Washington Post writer calls people “kooks” who believe the Clintons killed Vince Foster. Look at what they have in common
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, 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 died.
They also call people who don’t “kooks,” or variations thereof.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
“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.  The investigators were permitted to remain in only one area of Foster’s office.
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.”
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).”
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?”
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.” 
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…
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 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.
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).
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.
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 Lawrence at the UK’s The Week.
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.