…Ron White

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From the Greensboro News record April 18, 2016.

“Gov. Pat McCrory: Parker, other ‘elites’ falsely attack state”

“News alert to the political pundits who have been demagoguing and misinforming the public about North Carolina: Your hypocrisy is showing. The most recent example is Washington Post “culture” columnist Kathleen Parker and her column, “North Carolina descends into a valley of ignorance” (News & Record, April 15).

Let me set the record straight. North Carolina proudly welcomes all people to live, work and visit our great state. We have long-held traditions of both ensuring equality for all of our citizens and our visitors, while also respecting the privacy of everyone. We are also a state that strives to allow our people and businesses to be as independent as possible without over-reaching government regulations.

These North Carolina values of privacy and equality came into conflict when the Charlotte City Council mandated that all local businesses and organizations allow men to use a woman’s restroom, locker room or shower facility.

Now the politically correct elite, such as Parker, may like this kind of policy. But as governor, I agree with the vast majority of the ninth-most-populous state in the nation who don’t want this type of government overreach — especially in a place where most men, women and children have an expectation of privacy and safety.

It is not the government’s job to mandate bathroom policies for private sector businesses, and the government should not be in the business of forcing people to share the restroom with people of the opposite sex under the threat of potential fines — which is exactly what Charlotte’s ridiculous ordinance would have permitted.

Just five months prior to the city of Charlotte imposing this over-reaching law, voters in Houston, Texas, overwhelmingly rejected a nearly identical regulation through a public referendum. Yet the men’s NCAA Final Four basketball games were played there under no threats of boycott, retaliation or demagoguery from the media, entertainment, business elite or special-interest groups.

Since the North Carolina legislature overturned this far-reaching Charlotte mandate, the Human Rights Campaign has led a coordinated assault and smear campaign. This national special-interest group, which is funded by anonymous donors, is attempting to bully companies, entertainers and anyone else who disagrees with its agenda. Our state is unfairly being used as its political pawn. Simply put, they are seeking to take jobs away from hard-working men and women in the interest of self-serving political theater and selective outrage.

However, the HRC remains silent while the same individuals and organizations sell their products, make their products or take entertainment dollars from countries like China, Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Singapore — countries with deplorable human rights records especially toward the gay and lesbian community. Earlier this week, this group’s hypocrisy reached new levels when it praised the Democratic governor of Louisiana for signing a “historic” executive order after criticizing my nearly identical executive order that expanded protections for state employees.”

Read more:

http://www.greensboro.com/opinion/columns/gov-pat-mccrory-parker-other-elites-falsely-attack-state/article_d0e41d9f-c293-5954-8fe9-304c12699b74.html

Thank God the News Record finally allowed the truth to be printed about HB2

after weeks of filling it’s pages with lies.

And thank God that Governor Pat McCrory is doing his job to protect the citizens of NC despite widespread criticism from the ignorant and agenda laden.

Obama sequester lies reported by Washington Post, Obama false claim of Capitol janitors receiving pay cut, Obama gets 4 Pinocchios, Post receives 4 Murrows

Obama sequester lies reported by Washington Post, Obama false claim of Capitol janitors receiving pay cut, Obama gets 4 Pinocchios, Post receives 4 Murrows

“Starting tomorrow everybody here, all the folks who are cleaning the floors at the Capitol. Now that Congress has left, somebody’s going to be vacuuming and cleaning those floors and throwing out the garbage. They’re going to have less pay. The janitors, the security guards, they just got a pay cut, and they’ve got to figure out how to manage that. That’s real.”… Obama news conference, March 1, 2013

“dedicated his life as a newsman and as a public official to the unrelenting search for truth.”…Lyndon B. Johnson

“The function of the press is very high. It is almost Holy.
It ought to serve as a forum for the people, through which
the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or
suppress the news is a breach of trust.”…. Louis D. Brandeis

Hats off to the Washington Post for reporting the truth about Obama sequester lies.

From the Washington Post March 1, 2013.
“Sequester spin: Obama’s false claim of Capitol janitors receiving ‘a pay cut’”

“This column has been updated with a new Pinocchio rating

This was a pretty evocative image the president offered at his news conference Friday on the sequester — janitors sweeping the empty halls of the Capitol, laboring at less pay.

