The Judas Factor

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I really don’t want to get into the business of explaining the meaning of my poems. It’s quite a bit like explaining a joke. If you have to do it a lot of the effect is spoiled. I will go so far as to say that a major precipitating factor behind the poem was that I had recently read "The Inquisition Reexamined" at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6480/inquisition.html . It occurred to me that we are currently faced with the same sort of perfidious activity that the Spanish Inquistion was designed, however imperfectly, to root out. The poetasting rat finally bares his fangs, I see. Shall we now be favored with more excerpts from the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" from you, Dave – you lying, two-faced, malicious, whining, paranoid little creep? Like my "America’s Dreyfus Affair" It is painfully obvious which side you would have been on during the real Dreyfus Affair.

Ever notice he hasn’t had the least thing to say when Valentine and AndroidX98 repeat the "new truth" that the Davidian faith was anti-jewish, despite being named after an ancient Jewish king and Valentine’s own pre-fucked WHEM has a picture of a charred skull with Star of David pendant still attached? — http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/al.htm

Response:

Oh no, no, no. The subject of the thread is the article about the phony witness, CW, that appeared on the web site of the phony critic, Christopher Ruddy. I’m sorry if I was not sufficiently clear on that point. DC Dave Author of "Upton Sinclair and Timothy McVeigh," "America’s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster," & "Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression" http://thebird.org/host/dcdave

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – To hell with the poem. I refer to your post previous to it: What you wrote is easily taken to mean: Hugh Sprunt is a fraudulent critic (of various government agencies concerning the Foster Affair). Please clarify. Mark I really don’t want to get into the business of explaining the meaning of my poems. It’s quite a bit like explaining a joke. If you have to do it a lot of the effect is spoiled. …

Response:

The poetasting rat finally bares his fangs, I see. Shall we now be favored with more excerpts from the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" from you, Dave – you lying, two-faced, malicious, whining, paranoid little creep? Like my "America’s Dreyfus Affair"

It is painfully obvious which side you would have been on during the real Dreyfus Affair. (snip) JS — A Short History Of The United States of America: "Laugh all you want…I’m the one goin’ down in history as the Thomas Jefferson of squirrels." http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/meatwagon/index.html

Response:

I had assumed that we were all grownups here and could read something a bit longer than a bumper sticker. Anyone who has the time to participate extensively in online discussions certainly has the time to read my indictment of Ruddy in Parts 2 and 5 of the "Dreyfus" series. Why should I have to produce a "Dreyfus for Idiots" version? In a trial, it is the prosecution’s entire case that, if it is persuasive, convicts the accused, not a summary of the prosecution’s closing statement. Why should you settle for the latter from me when the former is as near as a mouse click? Ruddy’s whispering campaign against John Clarke might have been the major precipitating event that caused Hugh Turley and me to begin to see through him. The short shrift he gave in his book to the ongoing efforts of Pat Knowlton to obtain justice was also another major giveaway. His clearly fabricated response to my suggestion that the White House surveillance record should be pursued is also, in retrospect, extremely damning. His use in his book of Beryl Anthony as a key "prosecution witness" against Vince for self-murder caused by depression without noting Anthony’s initial spontaneous response on July 24, 1993, to the first depression suggestion is simply unforgivable. Throughout the book Ruddy undercuts himself far too much for it to be anything but intentional. His pulling of his punches when it comes to the right-wing cover-up artists like Dan Burton and the whole "conservative" press community is also telling. But again, I’m only scratching the surface here, and you guys know it. Check out the full indictment. No, I have no interest is swimming full time in the Schneider guppy tank. I can put up with the Lochners and the Heizers for the chance to reach an occasional real person. DC Dave Author of "Upton Sinclair and Timothy McVeigh," "America’s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster," & "Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression" http://thebird.org/host/dcdave – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —— Original Message —– Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 3:42 AM —– Original Message —– <snip Do you mean to suggest by your question, Mike, that CW and Ruddy are not frauds, in spite of the quite compelling evidence that Clarke, Knowlton, Turley, and I have brought forward that they are? I’ve discussed Ruddy’s coverage of the Foster case with both Turley and you at turns, and each time it’s been more of the same runaround. Give me an executive summary of this "compelling evidence" that Ruddy is a ‘fraud’, and none of that obtuseness that you dished out over AEP’s photocopy of Foster’s car registration. I quite agree. Concise, to the point, and without interruption by the more sordid usenet likes of a Lockner or Roselles. This particular kind of debate is one of the two major reasons I created American_Liberty in the first place, and am pleases to observe it finally occurring. Further responses I will direct only to the group (which I request the others also follow to avoid duplicates which I know at least I and Sprunt are receiving), and anyone not subscribed to it can easily do so with a blank email to replying to messages online (not recommended because Yahoo handles test-wrapping badly) at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/messages (Furthermore, I will not moderate anyone able to stick to the subject in this thread and who isn’t caught lying their ass off. That’s a promise. Note: The words in this parenthesis-enclosed paragraph are off-topic; I will not entertain conjecture as to what I "mean". Figure it out, or don’t.) Mike. — DC Dave Author of "Upton Sinclair and Timothy McVeigh," "America’s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster," & "Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression" http://thebird.org/host/dcdave A moderated (i.e., weasel-free) discussion of the Foster subject is occurring at American_Liberty. Those interested are invited to follow along (and participate if they have anything intelligent to contribute) by either subscribing with a blank email to messages online (cumbersome) at the Yahoo website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/messages Mike. To hell with the poem. I refer to your post previous to it: What you wrote is easily taken to mean: Hugh Sprunt is a fraudulent critic (of various government agencies concerning the Foster Affair). Please clarify. Mark I really don’t want to get into the business of explaining the meaning of my poems. It’s quite a bit like explaining a joke. If you have to do it a lot of the effect is spoiled. … — http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/al.htm

