Home » Media & Book News, U.S. News

Washington Post writer calls people “kooks” who believe the Clintons killed Vince Foster (they did not). But look at what they have in common …

2 July 2016 11 Comments

Following Orders: The Death of Vince Foster, Clinton White House Lawyer

Chapter 8 Excerpt

What do some mainstream press journalists, like the Washington Post’s Callum Borchers, who wrote, Yes, there actually are people who believe the Clintons killed Foster, (Borchers is correct about that), and called them “kooks,” and the extreme right-wing alternative media’s Vince Foster murder conspiracy theorists, the “kooks,” purported experts and journalists (some who hide behind fake names, and can’t look people in the eye), have in common?

They deliberately ignore what happened, and subsequently did not happen, inside of Deputy Counsel Vincent W Foster’s White House office when he tragically committed suicide.

They want everyone else to ignore Foster’s White House office too.

They also call people who don’t “kooks,” or variations thereof and attack them personally on the Internet.

Foster, a long time Hillary and Bill Clinton friend, and confidante, from Arkansas, was found dead, on July 20, 1993, by a self inflicted gunshot wound in Fort Marcy Park, Virginia. Fort Marcy Park is about 8 miles from the White House. Foster called Hillary Clinton the “client.” Shortly after his tragic and untimely death, in part, long-time Clinton friends and associates were indicted in what was known as Whitewater.

But who are the “kooks”?

Me, former Clinton-appointed Deputy Attorney General Phillip Heymann, multiple law enforcement agencies, New York Times reporters, and Senate Whitewater Committee members?

Why? We didn’t ignore what happened, and did not happen, in Foster’s White House office when Foster died, and subsequently thereafter.

Therein lies the issue verified by material facts.

It is a problem of evidence and shows the intellectual dishonesty regarding the Foster case. It is what it is.

Excerpted from: Following Orders: The Death of Vince Foster, Clinton White House Lawyer originally published in 2012, and is the sequel to The Whistleblower. Be sure to read the endnotes too. Thanks.

Following Orders: Chapter 8: You Are Not Going to Get Much

It was July 22, 1993, the day investigators were permitted partial access to Foster’s office—or so they had mistakenly thought.

Linda [Tripp] did not know about the series of early morning phone calls that began at 7:44 a.m. when [Maggie] Williams called Hillary [Clinton] in Arkansas. Nor did Linda know about Hillary’s call to [Susan] Thomases or that Thomases, minutes after hanging up with Hillary, paged [Bernie] Nussbaum [Clinton White House Chief Counsel]. Thomasas spoke with Nussbaum twice that morning.[184]

What Linda did know as she sat at her desk was at approximately 10:00 a.m., [her boss] Nussbaum had a last-minute change for the investigators: he “alone would review the documents” in Foster’s office.[185] That change meant that two justice department attorneys, agents from the FBI, the Park Police, and Secret Service, were now permitted to watch Nussbaum in Foster’s office with White House counsel Clifford Sloan and Steven Neuwirth.[186]

“It was unbearable,” Linda gasped, reliving how she viewed in appalled amazement the boss she admired scold and patronize the investigators. At one point Sloan accused an investigator of peeking at a document when he stood up to stretch. [187] The investigators were permitted to remain in only one area of Foster’s office.[188]

Standing behind Foster’s desk, Nussbaum made three piles of papers while the investigators “observed.” Linda described how her boss would hold up a page at a time and sometimes cite “executive privilege.” Other times he would open Foster’s desk drawer and taunt law enforcement, by saying, “See?! —Nothing.”

“There was always a sense in this White House that you were either with them or against them,” Linda reiterated. “But Bernie was acting outrageous. The investigators weren’t out to get the Clintons. They were trying to find out what happened to Vince.”