When we first heard his remarks, we thought he was perhaps overstating matters. Even at federal agencies that have planned furloughs, none are expected to begin on Saturday; such actions are weeks away at many federal agencies. But that’s perhaps a minor rhetorical overreach.

But then our colleague Ed O’Keefe obtained the sequester plan released by the Architect for the Capitol, which employs Capitol Hill janitors on the House side. (The Sergeant at Arms employs the janitorial staff on the Senate side.) UPDATE: Obama’s remarks also prompted a warning from AOC officials that his comments were “not true.”

The Facts

We have embedded an image of the first AOC document below. Stephen T. Ayers, the  architect of the Capitol, listed a number of steps being taken to reduce expenses, including limiting new hiring and postponing repairs. This line jumped out at us: “We do not anticipate furloughs for AOC employees as a result of Sequestration.””

“(The White House officials’ aggressive pushback of this column ended after we sent a copy of this email to them.)

On the Senate side of the building, Sergeant at Arms Terry Gainer said the cleaning technicians are his employees–not contract employees, except for setting up rooms for meetings and events.

“None of my employees will have their pay cut nor will they face furloughs assuming the cost saving strategies initiated months ago (hiring freeze, overtime reduction and delayed in equipment replacement etc.), in conjunction with a very aggressive early retirement program we began two weeks ago, reap the savings anticipated,” he said in an e-mail.

As for security guards at the Capitol, Gainer, who is chairman of the Capitol Hill Police Board, added:

“Our Centurions will face neither pay cuts nor furloughs; they are standing tall through sequestration and all. (We are saving $ by reducing overtime which is accomplished by closing doors of convenience, safety will not be compromised but health improved for visitors and staff by longer treks. )”

The Pinocchio Test

Obama’s remarks continue the administration’s pattern of overstating the potential impact of the sequester, which we have explored this week. But this error is particularly bad–and nerve-wracking to the janitors and security guards who were misled by the president’s comments.

We originally thought this was maybe a Two Pinocchio rating, but in light of the AOC memo and the confirmation that security guards will not face a pay cut, nothing in Obama’s statement came close to being correct.

Four Pinocchios”

Read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sequester-spin-obamas-incorrect-claim-of-capitol-janitors-receiving-a-pay-cut/2013/03/01/3407535c-82a9-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_blog.html

In the spirit of Edward R. Murrow and his never ending search for the truth, I award the Washington Post 4 Murrows.

Murrows4

Romney right Washington Post wrong, Health care costs higher for families and students, Obama promised $2,500 per family per year lower by end of first term, Washington Post receives 5 Orwells

Romney right Washington Post wrong, Health care costs higher for families and students, Obama promised $2,500 per family per year lower by end of first term,  Washington Post receives 5 Orwells

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”…Barack Obama

“If you’ve got health insurance we’re going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2,500 per family per year. But we will not wait 20 years from now to do it, or 10 years from now to do it, we will do it by the end of my first term as president”…Barack Obama Ohio State University February 27, 2008

“the Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones.”…George Orwell, “1984”

Any way you slice it, health care premiums are higher for families and students and we are near the end of Obama’s first term. In a speech at Ohio State University on February 27, 2008 Obama stated:

“If you’ve got health insurance we’re going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2,500 per family per year. But we will not wait 20 years from now to do it, or 10 years from now to do it, we will do it by the end of my first term as president”

From Citizen Wells September 26, 2012.

“Health Insurance Costs Skyrocket For College Students Due To ObamaCare”

“Can we stop calling ObamaCare the Affordable Care Act now?

A Young America’s Foundation activist forwarded an email from the Vice President for Finance at his school, Guilford College (Greensboro, NC), informing him that, “For the 2012-13 academic year, the annual cost of the student health insurance is increasing from $668 to $1,179. This insurance premium has been charged to your student account.”

Why the increase? “Our student health insurance policy premium has been substantially increased due to changes required by federal regulations issued on March 16, 2012 under the Affordable Care Act.”

“Guilford joins a long list of colleges raising their premiums. Virtually all current student insurance plans do not meet ObamaCare’s mandates, and Forbes reports colleges have been forced to drop their plans or raise their premiums rates as much as 1,112% (and no, that’s not a typo).”

“Lenoir-Rhyne University (Hickory, NC) raised theirs from $245 to $2,507″

“During his first run for president, Barack Obama made one very specific promise to voters: He would cut health insurance premiums for families by $2,500, and do so in his first term.