Response:

to which I responded: What you wrote is easily taken to mean: Hugh Sprunt is a fraudulent critic (of various government agencies concerning the Foster Affair). Please clarify.

DC Dave is only interested in trolling for hits on his vanity web site and finding someone, just anyone that will buy one os the garage full of vanity books he has been trying to unload for years. AS far as Foster is concerned, he could care less, that’s just an excuse to troll. /ayne //ann The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. – 10th Amendment to Constitution

Response:

To hell with the poem. I refer to your post previous to it: What you wrote is easily taken to mean: Hugh Sprunt is a fraudulent critic (of various government agencies concerning the Foster Affair). Please clarify. Mark

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I really don’t want to get into the business of explaining the meaning of my poems. It’s quite a bit like explaining a joke. If you have to do it a lot of the effect is spoiled. …

Response:

A moderated (i.e., weasel-free) discussion of the Foster subject is occurring at American_Liberty. Those interested are invited to follow along (and participate if they have anything intelligent to contribute) by either subscribing with a blank email to messages online (cumbersome) at the Yahoo website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/messages Mike. To hell with the poem. I refer to your post previous to it: What you wrote is easily taken to mean: Hugh Sprunt is a fraudulent critic (of various government agencies concerning the Foster Affair). Please clarify. Mark I really don’t want to get into the business of explaining the meaning of my poems. It’s quite a bit like explaining a joke. If you have to do it a lot of the effect is spoiled. …

– http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/al.htm

Response:

I really don’t want to get into the business of explaining the meaning of my poems. It’s quite a bit like explaining a joke. If you have to do it a lot of the effect is spoiled. I will go so far as to say that a major precipitating factor behind the poem was that I had recently read "The Inquisition Reexamined" at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6480/inquisition.html . It occurred to me that we are currently faced with the same sort of perfidious activity that the Spanish Inquistion was designed, however imperfectly, to root out. Like my "America’s Dreyfus Affair" and "Upton Sinclair and Timothy McVeigh," "The Judas Factor" uses history to show that there is really nothing new under the sun. To all those readers whose foot would fit comfortably into the shoe, please, by all means, wear it. DC Dave Author of "Upton Sinclair and Timothy McVeigh," "America’s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster," & "Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression" http://thebird.org/host/dcdave