Does Linda’s recollection of Nussbaum’s conduct in Foster’s office sound unbelievable? Perhaps, except the investigators confirmed her recollection. They complained how “dissatisfied” they were with Nussbaum’s “cursory review of documents” in “Foster’s office.”[189]

As the New York Times reported, “Mr. Nussbaum kept law-enforcement officials at arm’s-length in Mr. Foster’s office while he sat at Mr. Foster’s desk and reviewed the documents himself, one by one, deciding which could be turned over to the investigators. In one instance … Mr. Nussbaum would not let law enforcement officials in the room even to see a newspaper clipping found in Mr. Foster’s files, asserting it was shielded by executive privilege (emphasis mine).”[190]

In the Clintons’ upside-down world of cooperation, the investigators from the Park Police, the Justice Department, and the FBI left Foster’s office empty handed.

Clinton-appointed Deputy Attorney General Phillip Heymann was so incensed when he learned about the non-investigation [in Foster’s White House office] that he confronted Nussbaum demanding to know if he were “hiding something? Is there some terrible secret here that you are hiding?”[191]

The Senate Whitewater Committee called it a “sham.” The Committee found that the counsel’s office, government lawyers, “who were supposed to protect public interest in a proper investigation and faithful execution of the laws, instead interfered and obstructed various federal investigations.”

“Unquestionably, the Department of Justice and Park Police were authorized to conduct this investigation, and White House officials owed them a duty to cooperate. Instead, law enforcement officials were confronted at every turn with concerted efforts to deny them access to evidence in Mr. Foster’s office.” [192]

The committee concluded: “The actions of these senior White House officials constitute a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct,” or as it would be called for everyday Americans, obstruction of justice…[193]

Why would Hillary, whose protected files—what remained of them—care if the Park Police or FBI went into Foster’s office or for that matter looked under his desk? Didn’t she want to know everything there was to know about her friend’s sudden death?

So it is true. Law enforcement, including the FBI, Park Police, and the Department of Justice, could not conduct a basic, let alone a thorough, and proper investigation inside of Foster’s White House office.

“A highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct” is another term for obstruction of justice. Attempting to lead a government investigation astray is a crime. Because law enforcement was thwarted from doing their jobs, no one can conclusively rule out that something terrible did not happen inside of Foster’s Clinton White House office.

Who are the “kooks”?

Now that you know that the investigation inside of Foster’s White House office was a “sham,” remember this: if you venture off the acceptable Foster narratives that pander to political ideology, or to “kooky” murder conspiracy theories, expect the alt-media murder conspiracy peddlers to belligerently come after you on the Internet, like trolls, to keep their status quo of deceitful information flowing regarding Foster’s tragic death, and the Clintons.

It is appalling and reckless to make anything up when there are real issues that need to be addressed–the Clintons murdering their friend, Vince Foster, is not one of them.

This is serious and has had far reaching implications. The Foster murder conspiracies are arguably one of the original, if not the original, murder conspiracy that became wide-spread during the early Internet era of the 1990’s, where audiences are told they are “awake,” a part of a “family,” or the “resistance,” as if they are in some elite group or something.

This paved the way for what has become a flow of cult-like believed murder conspiracies that are echo-chambered in the alternative media, and are largely based on wild imaginations, distortions, “predictions,” “suggestions,” thin air, just because, and disturbing paranoia.

See, for starters, the death of Andrew Breitbart, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, etc.

In my opinion this have played a role in poisoning the U.S. national narrative, trashed journalism, and set cultural lows.

Look no further than at the 2016 election season for confirmation of this. Who would have thought in the early days of the Internet that some of the most vile Internet comment sections, and echo chambered, regurgitated conspiracies, would become part of the U.S. national narrative?

The extreme right-wing “patriot” Vince Foster murder conspiracy “experts” in the alternative media need you to ignore inconvenient facts

Facts that include, but are not limited to: (1) Foster was looking for an attorney because Whitewater criminal indictments were around the corner (which is also why some inmates are put on suicide watch); (2) he was miserable for several reasons including because of what happened at the Clinton’s Travel Office, and at WACO; (3) he wanted to resign from the Clinton White House; (4) his sister, Sheila Anthony, had given him names of psychiatrists before his death; (5) and powder burns were identified on Foster’s hand during the preliminary autopsy.