But it turns out that family premiums have increased by more than $3,000 since Obama’s vow, according to the latest annual Kaiser Family Foundation employee health benefits survey.

Premiums for employer-provided family coverage rose $3,065 — 24% — from 2008 to 2012, the Kaiser survey found. Even if you start counting in 2009, premiums have climbed $2,370.

What’s more, premiums climbed faster in Obama’s four years than they did in the previous four under President Bush, the survey data show.

There’s no question about what Obama was promising the country, since he repeated it constantly during his 2008 campaign.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/health-premiums-up-3000-obama-promised-2500-cut-student-health-care-doubles-triples-and-more-obamacare-another-obama-lie-kaiser-survey/

Romney was right and the Washington Post was wrong.

From the Washington Post July 3, 2012.

““Promise: President Obama promised to lower annual health insurance premiums by $2,500…Result: Annual health insurance premiums have increased by $2,393….Gap: health premium costs are $4,893 higher per family than President Obama promised.”

— new Facebook/Twitter post by the Romney campaign

Promises made during the heat of an election campaign sometimes come back to haunt politicians.

The campaign of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is trying to nail President Obama for making an iffy promise during the 2008 campaign — that premiums will be $2,500 lower under his health care plan. Instead, the Romney campaign argues in an effort to create a viral Facebook post, the swing has gone $4,893 the other way.

The Romney graphic is false on several levels, though Obama certainly left himself open to scrutiny with imprecise language in the 2008 campaign. Let’s take a look.

The Facts

The Romney campaign cites a statement from a 2007 speech by Obama, but it’s a pledge that was repeated often: “When I am president, we will have universal health care in this country by the end of my first term in office. It’s a plan that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premiums by $2,500 a year.”

This particular quote is not very clear on when the savings would be realized, but in another speech, in 2008, Obama suggested it would be at the end of his first term — though to be fair, it is not clear if he is talking about the savings or enacting a new health care law:

 “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year. And we’ll do it by investing in disease prevention, not just disease management; by investing in a paperless health care system to reduce administrative costs; and by covering every single American and making sure that they can take their health care with them if they lose their job. We’ll also reduce costs for business and their workers by picking up the tab for some of the most expensive illnesses. And we won’t do all this twenty years from now, or ten years from now. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States.”

The details of this number were further explained in an Obama campaign memo:

“Combining all of these effects — from improved health IT [information technology], better disease management, reduced insurance overhead, reinsurance, and reduced uncompensated care — under our “best-guess” assumptions, we estimate that businesses will save $140 billion annually in insurance premiums. The typical family will save $2500 per year.”

But note that Obama’s pledge came with an asterisk: He was not saying premiums would fall by that amount, as the Romney graphic asserts, but that costs would be that much lower than anticipated. In other words, if premiums were expected to rise by $5,000, they would only rise by $2,500 — that’s what Obama’s pledge meant, even if he was not too clear about it.

Michael Dobbs, our predecessor as The Fact Checker, awarded Obama Two Pinocchios for the pledge, saying it was based on shaky assumptions (such as a Rand Corp. study that was criticized by the Congressional Budget Office) and there was no guarantee that any savings would be passed on to consumers. Our colleagues at FactCheck.org also thought Obama’s pledge was highly dubious.

Of course, once Obama became president, the health care proposal he advocated as a candidate was significantly changed, even to the point of accepting the individual mandate that he had so criticized when Hillary Rodham Clinton promoted it. But the White House more or less stuck to the idea that costs would not rise as quickly as previously estimated — except that it would result in $2,000 in savings by 2019. (Recall also that the health care law will not be implemented until 2014, making a first-term pledge problematic.)

Now, let’s look at what the Romney campaign has done with the pledge. First, it assumes that Obama was saying that premiums would actually decline by $2,500, rather than decline from a projected increase. Then, it takes the 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation survey estimate (Exhibit 1.11) and subtracts the cost of a 2008 family premium ($12,680) from the cost of a 2011 premium ($15,073). Viola, an increase of $2,393—and a promise gap of $4,893.

The Romney campaign’s math is nonsensical. First of all, the Kaiser survey is conducted from January to May each year, so starting with the 2008 date makes little sense, since that is still George W. Bush’s term. Then the health care law was not passed until 2010, so the first year in which any impact could be seen from the law was in 2011.