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Judas Factor There are plants among our dissidents. It’s how the game is played. Some have reached such high position That it would take an inquisition To show we’ve been betrayed. DC Dave and just before Let’s cut through all the verbiage here. Wouldn’t we expect a fraudulent critic to be promoting a fraudulent witness? Mr. Sprunt has given you the general URL to the site of Clarke/Knowlton/Turley on the Foster case. Had he given you, more specifically, http://www.fbicover-up.com/photos/turkeyrun.htm you would be able to see very clearly that a crucial part of the "confidential" witness’s story simply does not hold water. If you are able to check out the scene at Fort Marcy Park where CW says he went to relieve himself and discovered the body, you will see that he held his water far too long for someone who had to go so badly that he dropped into this wooded park where he knew there were no facilities. In short, this is a piss poor, concocted story that Ruddy and company would have us swallow. Considering that CW’s earlier champions were the likes of G. Gordon Liddy, Robert Novak, and Rep. Dan Burton we really should not be surprised to see him now being aggressively championed by Ruddy (who earlier disagreed with him on the very fundamental question of the body site). The biggest joke of all in this piece is the conclusion in which Ruddy’s shabby little book of disinformation is described as "the definitive account of Foster’s death and subsequent investigations into the case." To see what an outrageous claim this is, please see parts 2 and 5 of my "America’s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster," a work which I see goes unmentioned by Mr. Sprunt. DC Dave NewsMax Monday, July 16, 2001 1:02 p.m. EDT Secret Foster Case Witness Speaks Out After 7-Year Silence FWIW, although some new details are supplied in this interview, what CW (DK) says is largely consistent with what he has stated before in affidavits and in publicly available FD-302s covering his interviews with FBI agents working for the Fiske OIC. I say "largely" because, while the account in this interview is consistent with what he told the Fiske OIC in his earlier FD-302s, his later FD-302s have him saying (whether he did nor didn’t say it!) that he saw more blood on Foster’s face than just the dried blood at the nostrils and on the lips. (There are some other differences as well between the "early" and "later" FD-302s.) I note in passing that the lead US Park Police investigator at the scene stated under oath at one point (as CW says in this interview) in a deposition HE gave the Fiske OIC, that both Foster’s hands were palm UP. Even though the photo that the government presumably leaked showing the gun in Foster’s right hand showed the palm of the hand palm DOWN and cupping the official death gun, for whatever reason the folks taking the USPP Investigator’s deposition did NOT follow-up when the USPP Investigator told them that Foster’s hands were palm DOWN, thereby contradicting the photo leaked by the government and the government "party line" on the death scene. No one can be sure at this point what results, if any, will follow from this new interview with the Confidential Witness (and there remain unanswered questions regarding the Confidential Witness as well), but I have hopes that, nearly eight years after the Foster death, we are getting closer to some sort of proper denouement. Chris Ruddy of Newsmax.com, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the London Sunday Telegraph, Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media (with a good article on one aspect of the Foster death in the recent 2001 AIM Report #11) , Patrick Knowlton/John Clarke/Hugh Turley (see www.fbicover-up.com), Allan Favish (see http://members.aol.com/allanf8702/page1.htm), and MANY others (including me) have written extensively on the Foster death in published articles and various analyses over the years (some on line and some in hard copy). Allan’s site (and others) have a good sampling of the various reports and articles I wrote on the Foster death including, I believe, the latest published update of The Citizen’s Independent Report and the latest published version of an analysis I did of the Starr Report on the Foster death (I never got around to word processing my penciled additions to the latest published version of the latter — maybe this latest interview with CW is a good reason for me to get off my rear and do so). Based on the publicly available data and my own analyses, I have thought for many years that any unbiased reader of the publicly available record of the Foster death (and the independent commentaries thereon) would come away deciding that, however he came to grief, Foster clearly did NOT commit suicide at Fort Marcy Park with the gun officially found in his hand and that it is extremely likely he was murdered (I strongly favor the conclusion that he was murdered, but I don’t insist that that must have been the case). Although each of those of those named above who have studied the death different somewhat (ranging from relatively fine nuances to significant differences) re our view of the death (and to varying extents have defended those individual views vigorously), the general conclusions we have reached (IMHO) are the same and include the following: 1) There was (and is) a massive official cover-up of many aspects of the Foster death involving a large variety of people working for numerous government bodies and agencies and 2) The government "line" on the death (that Foster died of his own hand in Fort Marcy Park by the gun officially found with him) is (to state it mildly) on its face completely full of holes. Let’s hope this new CW interview takes us closer to two of the places I believe we want to be — the start a REAL official investigation of Foster’s death (no statute of limitations on murder) and much wider unofficial interest in (and analysis of) the Foster death. If anything, this interview ought to be a good reason for all those concerned about the Foster death to pull together to increase media/public/official interest in the Foster death. Warm regards, Hugh Sprunt to which I responded: What you wrote is easily taken to mean: Hugh Sprunt is a fraudulent critic (of various government agencies concerning the Foster Affair). Please clarify. Mark