Update: More on Foster’s state of mind, and Hillary’s abusive treatment in: Missing: FBI files linking Hillary Clinton to the ‘suicide’ of White House counsel Vince Foster have vanished from the National Archives. Also see my first Clinton White House book: The Whistleblower: Foster was far from being the only person Hillary would attack and belittle.

Tragically, people living under less stress than Vince Foster was at the time have committed suicide. There is never a good reason to take one’s own life. Never.

Some of the earliest alt-media murder conspiracy peddlers includes a belligerent grown man running around the Internet as “DCDave” aka David Martin, who also likes to write bad book reviews on Amazon to peddle his discredited murder conspiracies, and Michael Rivero of WhatReallyHappened.com. Rivero apparently fancies himself to be a super hero of sorts, and sells action figure dolls and other gear (that’s the Rivero doll in the picture in the blue tights and cape you can buy). He was also an Alex Jones Infowars acolyte, who used to make monthly appearances on Jones radio show until they had a falling out or something.

Then there is some “fearless” guy “BMAN at “B’MAN’S Revolt: A Redneck’s Guide to reversing their control of your brain,” because evidentially, it is heroic in the alt-media, and on the Internet, to hide behind a fake name, being on the front lines of tyranny, and all, even though Americans are not living under tyranny. BMAN also publishes what “DCDave” tells him to publish when they are circling the murder conspiracy wagon.

And lastly, there is murder conspiracy peddler Hugh Turley of FBICoverup.com, a professional magician, who admits that “illusion and deception is [his] profession.” Turley was kicked off free republic for engaging in ad hominem attacks– where individuals attack a person or lodge pretend motives, rather than addressing the issue because they can’t (more on this murder conspiracy racket later).

In real life, these extreme alt-media “experts” are cowards. It is pathetic. These grown men hide on the Internet, disseminating their falsehoods, afraid to have a face to face conversation.

These “experts” also cite people’s initial reactions when they first learned of Foster’s tragic passing, including Webb Hubbell’s when he said that Foster never would have committed suicide, as definitive proof that Foster was murdered when he was not.

Hubbell was a former law partner at the Rose Law firm with Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster, then U.S. associate attorney general, who was indicted after Foster’s passing during Whitewater.

While I am not a medical doctor, people who have received devastating news of an unexpected passing are in shock, disbelief, and often denial. After the initial shock has begun to subside, upon reflection, reality sets in, and things may appear differently—as they really were. Sometimes there are no warning signs at all. See: Harvard Health Publication: Suicide often not preceded by warnings.

Likewise, the mainstream press should not omit or distort facts either. This also applies to Charles Laurence at the UK’s The Week. Had Mr. Laurence and The Week, conducted themselves adhering to some form of journalism and common decency, they would have known the original source regarding Hillary Clinton’s role in Waco is not me, it was Linda Tripp, who served in the Clinton White House counsel’s office, but I digress.

So when media types, at the Washington Post and elsewhere, say that there were five official investigations into Foster’s death, they were telling the truth, but not the full story, be it willfully or without having knowledge of it.

Evidence gathering at the time of an incident is critical to get to the truth.

Four official investigations into Foster’s death were based upon the initial investigation which was shoddy at best. See: Following Orders: Chapter 3: The Foster Investigations. Be sure to read the endnotes. Thanks.

It is worth pointing out that I do not vote in U.S. elections; don’t have a dog in the 2016 presidential race and am not taking sides. I go where the evidence leads me. Had the events in The Whistleblower or the sequel, Following Orders occurred in the Bush White House, as opposed to the Clinton White House, I would have written the same books—that show a pattern of actionable conduct.