But, as the Kaiser report notes, most of the provisions of the new law will not take effect in 2014. Thus far, other provisions, such as providing coverage for adult children up to age 26, appear to have had a modest impact on premiums–perhaps 1 to 2 percentage points. (The White House disputes even that effect.) Still, the full effect on premiums — including any possible savings — will not be seen until the law is completely implemented.

We had previously given the Republican National Committee Three Pinocchios for an ad that had focused on the single data point — the increase in premiums from 2010 to 2011 — and blamed all of the increase on the health care law. Now the Romney campaign has quadrupled the same error in an effort to claim that “health premium costs are $4,893 higher per family than President Obama promised.”

The Pinocchio Test

Obama in 2008 made a foolish, dubious pledge about health care premiums. As we have noted, he will have to answer to Americans if his law fails to live up to that promise by 2019 or if people feel misled by his lawyerly wording. He was warned when he got Two Pinocchios back in 2008.

But two wrongs don’t make a right. The Romney campaign has twisted the meaning of that pledge, and then blamed a partially implemented, one-year-old law for three years of premium increases, in order to concoct an absurd claim.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romneys-whopper-claim-on-an-obama-health-care-pledge/2012/07/03/gJQAVhk3IW_blog.html

For their efforts to discredit Romney and protect Obama the Washington Post is awarded 5 Orwells.

Al Jazeera distorts Santorum euthanasia comments and Citizen Wells article, Professor Ian Buruma article biased assumptive selective quoting, Elitist condescension

Al Jazeera distorts Santorum euthanasia comments and Citizen Wells article, Professor Ian Buruma article biased assumptive selective quoting, Elitist condescension

“As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of the Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in it’s stead. This process of continuation alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs–to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to be correct; nor was any item of news, or expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to be on record.”…George Orwell, “1984″ 

“Not every item of news should be published: rather must
those who control news policies endeavor to make every item
of news serve a certain purpose.”… Joseph Goebbels

“Viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news,”…Hillary Clinton 

Al Jazeera has published an article by Professor Ian Buruma on the Washington Post article about Rick Santorum’s comments about euthanasia in the Netherlands. In an attempt to lend credence to the Washington Post article, Professor Buruma cited a Citizen Wells article that was critical of the Post article. The point made at Citizen Wells was that the Washington Post tried to completely discredit Santorum when in fact Santorum painted an accurate picture of most aspects of euthanasia in Holland. Professor Buruma quoted little of the Citizen Wells article and made many assumptions. He also used Alinsky like tactics of elitist condescension.

I came across the Post article by chance. The article could have been about any non Democrat candidate being maligned by the media, it just happened to be Santorum in this case. The point was the biased angle taken by the Post in an attempt to discredit him. The convenient ommission of facts, just as Professor Buruma has done. For example:

I stated: “Santorum may have been guilty of hyperbole but his fundamental message rings true.”

“From Dutch News November 9, 2011.

“A 64-year-old woman suffering from severe senile dementia has become the first person in the Netherlands to be given euthanasia even though she could no
longer express her wish to die, the Volkskrant reports on Wednesday.”

“The case has serious implications for Dutch euthanasia law because it means patients who are no longer able to state their wish can still be helped to die,
Constance de Vries, who acts as a second opinion doctor for euthanasia cases, told the paper.””
“From Forbes February 26, 2012.

“But Rick Santorum’s Sorta Right About Dutch Euthanasia”
“Not that I particularly care to defend a politician I most certainly don’t support: but the piling in on Rick Santorum over his remarks on the prevalence of involuntary euthanasia in Holland does seem a little over the top.”

“The numbers the Senator puts forward are also wrong: euthanasia, voluntary, involuntary, is not 10% of all deaths.

Well, actually, that’s not quite true either. It depends upon how you define these different activities.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/washington-post-attacks-santorum-on-dutch-euthanasia-statement-post-bias-trumps-facts-santorum-point-valid-citizen-wells-awards-4-orwells/

Al Jazeera March 12, 2012.

“A new idea of truth
Quality journalism has suffered as the internet allows individuals to select ‘truth’ based on their prejudices.”