Response:

1. I would like to express my appreciation to Ray Heizer for the online work he has done through the years. With his tireless, though feckless, niggling attacks upon me and Hugh Turley he, with the help of his little band of lackeys, has done more to build up my credibility than anything I can think of. Isn’t it amusing to watch, one more time, his mock outrage over the fact that back when I was foolish enough to trust him, Chris Ruddy prevailed upon me to play the role of Vince Foster in the re-enactment of the Foster death that he and Vincent Scalice used to attempt to show that Foster had not died as the authorities said? Since all of Heizer’s fake indignation seems to be directed at me, the mere order-following model, you know for sure that without my participation, Heizer would have remained quiet about the whole matter. Ruddy’s the one that the national publicity organs are behind, but somehow it’s the minor misstep that Ruddy roped me into that has the heizer all exercised, and it’s at me rather than Ruddy that manages to get himself so worked up. 2. I will freely admit that there was a time when I cut Chris Ruddy far too much slack. Like Lot in the Bible who really wanted to believe that there was at least one righteous person in Sodom or Gomorrah, I really wanted to believe that we had at least one honest journalist in these United States of America. I wanted to believe Chris Ruddy so much that it took me far too long to spread the word that Ruddy had told me that his "White House contact" had told him that Bill Clinton had had the White House surveillance cameras removed so as to facilitate his nocturnal carousing. This was after an acquaintance whose former employer had installed the equipment had tipped me off about the power of the White House surveillance cameras. I had passed that tip along to Ruddy and suggested that he publicize the need to flush the surveillance tapes out into the open to determine when, how, and with whom Foster had left the White House compound on the day of his death. Ruddy squelched that promising line of inquiry, and I was too trusting at the time to raise a big fuss about it. I will admit that it took me too long to realize that Chris Ruddy was a fake and in his own way even worse than the Sidney Blumenthals, the Michael Isikoffs, or the Mike Wallaces. Now that I’m shouting it from the figurative rooftops, who is it that Heizer attacks? It’s me, of course. DC Dave Author of "Upton Sinclair and Timothy McVeigh," "America’s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster," & "Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression" http://thebird.org/host/dcdave

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Judas Factor There are plants among our dissidents. It’s how the game is played. Some have reached such high position That it would take an inquisition To show we’ve been betrayed. DC Dave — Lest we forget … or newcomers are misled … about just who may be playing games sometimes: Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, alt.activism, alt.thebird < Whoa, back up here. Where, exactly, did I admit to manufacturing < evidence? — Right down below here, Dr. David Gary Martin, Ph.D. — You don’t like the word manufacturing? Then try orchestrating. I think the full and proper wording would be that you helped manufacture the evidence, as orchestrated by Ruddy, which was then used in Scalice’s report. — Scalice’s resulting so-called "_INDEPENDENT_ Report," which was silent on Ruddy’s role, was then cited by Ruddy to bolster his case in his articles. Can you imagine the academic scandal that would result if a Ph.D. candidate anonymously orchestrated the evidence and then cited it as INDEPENDENT proof of his thesis without revealing his involvement? Can you imagine how long Ruddy would last if he was cross-examined on his research into the Foster case and this came up as the first line of inquiry? — You sat on this unrevealed involvement by both you and Ruddy for three years, making yourself no different in many ways than the rest of the press you chastise so vigorously (only difference being you were a protagonist in this little coverup and perhaps others): – - – Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.journalism,alt.thebird <snip To tell you the truth I never took the whole exercise all that seriously and don’t recall actually reading the report. I saw it more as a publicity stunt to keep the pot boiling–not really a bad idea in its own right, though. One hardly needs to go through such an exercise to find that one is going to pick up dirt and fall back differently from how Foster was found. snip I may have the report, but right now I don’t know where to put my hands on it so I certainly cannot tell you where Ruddy’s presence is mentioned. Ruddy was not just there, he orchestrated the whole thing and pretty much ran the show. Hughie, by the way, was not. – - — I’m not interested in ripping you or Ruddy as you claim. I am after the truth … unvarnished, unmanufactured and unstaged. Why don’t you get out of your ivory tower and help us find it. For starters, what do you know about the strange appearance of Jonathan Slevin on the Foster case stage on July 17, 1994?