In my experience, when it comes to politicos, the truth is often found somewhere in the middle.

184. Final Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater, p.105-105. Also see: Christopher Ruddy, Strange Death of Vince Foster (Simon & Schuster, 1997), p. 123.

185. Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater, January 22, 1996 p. 3 (Margolis, 8/10/95 Hrg., pp. 182-183). Also see: Stephen Labaton, “Advisers to Mrs. Clinton Are Questioned Anew in Foster Case,” New York Times, November 3, 1995; access online at: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/03/us/advisers-to-mrs-clinton-are-questioned-anew-in-foster-case.html.

Justice Department officials have testified that the White House counsel, Bernard W. Nussbaum, agreed on July 21, 1993, the day after Mr. Foster’s death, to let investigators study his files, but he reneged the next day after consulting with other White House officials. Mr. Nussbaum has denied making such an agreement with the department and has asserted that he decided on his own to prevent the investigators from searching Mr. Foster’s files for clues about why he killed himself.

186. Neil A. Lewis, “Top Justice Official Testifies of Limits On Foster Inquiry,” New York Times, August 11, 1995; access online at: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/11/us/top- justice-official-testifies-of-limits-on-foster-inquiry.html.

“Mr. Margolis said Mr. Nussbaum had reneged on an agreement to let Justice Department lawyers view the first pages of files found in Mr. Foster’s office for any evidence as to why he might have killed himself, including possible evidence of extortion or blackmail. In his testimony, Mr. Nussbaum vigorously defended his conduct and told the Senators that he had never made such an agreement with Mr. Margolis. Instead, citing the need to protect any privilege or confidentiality for President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, Mr. Nussbaum kept law-enforcement officials at arm’s length in Mr. Foster’s office while he sat at Mr. Foster’s desk and reviewed the documents himself, one by one, deciding which could be turned over to the investigators. In one instance, Mr. Margolis said, Mr. Nussbaum would not let law-enforcement officials in the room even to see a newspaper clipping found in Mr. Foster’s files, asserting it was shielded by executive privilege.” “He indicated that would be an invasion of the President’s deliberative process,” Mr. Margolis testified to laughter in the committee hearing room. Mr. Margolis, who was one of two Justice Department officials in the room, said he felt he was being used to dress up the legitimacy of Mr. Nussbaum’s search. Mr. Margolis recounted in detail his recollections of a conversation with Mr. Nussbaum about an agreement for Mr. Margolis to review the Foster documents. “I was certain that day, and I am certain now, that there was such an agreement and Mr. Nussbaum was aware of it,” he said.

187. USPP [United States Park Police] Captain Hume’s Foster report 1993:

“At one point Special Agent Scott Salter got up to stretch and Clifford Sloan challenged him and asked him if he was standing up in an attempt to get a look at the documents.”

188 Linda Tripp & Senate Testimony, Scott Salter, Final Report of Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater, July 27, 1995, p.72 –73 (Ch. 6 #42).

189. Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater, January 22, 1996, p. 4 (Margolis, 8/10/95 Hrg. P. 191; Salter, 7/27/95 Hrg. p. 105; Adams, 7/27/95 Hrg. P.105; Park Police Document 37).

190. Neil A. Lewis, “Top Justice Official Testifies of Limits on Foster Inquiry,” New York Times, August 11, 1995.

191. Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater, January 22, 1996, p. 4 (Heymann, 8/2/95 Hrg. P.53).

192. Final Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters, June 13, 1996, p. 15 and 21-22; access online at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/committee.pdf.

193. Final Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters, June 13, 1996, p. 17.

  • Virginia Harlow

    Did you review the appendix the three judges insisted be included with the Starr report? Did you review the recent documents discovered in the Archives by Miguel Rodriguez who quit Starr’s staff because he wasn’t allowed to investigate?