“Rick Santorum, a former United States senator seeking the Republican Party’s nomination to challenge President Barack Obama this year, has been saying some very strange things about the Netherlands. Ten per cent of all deaths in that country, he recently claimed, are from euthanasia, half of which are forced upon helpless patients. Old people are so frightened of being killed by homicidal doctors that they wear bracelets that read: “Do not euthanise me.”
In a way, Santorum’s canards must come as a relief to a country that has increasingly been in the news for outrageous statements by right-wing populists about Muslims and Greeks. Indeed, Santorum’s view of the Netherlands as a kind of progressive dystopia has a slightly old-fashioned ring to it nowadays.
The Dutch were nonetheless disturbed. Some in the country’s parliament even asked whether the foreign minister should lodge a complaint in Washington.
In fact, Santorum’s fantasies were swiftly refuted in the US itself. The Washington Post concluded that “there was not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum’s claims”, and found it “telling” that his campaign managers did not even bother to defend them. One US television station even apologised to a Dutch reporter in the name of the American people.
As the Post pointed out, there is no such thing as involuntary euthanasia in the Netherlands. The patient’s consent is essential, and at least two doctors must agree that the patient’s suffering is unbearable and beyond cure. Besides, the share of assisted deaths in Dutch mortality is nowhere near 10 per cent. As for those bracelets, well…
But does any of this matter to Santorum’s followers? Probably not. Corrections from the “elitist” mainstream media are dismissed as enemy propaganda. As a blogger sympathetic to Santorum  put it: “The Washington Post, as one would expect, attempted to discredit Santorum.”
No more filter
It is disturbing, to say the least, that the most cogent refutations of bald-faced lies no longer make any impression. After all, a democracy cannot function without a public that is properly informed. Informing the public used to be the role of serious newspapers and television networks. Of course, not everything in the mainstream media is always true: Mistakes are made. News organisations have political biases, sometimes reflecting the views and interests of their owners.
But high-quality journalism has always relied on its reputation for probity. Editors, as well as reporters, at least tried to get the facts right. That is why people read Le Monde, The New York Times, or, indeed, The Washington Post. Filtering nonsense was one of their duties – and their main selling point.
That has changed. Populist demagogues in politics and the mass media are doing everything they can to discredit the quality press as propaganda organs for left-wing elites who sneer at the views of ordinary Americans. Santorum pretends to speak for these people – that is, for a minority of Americans who are mostly white, provincial, highly religious, deeply conservative on cultural and social issues, and convinced that Obama and all Europeans are dangerous godless socialists.
The point is not whether Santorum is right or wrong factually. What he says “feels” right to his followers, because it conforms to their prejudices. And the internet, having swamped the quality press, feeds and reinforces those prejudices, making it more difficult to distinguish the truth from lies.
The public is increasingly segmented into groups of likeminded people who see their views echoed back to them in blogs, comments and tweets. There is no need to be exposed to different opinions, which are, in any case, considered to be propaganda. Indeed, Santorum’s new fame will afford him a rich career as a media demagogue, even if he fails as a politician.
The truth is relative
The first people to argue that all truth is relative and that all information is a form of propaganda that reflects society’s power relations, were far removed from the world inhabited by Santorum and his supporters. Several decades ago, a number of European and American intellectuals, often with a background in Marxism, developed a “post-modern” critique of the written word. We might think, they argued, that what we read in The New York Times or Le Monde is objectively true, but everything that appears there is, in fact, a disguised form of propaganda for bourgeois class interests.
There is no such thing, the post-modern critic believes, as independence of thought. Objective truth is an illusion. Everyone is promoting class interests of one kind or another. The real lie, in this view, is the claim of objectivity. What is necessary to change the world is not the truth, but another form of propaganda, promoting different interests. Everything is political; that is the only truth that counts.
It is unlikely that Rick Santorum, or many of his followers, have read any post-modern theorists. Santorum, after all, recently called Obama a “snob” for claiming that all Americans should be entitled to a college education. So he must surely loath writers who represent everything that the Tea Party and other radical right-wingers abhor: the highly educated, intellectual, urban, secular and not always white. These writers are the left-wing elite, at least in academia.
But, as so often happens, ideas have a way of migrating in unexpected ways. The blogger who dismissed The Washington Post’s corrections of Santorum’s fictional portrayal of the Netherlands expressed himself like a perfect post-modernist. The most faithful followers of obscure leftist thinkers in Paris, New York or Berkeley are the most reactionary elements in the American heartland. Of course, if this were pointed out to them, they would no doubt dismiss it as elitist propaganda.
Ian Buruma is Professor of Democracy and Human Rights at Bard College and the author of Taming the Gods: Religion and Democracy on Three Continents.”
Original article:
I have more to say on this article and will do so soon. It is a teachable moment.