Response:

The Judas Factor There are plants among our dissidents. It’s how the game is played. Some have reached such high position That it would take an inquisition To show we’ve been betrayed. DC Dave

and just before – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Let’s cut through all the verbiage here. Wouldn’t we expect a fraudulent critic to be promoting a fraudulent witness? Mr. Sprunt has given you the general URL to the site of Clarke/Knowlton/Turley on the Foster case. Had he given you, more specifically, http://www.fbicover-up.com/photos/turkeyrun.htm you would be able to see very clearly that a crucial part of the "confidential" witness’s story simply does not hold water. If you are able to check out the scene at Fort Marcy Park where CW says he went to relieve himself and discovered the body, you will see that he held his water far too long for someone who had to go so badly that he dropped into this wooded park where he knew there were no facilities. In short, this is a piss poor, concocted story that Ruddy and company would have us swallow. Considering that CW’s earlier champions were the likes of G. Gordon Liddy, Robert Novak, and Rep. Dan Burton we really should not be surprised to see him now being aggressively championed by Ruddy (who earlier disagreed with him on the very fundamental question of the body site). The biggest joke of all in this piece is the conclusion in which Ruddy’s shabby little book of disinformation is described as "the definitive account of Foster’s death and subsequent investigations into the case." To see what an outrageous claim this is, please see parts 2 and 5 of my "America’s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster," a work which I see goes unmentioned by Mr. Sprunt. DC Dave NewsMax Monday, July 16, 2001 1:02 p.m. EDT Secret Foster Case Witness Speaks Out After 7-Year Silence FWIW, although some new details are supplied in this interview, what CW (DK) says is largely consistent with what he has stated before in affidavits and in publicly available FD-302s covering his interviews with FBI agents working for the Fiske OIC. I say "largely" because, while the account in this interview is consistent with what he told the Fiske OIC in his earlier FD-302s, his later FD-302s have him saying (whether he did nor didn’t say it!) that he saw more blood on Foster’s face than just the dried blood at the nostrils and on the lips. (There are some other differences as well between the "early" and "later" FD-302s.) I note in passing that the lead US Park Police investigator at the scene stated under oath at one point (as CW says in this interview) in a deposition HE gave the Fiske OIC, that both Foster’s hands were palm UP. Even though the photo that the government presumably leaked showing the gun in Foster’s right hand showed the palm of the hand palm DOWN and cupping the official death gun, for whatever reason the folks taking the USPP Investigator’s deposition did NOT follow-up when the USPP Investigator told them that Foster’s hands were palm DOWN, thereby contradicting the photo leaked by the government and the government "party line" on the death scene. No one can be sure at this point what results, if any, will follow from this new interview with the Confidential Witness (and there remain unanswered questions regarding the Confidential Witness as well), but I have hopes that, nearly eight years after the Foster death, we are getting closer to some sort of proper denouement. Chris Ruddy of Newsmax.com, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the London Sunday Telegraph, Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media (with a good article on one aspect of the Foster death in the recent 2001 AIM Report #11) , Patrick Knowlton/John Clarke/Hugh Turley (see www.fbicover-up.com), Allan Favish (see http://members.aol.com/allanf8702/page1.htm), and MANY others (including me) have written extensively on the Foster death in published articles and various analyses over the years (some on line and some in hard copy). Allan’s site (and others) have a good sampling of the various reports and articles I wrote on the Foster death including, I believe, the latest published update of The Citizen’s Independent Report and the latest published version of an analysis I did of the Starr Report on the Foster death (I never got around to word processing my penciled additions to the latest published version of the latter — maybe this latest interview with CW is a good reason for me to get off my rear and do so). Based on the publicly available data and my own analyses, I have thought for many years that any unbiased reader of the publicly available record of the Foster death (and the independent commentaries thereon) would come away deciding that, however he came to grief, Foster clearly did NOT commit suicide at Fort Marcy Park with the gun officially found in his hand and that it is extremely likely he was murdered (I strongly favor the conclusion that he was murdered, but I don’t insist that that must have been the case). Although each of those of those named above who have studied the death different somewhat (ranging from relatively fine nuances to significant differences) re our view of the death (and to varying extents have defended those individual views vigorously), the general conclusions we have reached (IMHO) are the same and include the following: 1) There was (and is) a massive official cover-up of many aspects of the Foster death involving a large variety of people working for numerous government bodies and agencies and 2) The government "line" on the death (that Foster died of his own hand in Fort Marcy Park by the gun officially found with him) is (to state it mildly) on its face completely full of holes. Let’s hope this new CW interview takes us closer to two of the places I believe we want to be — the start a REAL official investigation of Foster’s death (no statute of limitations on murder) and much wider unofficial interest in (and analysis of) the Foster death. If anything, this interview ought to be a good reason for all those concerned about the Foster death to pull together to increase media/public/official interest in the Foster death. Warm regards, Hugh Sprunt