    I find your combative attitude toward DCDave and Michael Rivero to be not only obtuse but obnoxious. Many have written books on the Foster Death concluding different things, having focused on one or more different details. Are you threatening to sue all those writers who haven’t come to the same conclusion you did?

    I read your book. I bought it because of Dave’s review. As I have read all of his writings, I wanted to compare yours to his.

    Having followed the issue from the very beginning, I’ll have to conclude Dave’s review is fair.

    Did you also include in your list of “kooks” Hugh Sprunt who wrote the definitive Citizens Investigative Report on the Death of Vincent Foster? Did you include Allan Favish, a California lawyer whose FOIA lawsuits to gain access to photos demonstrates how deeply this coverup goes? I mean, I see you are including yourself in that list… ….. but in my experience, none of these guys, including Turley and Knowlton, and Clark, have ever threatened to sue each other over difference of opinion on their conclusions. Is this a female thing?

    I found your conclusion to be preposterous.

    A new one you should look at. Maybe you want to sue this guy too?


    I’m thinking I may post your long arguments with these guys I’ve seen on other bman’s site. You are revealing your character in a most unfavorable light.

    Before a jury of our peers, do you really think when facts are discussed under oath, a jury would side with your conclusion based on Linda Tripp’s hindsight that she may have been wrong about whether or not Foster had his briefcase with him? Argued against official documents in the official record that demonstrate a coverup??

    You can’t even argue his review, which was fair, kept people from buying your book, because I bought it because of the review.

    You may be a decent writer, but short on detail, and long on supposition. Mr. Sprunt, Mr. Favish, Mr. Knowlton, Mr. Clark, Mr. Turley, Mr. Martin and even Michael Rivero have posted fact, in great detail, with all sorts of evidence.

  • Pingback: You know the Vince Foster murder conspiracies are falling apart when… |()

  • Virginia,

    Thank you for taking the time to write. While I don’t agree
    with most of what you wrote you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. It is my opinion you wrote this on behalf of DCDave aka David Martin, Michael Rivero, Hugh Turley and BMAN because
    you sound like them. You are also located near “DCDave” aka David Martin. Are you related, friends or is that you “DCDave”
    pretending to be a girl now?

    Unfortunately one can never be sure when dealing with conspiracy
    theorists on the Internet.

    1. First, I did not call anyone a “kook.” I was referring to other people who call people “kooks.” This is why I wrote “kooks.” Get it now?

    2. The Judges did not “insist.” The Judges were following civil rules and procedures. That’s very different. Please do not misrepresent

    3. FYI: Their “murder conclusions” have already been discredited by plenty of people, so what your issue is with me, I do not know. Also sending me a link to someone else’s book, who I have nothing to do with and vice versa –as if I would sue them is exactly what DCDave aka David Martin and his pals do—falsely roping people together who have nothing to do with each other. It is dishonest, low and pathetic.

    4. You find me combative? Why? I’m defending myself.“DCDave” aka David Martin and Michael Rivero etc. came after me and others,
    including Foster’s family, with false statements etc. to peddle their discredited and definitive murder conclusions based on admitted “suggestions” and “predictions.” 1+1=2 Would you prefer that I remain silent and subservient to men who make false statements about me, others and my book?

    5. Why DCDave aka David Martin thought by fraudulently misrepresenting me, others and my book helps him and his co-horts, I don’t know. I’m just the latest person who is correcting their false statements. When people publish fabrications about me, others, and
    my book they must retract. If you chose to be their parrot that it your
    business and not mine. Don’t make it my business.

    6. Please stop being silly. Nobody sues anyone over a difference of opinion. That’s ridiculous and false. People are sued over fraudulent misrepresentation, deliberate omissions, false statements made with actual malice etc. and with the intent to cause harm and injury. Again, very different. Apples and oranges.