Washington Post attacks Santorum on Dutch euthanasia statement, Post bias trumps facts, Santorum point valid, Citizen Wells awards 4 Orwells

Washington Post attacks Santorum on Dutch euthanasia statement, Post bias trumps facts, Santorum point valid, Citizen Wells awards 4 Orwells

“As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any partiucular number of the Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in it’s stead. This process of continuation alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs–to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to be correct; nor was any item of news, or expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to be on record.”…George Orwell, “1984″ 

“Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room.”
“the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically.”
“He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia.”
“There were also whispered stories of a terrible book, a compendium of all the heresies”
“In it’s second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices”… George Orwell, “1984?

“Not every item of news should be published: rather must
those who control news policies endeavor to make every item
of news serve a certain purpose.”… Joseph Goebbels

Rick Santorum made the following statement at the American Heartland Forum in Columbia, Missouri on February 3, 2012:

“In the Netherlands, people wear different bracelets if they are elderly. And the bracelet is: ‘Do not euthanize me.’ Because they have voluntary euthanasia
in the Netherlands but half of the people who are euthanized — ten percent of all deaths in the Netherlands — half of those people are enthanized
involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick. And so elderly people in the Netherlands don’t go to the hospital. They go to another country,
because they are afraid, because of budget purposes, they will not come out of that hospital if they go in there with sickness.”

Santorum may have been guilty of hyperbole but his fundamental message rings true.

The Washington Post, as one would expect, attempted to discredit Santorum,  one of the Republican frontrunners.

From the Washington Post February 22, 2012.

“In 2001, The Netherlands became the first country to legalize euthanasia, setting forth a complex process. The law, which went into effect a year later,
codified a practice that has been unofficially tolerated for many years.

Under the Dutch law, a doctor must diagnose the illness as incurable and the patient must have full control of his or her mental faculties. The patient must
voluntarily and repeatedly request the procedure, and another doctor must provide a written opinion agreeing with the diagnosis. After the death, a
commission made up of a doctor, a jurist and an ethical expert also are required to verify that the requirements for euthanasia have been met.

Late last year, in the first such case, a 64-year-old woman with advanced Alzheimer’s disease was euthanized, on the strength of her insisting for years that she wanted the procedure to be done.

Nevertheless, the statistics show it is still a relatively uncommon form of death. In 2010, the number of euthanasia cases reported to one of five special
commissions was 3,136, according to their annual report. This was a 19 percent increase over 2009, but “this amounts to 2.3 percent of all 136,058 deaths in
the Netherlands in 2010,” said Carla Bundy, spokeswoman for the Dutch embassy in Washington.

At the time of the annual report, the commissions had been able to reach conclusions in 2,667 euthanasia notifications reported to the agency and found only nine in which “the physician had not acted in accordance with the due care criteria,” the annual report said. More than 80 percent of the patients were
suffering from cancer; almost 80 percent died at home.

A 2005 study by the New England Journal of Medicine found only a minimal number of the cases — 0.4 percent — in which there was an ending of life without
explicit request by the patient. The study concluded the rate had actually been cut in half since the euthanasia law was passed.

These statistics were so at odds with Santorum’s claims that we wondered how he could have thought that 50 percent of the elderly were put to death
involuntarily (or that 10 percent of all deaths in Holland were from euthanasia.) Spokesmen for Santorum did not respond to a query, but the best we can
tell, he is grossly misinterpreting the results of a 1991 survey known as the Remmelink Report, which was influential in crafting the 2001 law.”

“The Pinocchio Test

There appears to be not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum’s claims about euthanasia in the Netherlands. It is telling that his campaign did not even
bother to defend his comments.

Four Pinocchios”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/euthanasia-in-the-netherlands-rick-santorums-bogus-statistics/2012/02/21/gIQAJaRbSR_blog.html

From Dutch News November 9, 2011.

