That's not true when the mainstream media won't even publish the facts ... like those, for example, in the Ron Brown case. That's not true when certain individuals, like Rokke, refuse to even discuss facts such as the statements of the Brown pathologists. That's not true when certain individuals, like Rokke, mislead people about matters such as Air Force Safety Boards.
When a person demonstrates that his judgment is not trustworthy, it is reasonable to re-evaluate prior judgments made by that person.
Fine ... apply that to people on this forum who claim Brown wasn't murdered but won't say why and who won't discuss the FACTS.
For example, if you find out that a person has lied to you today, it is not unreasonable to suspect that he has lied to you in the past.
Fine. I can list lies by posters such as Rokke regarding the Brown case. Do YOU care?
And, tell me, by saying this are you trying to suggest that the depositions Klayman took from people such as Linda Tripp in matters such as Filegate should now be suspect? Don't be so mysterious, Bayourod. Just say what you mean.
Furthermore, Rokke pinged me about Klayman's statement. Why? ... to diminish the facts Klayman discovered about Brown? ... to perhaps to make himself feel better after our last debate on the Brown topic? Tell me ... is his using this tragedy in this way any different than what Klayman just did?
I'll stand behind Bush in what he decides to do to those who committed this act. I just hope he is as thorough as I would be in his circumstances.
I'm not trying to be coy, I just probably didn't expres myself very well.
What I am saying is that the cases you are talking about have been throughly investigated by the FBI, federal prosecutors, state prosecutors, special counsels, Congressional committees, and hundreds of private individuals. They involve tens of thousands of pages of documents, notes, affidavits, reports, depositions, pictures, videos, tapes, transcripts, etc...
The government officials have spent tens of millions of dollars, employed the brightest staffs with the latest technology and leading authorities.
It is impossible for you or me to study all of the material, interview all of the witnesses, and research all of the scientific studies.
We have to rely upon the judgements of others. When the investigative bodies, with all of their resources all reach the same conclusion; and Klayman reaches an opposite conclusion, the credibility, judgment, and motives of Klayman have to be considered. It comes down to a question of who do we trust. In deciding who we trust in an old case like "Brown", it is appropriate to consider Klayman's current actions.
That's all I'm saying. And it is entirely reasonable for someone to say today that he used to trust Klayman but now doesn't believe anything that Klayman ever said in the past. You should not be offended by that or feel that you have to start posting reams of material about old cases.