    7. Seriously? Virginia, again, please get your facts straight, educate yourself on your own US system (I am not American) before you write such nonsense and/or are repeating what DCDave aka David Martin etc. told you to write. A jury of peers would render a decision based
    on the false statements etc. DCDave, Rivero, Hurley and BMAN made about me, others and my book— a jury would not be rendering a decision based on re-litigating the entire Foster case. Duh.

    8. It is preposterous for you to have claimed that DCDave’s
    review was fair. It was a hit piece based on omissions, fraudulent misrepresentations, and false statements to peddle discredited murder conspiracies. It is what it is. You are also being selective to give a false impression. It makes me sad to see you acting like them.

    9. Virginia, you cannot prove how many people did not buy
    the book based on DCDave’s fabrications etc. so for you to suggest otherwise is wrong. Nobody can. The internet is worldwide and reaches millions of people and then there is the echo chamber. While it is nice that you are evidentially defending your friends, I’m sorry to tell you that they are liars when it comes to me, others and my book.
    Feel free to prove me wrong anytime. You can do this by addressing the real issue and stop expecting me to respond to every discredited conspiracy theory.

    For instance, ask your pals “DCDave” aka David Martin, Michael Rivero, Hugh Turley and “BMAN” to provide you with proof that I work
    for Hillary Clinton and/or the Republicans and/or I did not write my book. If they provide you with proof, then I will apologize. When they don’t because they are liars, and you come up empty because no proof exists, you get to apologize to me. Sound good?

    10. I have no issues with the other individuals you cited. They did not make false statements about me and/or fraudulently misrepresent my
    book. Do not create issues with people where none exists. That is 100% wrong. Shame on you. If these individuals (or anyone else) want to believe that Foster was murdered that’s their business not mine. It’s also called opinion. Do you see the difference now?

    11. Also please learn about privacy laws, CW’s and civil rules of procedures. When you do, then you will see why the Judges did what
    they did—properly and lawfully. Also, the Judges applied the law lawfully not just for Foster’s family, but for you and everyone else. The Judges were not involved in a cover-up. To state otherwise is false—and by doing so you, Virgina Harlow, if that is your real name, and you are not “DCDave” pretending to be a girl, you are defaming Judges.

    FYI: Patrick Knowlton has had my contact information for ages too. He has been more than welcome to contact me at anytime and he has
    chosen not to. It is my opinion he is being used by the individuals you are defending. That’s a shame. People feed and exploit people’s fears and innocent people are hurt. As dubious as the Clintons are they do not go around and kill people. If they did, then why are the self professed all-knowing murder conspiracy theorists you are defending still alive? Think. Please. Think. I’m sorry they have deceived you.

    12. You think I cast myself in a bad light? That’s your opinion. I disagree. I think arguing with people on some internet forum who
    have not read my book (or with DCDave who fraudulently misrepresents it etc.), but attack me is a waste of time which is why I asked them to contact me directly to have a civilized conversation like adults. It speaks volumes that DCDave aka David Martin, Michael Rivero, Hugh Turley or BMAN will not speak to me like mature adults. Tell me, is this how cowards or men of integrity act?

    13. No. It’s not a female thing. I am not fond of cowards or liars, male or female. What about you?

    14. Tell me, do men of integrity, honesty and valor hide behind fake names on the Internet?

    15. I noticed how you like DCDave aka David Martin, Michael Rivero, Hugh Turley and BMAN all ignored what happened and did not happen in Foster’s White House office (see above)—and instead continue to defame the entire FBI based (and Judges) based on falsehoods. That’s a fact and not conspiracy. It is also
    wrong to do that.

    Moreover, my findings of what may have happened have been
    independently confirmed by others separate of me + evidence (people who are no fans of the Clintons). Are you going to attack these individuals too or just me?

    16. Virginia, if you spread more deceitful information on the web with your apparent friends who make categorically false statements, then you are liable too. Don’t let them use you like that. People have been
    arrested for spreading false information on the Internet on the extreme right and extreme left because it incites and harms people. Look at the headlines. This is serious. People are acting on bad information they read about online. People can disagree all
    they want, they cannot make false statements to peddle discredited murder conspiracies or other lies because it incites and harms individuals. Break the echo chamber, Virginia, and think for yourself. I have faith in you. You can do it.