to which I responded: What you wrote is easily taken to mean: Hugh Sprunt is a fraudulent critic (of various government agencies concerning the Foster Affair). Please clarify. Mark

Response:

The Judas Factor There are plants among our dissidents. It’s how the game is played. Some have reached such high position That it would take an inquisition To show we’ve been betrayed. DC Dave DC Dave Author of "Upton Sinclair and Timothy McVeigh," "America’s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster," & "Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression" http://thebird.org/host/dcdave

Response:

The Judas Factor There are plants among our dissidents. It’s how the game is played. Some have reached such high position That it would take an inquisition To show we’ve been betrayed. DC Dave

– Lest we forget … or newcomers are misled … about just who may be playing games sometimes: Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, alt.activism, alt.thebird

< Whoa, back up here. Where, exactly, did I admit to manufacturing < evidence? — Right down below here, Dr. David Gary Martin, Ph.D. — You don’t like the word manufacturing? Then try orchestrating. I think the full and proper wording would be that you helped manufacture the evidence, as orchestrated by Ruddy, which was then used in Scalice’s report. — Scalice’s resulting so-called "_INDEPENDENT_ Report," which was silent on Ruddy’s role, was then cited by Ruddy to bolster his case in his articles. Can you imagine the academic scandal that would result if a Ph.D. candidate anonymously orchestrated the evidence and then cited it as INDEPENDENT proof of his thesis without revealing his involvement? Can you imagine how long Ruddy would last if he was cross-examined on his research into the Foster case and this came up as the first line of inquiry? — You sat on this unrevealed involvement by both you and Ruddy for three years, making yourself no different in many ways than the rest of the press you chastise so vigorously (only difference being you were a protagonist in this little coverup and perhaps others): – - – Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.journalism,alt.thebird <snip To tell you the truth I never took the whole exercise all that seriously and don’t recall actually reading the report. I saw it more as a publicity stunt to keep the pot boiling–not really a bad idea in its own right, though. One hardly needs to go through such an exercise to find that one is going to pick up dirt and fall back differently from how Foster was found. snip I may have the report, but right now I don’t know where to put my hands on it so I certainly cannot tell you where Ruddy’s presence is mentioned. Ruddy was not just there, he orchestrated the whole thing and pretty much ran the show. Hughie, by the way, was not. – - — I’m not interested in ripping you or Ruddy as you claim. I am after the truth … unvarnished, unmanufactured and unstaged. Why don’t you get out of your ivory tower and help us find it. For starters, what do you know about the strange appearance of Jonathan Slevin on the Foster case stage on July 17, 1994?

Response:

Filed under: Activism

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism

The Judas Factor

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Categories

Recent Entries

Popular Posts

RSS