“A 64-year-old woman suffering from severe senile dementia has become the first person in the Netherlands to be given euthanasia even though she could no
longer express her wish to die, the Volkskrant reports on Wednesday.”

“The case has serious implications for Dutch euthanasia law because it means patients who are no longer able to state their wish can still be helped to die,
Constance de Vries, who acts as a second opinion doctor for euthanasia cases, told the paper.”

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2011/11/doctors_back_euthanasia_in_sev.php

From Forbes February 26, 2012.

“But Rick Santorum’s Sorta Right About Dutch Euthanasia”
“Not that I particularly care to defend a politician I most certainly don’t support: but the piling in on Rick Santorum over his remarks on the prevalence of involuntary euthanasia in Holland does seem a little over the top.”

“The numbers the Senator puts forward are also wrong: euthanasia, voluntary, involuntary, is not 10% of all deaths.

Well, actually, that’s not quite true either. It depends upon how you define these different activities. If we say that voluntary euthanasia is the doctor or
medics ending the life of someone who has requested that their life be ended, involuntary that they use perhaps the same drugs or treatments to deliberately
end the life of someone who has not so requested then no, the two together do not amount to 10% of all deaths.

However, there’s a third category. From an overdose of painkillers (and we should note that European hospitals still use opiates in a manner which I believe
US hospitals do not: heroin is not an unusual treatment for final stage cancer over here although whether you think that diamorphine is quite the same thing
or not is really up to you) through to a complete withdrawal of treatment. That withdrawal including a complete withdrawal of not just food but also
hydration. Whether you consider starving to death a terminal cancer patient euthanasia is again something really up to you. Ditto with your opinions of
dehydration.

If we include these latter then the numbers are rather over 10%. Indeed, withdrawal of nutrition and hydration counts for an observable portion of deaths in the British medical system where we most certainly do not have any form of right to any form of euthanasia.”

“How about a current advisor to the Obama Administration? Even the Special Advisor for Health Policy to Peter Orszag? A previous Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the Clinical Center of the U.S. National Institutes of Health? A supporter of health care reform indeed one of the architects of it?

Yes, why not Ezekiel Emanuel? Dr. Emanuel is using the above mentioned Remmelink Report and an update to it as the basis of his figures:

First, the update found that beyond the roughly 3,600 cases of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia reported in a given year, there are about 1,000
instances of nonvoluntary euthanasia. Most frequently, patients who were no longer competent were given euthanasia even though they could not have freely,
explicitly, and repeatedly requested it. Before becoming unconscious or mentally incompetent about half these patients did discuss or express a wish for
euthanasia; nevertheless, they were unable to reaffirm their wishes when the euthanasia was performed. Similarly, a study of nursing-home patients found that in only 41 percent of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia cases did doctors adhere to all the guidelines. Although most of the violations were minor
(usually deviations in the notification procedure), in 15 percent of cases the patient did not initiate the request for physician-assisted suicide or
euthanasia; in 15 percent there was no consultation with a second physician; in seven percent no more than one day elapsed between the first request and the
actual physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia, violating the guideline calling for repeated requests; and in nine percent interventions other than
physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia could have been tried to relieve the patient’s suffering.

Second, euthanasia of newborns has been acknowledged. The reported cases have involved babies suffering from well-recognized fatal or severely disabling
defects, though the babies were not in fact dying. Precisely how many cases have occurred is not known. One estimate is that ten to fifteen such cases occur
each year. Whether ethically justified or not, providing euthanasia to newborns (upon parental request) is not voluntary euthanasia and does constitute a
kind of “mercy killing.”

The Netherlands studies fail to demonstrate that permitting physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia will not lead to the nonvoluntary euthanasia of
children, the demented, the mentally ill, the old, and others. Indeed, the persistence of abuse and the violation of safeguards, despite publicity and
condemnation, suggest that the feared consequences of legalization are exactly its inherent consequences.”

“It is of course possible to look at this in various different ways. The most obvious to me is that the Senator’s audience would not have been any less
shocked to be told that 0.5%, or 1%, are, according to the views of that audience, murdered by their doctors than they were by being told it was 5%. On these matters ethical it’s not how often it happens but that it happens at all which shocks. We wouldn’t be all that impressed by the school principal who said he
only killed a couple of the kids, not the 5% of the entire student population that was alleged.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/02/26/but-rick-santorums-sorta-right-about-dutch-euthanasia/

From the Daily Caller February 21, 2012.