    This is easy for you to do. When you come up empty handed
    regarding the false statements your apparent pals made about me, others and my book, including but not limited to their false claims that I work for Hillary Clinton and/or the Republicans and/or did not write my book, if you would like to have a civilized conversation like a grown-up and apologize, email me your number with a good time to call. My
    email is at the contact page. We are in the same time zone. I’m an earlier riser, so mornings are generally a good time for me to call you. If you don’t, well….

    Be sure to also provide proof to address these links with more appalling, easy to debunk falsehoods since you chose to defend the indefensible. This is for you and your pals, Virginia.



    I tried to handle this privately to no avail. So have others. Your murder conspiracy pals will not stop making false statements. It’s troubling, unlawful and very disturbing. Looking forward to your apology. Thank

    Regards, Marinka

  • Virginia Harlow

    LOL! I’m an early riser, but I have not got too much time on my hands, as you must, to have gone to such pains to respond, as well as penning two more attacks on folks who have done great work on the Foster death that you claim has been debunked. I’ll stand with them, and with Miquel Rodriguez whose evidence was discovered in the National Archives. I am indeed, Virginia Harlow, of treasureliberty.com and find your claims that these guys are conspiracy theorists not only foolish, since you put forth your own conspiracy theory, but deliberately combative.

    It is you who is keeping this thing going.

    Threatening to sue people who disagree with your conspiracy theory, because they have their own, and find yours faulty is combative.

    Traditionally, in America, folks have a Constitutional right to say all sorts of stuff you may not like. But most have good enough sense to not threaten lawsuits over their disagreements. It’s a little girl thing…. go get the principle, to thrash these naughty boys with a bigger stick! I see ads here on your website, expecting some income, and find your charges of those guys making an industry of this also foolish. While I can’t speak to their financial health, I know I’ve made exactly $1.17 in Amazon commission from my site. Your supposition of the guys making money on their search for the truth is fallacious. And, maybe, indeed, malicious.

    Didn’t you write your conspiracy theory book to make money? I’ve never met Dave, Bman, Michael Rivero, Patrick Knowlton, or David Clarke, and the others are in a list serve I frequent. Hugh Turley once gave me a guided tour of Ft. Marcy Park. But I doubt he even recalls. You keep mentioning his being kicked off freerepublic as though you frequent and respect freerepublic. Freerepublic has been around probably longer than you’ve been here, and all this was freely discussed there. Many people make claims there that folks believe or not, and no one threatens to sue.

    Frankly, I’d never be so presumptuous as to set myself up as an avenging angel protecting people from what I presume to be falsehoods and dragging them into the legal system to punish them.

    Like I said, you are revealing your own character here far more than you know.

    Most others who get comments on their websites they don’t like, merely delete them. You had that option, as do I on my site. But instead, clearly, you prefer combat. That’s revealing.

    I’m expressing my opinion. The guys are ignoring you. Perhaps they are the wiser. I have a God given right to express my opinion. I’ll make no apology for it. I respect the guys who have done fantastic work revealing evidence of a massive government orchestrated cover up in the death of Vincent Foster. I can see no sensible reason on earth for your attitude, just because they thought your theory silly, and the evidence nonexistent.

  • Oh Virginia. Where is their proof that I work for Hillary Clinton and/or I did not write my book and all the other appalling false statements they made about me? I see you have none as none exists. I don’t let lies stand about me and I don’t hide from people like your pals do. That’s what cowards do, yes? They started this and continued it. Get your facts straight.

    No, I don’t spend time on Free Republic either, but I found it instructive and pathetic that your esteemed friend Hugh Turley got kicked off. I don’t know what their rules are but I can imagine that someone has to pretty terrible to get kicked off. Constitution and freedom of speech, and all that, yes? Maybe you should tell your pals not to make false statements, omit facts, engage in childish attacks. etc. – they discredit themselves and any good work that they might have done when they do that.

    I’m sorry to see that you still do not understand the difference between protected speech and unprotected speech. I think it is horrific that DCDave aka David Martin also defamed Foster’s sister too based on his just because he says so. Horrific. That you condone that speaks to your character, not mine.

    I did not pen attacks. I corrected falsehoods. 1+1=2

    Why would I delete your comment? Let people see how you defend liars with ridiculous statements. They don’t have to agree with me, or like me, neither do you, but to make false statements about me, my book or anyone else is appalling. If that is your definition of truth tellers than i guess you must believe I am Mary Poppins who can fly too. Do keep me posted on getting any proof of their lies. Good luck with that – it is impossible. Marinka

  • Virginia Harlow

    I guess I’ll ask again. Did you review the appendix the three judges insisted be included with
    the Starr report? Did you review the recent documents discovered in the
    Archives by Miguel Rodriguez who quit Starr’s staff because he wasn’t
    allowed to investigate?”

  • Virginia, I already told you. The Judges did not insist. Please stop being redundant. You can read that yourself in their decision. They were following rules and procedures. Stop misrepresenting facts. Starr’s version is different than what is in the appendix. You should speak to him.

    Now where is your proof of your pals false claims about me etc.? You’ve got plenty to chose from. Good grief, virtually every statement Rivero wrote is a lie: http://marinkapeschmann.com/alt-medias-vince-foster-murder-conspiracy-liar-a-line-by-line-breakdown-of-michael-riveros-falsehoods/

    Again, I ask you, why do you ignore the facts that are here in this chapter excerpt? Stop diverting. You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. That your pals can boldly make categorically false claims about me etc. …. Tell me Virginia. Is it only wrong when the Clintons fabricate and it is okay when your pals do? Apparently the answer is yes.

  • Oh, surprise, surprise. I was just notified that your fearless pal DCDave aka David Martin is back cyberstalking on Amazon.com writing another “book review.”. Predicable. Still won’t speak to me or provide proof of his false statements about me either. Coward? Liar? Man of valor who is to be taken seriously?

  • I just tried to email you directly to show you that “DCDave” David Martin is stalking me again on Amazon.com. It came back. Email me directly and or call. It is disturbing how he will not stop spreading falsehoods. Very troubling.

  • Virginia Harlow

    But you didn’t answer. Did you review the appendix the three judges insisted be included with the Starr report? Did you review the recent documents discovered in the National Archives by Miguel Rodriguez who quit Starr’s staff because he wasn’t allowed to investigate? Sam Smith’s Progressive Review claims Starr petitioned 7 times to keep that appendix off his report. That according to the new book I mentioned. You have not answered the question.

  • Virginia, yes I did answer that in my retraction notice. Stop expecting me to have to repeat myself over and over again concerning issues that I have already addressed. It is tedious and time consuming.

    So you are the individual who published “DCDave’s” sickening,
    unsubstantiated statements defaming Foster’s sister? Have you no conscience or decency either? Where is David Martin’s proof that Sheila Anthony did not write her piece in the Washington Post and that she did not give her brother names of psychiatrics? Where is it, Virginia?

    Why have you ignored the FACT that nobody including your pals can rule out of Foster’s White House office and instead they have defamed the entire FBI for decades on falsehoods, “predictions, and “suggestions”? Why have you completely ignored what is excerpted from my book here?

    Here are more examples of your pals sickening fabrications
    for you to address.


    Where is your proof of your friends’ false statements about me
    and my book? Let’s start with proof that I work for Hillary Clinton and did not write my book. Good luck with that. Your pals’ statements about me are impossible to prove because your alternative media “truth tellers,” are hard core liars.

    Think Virginia, think. Thanks. Marinka