“But the media mocking had a purpose beyond making fun of a conservative. It distracted people from the fact that Santorum’s overarching message is true —
euthanasia consciousness breaches the dikes of morality and exposes the weak and vulnerable to great risk. Indeed, while Santorum overstated some of the
details — the elderly are not flocking to out-of-country hospitals — he was spot-on regarding the charge that many Dutch doctors practice death medicine.
Indeed, anyone paying attention to recent stories from the Netherlands knows that things have gone from very bad to much, much worse.

Official Dutch euthanasia statistics undercount the actual toll: Much was made out of Santorum’s claim of a 10% euthanasia rate when official statistics
generally report that 2-3% of Dutch deaths come from doctor-administered lethal injection. (The same rate in the USA would amount to about 70,000 euthanasia killings per year.) But realize, about 1/3 of the Dutch die suddenly, e.g. by sudden stroke, heart attack, or accident, without significant end-of-life
medical intervention. Take those deaths away from the total count, and using the Dutch government’s estimate, the percentage of euthanasia deaths in cases
involving end-of-life medical treatment rises to 3-4%.

But even that number is far too low. Repeated studies have shown that Dutch doctors fail to report at least 20% (or more) of actual euthanasia deaths, which
means that hundreds of euthanasias aren’t included in the official statistical count. Moreover, about 1% of all Dutch deaths come as a result, to use Dutch
parlance, of being “terminated without request or consent” — e.g. non-voluntary euthanasia. Such deaths are also not technically part of the official
euthanasia count. That gets us up to about 6% of all deaths involving medical treatment at the time of death. Add in a few hundred assisted suicides each
year where the patient takes the final death action rather than being lethally injected, and suddenly, Santorum’s 10% claim becomes far less problematic.

Wait, there’s more: Dutch doctors also kill patients by intentionally overdosing them with pain killers. I am not referring here to death caused as a side
effect of legitimate pain control, but overdosing with the intent of causing death. The exact number of these deaths isn’t known, but the authoritative 1990
government study known as the Remmelink Report found that there were 8,100 deaths from intentional opioid overdose, of which 61% were done without the
request or consent of patients. Now, add in, say, half of the nearly 10% of deaths that occur after Dutch doctors place patients into artificial comas and
deny them food and water — that is, those cases in which palliative sedation is not medically necessary to control otherwise irremediable suffering — and we
see that Santorum’s claim of a 10% euthanasia rate isn’t materially overstated at all.

The Dutch are moving toward euthanizing the elderly: A Dutch elderly dementia patient was recently euthanized in the Netherlands without request and despite
being incompetent — and the killing received the approval of the state. Meanwhile, the Dutch parliament is actively debating whether to expand the practice of assisted suicide to the elderly “tired of life” or who want to die because they “consider their lives complete.” Not coincidentally, a Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) ethics opinion advocated including “loneliness,” loss of social skills and money problems among the factors for allowing the elderly to receive legal doctor-prescribed or doctor-administered death.”

“I could go on and on:

● Dutch doctors have published the Groningen Protocol, a bureaucratic checklist for committing infanticide on terminally ill and seriously disabled babies, as two studies in The Lancet show that 8% of all babies who die in the Netherlands each year (about 90) are terminated by doctors.

● Mobile euthanasia “clinics” will soon be operating to bring euthanasia to the homes of patients whose own doctors say no.

● The Dutch media also mocked Santorum for claiming that thousands of Dutch citizens wear bracelets saying they don’t want to be euthanized. Fair is fair.
Santorum was wrong. They don’t wear bracelets — they carry please-don’t-euthanize-me cards in their wallets or purses.

Enough. Rick Santorum is exactly right in his broader criticism that the Netherlands as leaping head-first off a vertical moral cliff. Maybe if Dutch
reporters paid closer attention to what is happening under their very noses, they’d stop laughing at Santorum’s minor factual errors and start acting like
journalists.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/21/santorum-more-right-than-wrong-about-dutch-euthanasia/

It is apparent that the Washington Post, just as their counterpart the Times in “1984” did, is doing their part to take down the opposition to the “party.” The Post let biased reporting interfere with the facts. It is for that reason that I bestow 4 Orwells upon the Washington Post for their Orwellian efforts.