Kenneth Starr to lead legal team challenging campaign finance legislation

Associated Press ^ | 3-21-02 | JIM ABRAMS

[Oldeconomybuyer]

WASHINGTON (AP) --

[Uncle Bill]

The Assassination of Ron Brown

The Corrupt Investigation of Ron Brown and the Following Coverup

REVEALED: GUN LOST ON FATAL RON BROWN FLIGHT

THE SECRET FILES OF RON BROWN - Ira Sockowitz

"Anytime you have a circular, symmetrical hole, a pathologist knows that one of the distinct mechanisms for making such a defect is a bullet. It's not even arguable in the field of medical legal investigations whether an autopsy should have been conducted on Brown, I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied. Forget about Brown being a cabinet member, or being under investigation. He was in a plane crash. That alone should have meant he was autopsied."
Coroner Cyril Wecht - One of the nation's most prominent forensic pathologists. Source

THE DEATH OF BARBARA ALICE WISE

CIA Documents on Ron Brown Declared Secret

Witness in Brown Case May Have Been Murdered

The Strange Death of Ron Miller

Anthrax Death in Oklahoma? - Ron Miller

Oklahoma Natural Gas Overcharges Tied to Clinton White House - Ron Miller

Hillary's Oklahoma scandal - Ron Miller

[StarFan]

Ken Starr is an EXCELLENT constitutional attorney. Thank you and I could not agree more!

[IVote2]

You make an excellent point. Why is it up to GW to veto this mess? Why aren't we asking Congress why they passed this mess? Why aren't we asking why the Senate allowed it to pass? Where is their accountability?

I don't get it.. I really don't.

I'm also wondering how many people posting here contacted their elected representatives to tell them what they thought about voting for this bill. I just wonder.

[WOSG]

At one point, Star was 23-1 against the Clinton cases. THIS is something he is suited for.

It is truly bizarre to see supposed VRWC members spout DNC talking points and bashing Starr. Completely irrational. .... Folks, Starr will be an effective litigator on this. 'Nuff said.

[DLfromthedesert]

I realize that. I'm sooo angry at Bush for this. He could have signed the bill but sicced Olson to fight against the unconstitutional provisions.

[mrsmith]

Thanks, it's on now.

Even commie Kathleen Sullivan is on the McConnell team!
Wow!

[BeAChooser]

"Know what I MEAN?"

No, do you?

Well let me spell it out for you. First you prove there was a murder, THEN you find out who did it and how. That is what usually happens in murder cases.

Why do you fear a simple exhumation and autopsy so much?

[CedarDave]

To answer some of your questions:

Why is it up to GW to veto this mess?
Bush took an oath to uphold the constitution of the US. If he really believes parts of the bill are unconstitutional, as his statement last night indicates, he has a duty to act on his oath and veto the bill.

I'm also wondering how many people posting here contacted their elected representatives to tell them what they thought about voting for this bill. I just wonder.
I did. I emailed and called NM Senator Domenici's office, as did several others on this board from NM. I was polite but got the brush off in my phone call, and Domenici voted Aye in favor of CFR.

[deport]

Dig all you want to.... won't bother me... have fun

Now the topic of this thread ... what do you think of Starr being the lead attorney? Think he's the right choice to fight the CFR?

[Uncle Bill]

What a guy.

The Neck Wound

Take a quiz

The Failure and Corruption of Kenneth Starr

On July 15, 1997, Kenneth Starr issued a terse statement. "Based on investigation, analysis and review of the evidence by experts and experienced investigators and prosecutors, this Office concluded that Mr. Foster committed suicide by gunshot in Fort Marcy Park, VA, on July 20, 1993."

...Associate Independent Counsel Miquel Rodriguez was summoned to the Washington Office of the Independent Counsel in the fall of 1994 by Kenneth Starr, with the explicit task of reviewing the Foster death. He was not a conservative. He had no ideological investment in the matter.

...For four months Rodriguez probed the case. He called witnesses before a grand jury to answer questions for the first time under penalty of perjury, and soon discovered serious indications of a cover-up by the FBI. By the early spring of 1995 he was starting to probe a hypothesis that the crime scene at Fort Marcy Park had been staged, that the gun had most likely been planted in Foster's hand, and that a crucial photograph of Foster's neck and head had been falsified.

But Rodriguez believed that the investigation was being sabotaged by prosecutors and FBI agents in his own office. He turned to Starr for support. Nothing was done to resolve the matter. In March 1995 Rodriguez resigned.

...The job of Rodriguez was to reopen the investigation into the death of Vincent Foster. It was generally agreed that the Fiske investigation was so amateurish that the work would have to be done all over again. ....Rodriguez was astounded when Tuohey(Mark H. Tuohey III - Head of the Office of Independent Counsel), his boss, took him aside and told him that it would be ill-advised to challenge the essential findings of the Fiske Report.

This was to be a "friendly takeover." .....The mission for Miquel Rodriguez, then, was to produce a better suicide report, one that was not so self-evidently mendacious.

...At first Rodriguez pretended to be following orders. He went about his business quietly, confiding only in his closest aides at the Washington office of the Independent Counsel.

...It became obvious that the FBI agents who did the nuts and bolts work for the Fiske Report were engaged in a systematic cover-up. Now, a year and a half later, the same FBI agents were still there in the Office of the Independent Counsel, the gatekeeper who controlled access to the witnessess, the documents, the evidence. Yet Kenneth Starr had kept them on, allowing them to be the judge of their own past work.

Rodriguez kept muttering about the photograph. "Is this all there is?" he asked.

Yes, that's all there is; that's the original, replied his FBI staff. And so it might have rested if it had not been for the courage of one person in the Office of the Independent Counsel who managed to gain access to the locked files. Hidden inside was a folder of crime scene photographs that had been deliberately withheld from the prosecutor.

Among them was the original Polaroid of Foster's neck. What it showed was something very different from the "contact stain" in the fraudulent picture that had been circulating. Evidently, somebody had taken a photo of the original and then touched it up to disguise the incriminating evidence. This second-generation copy had then been used to create an enhanced "blow up."

It was blatant obstruction of justice. Indeed it was worse. Whoever had done this was now an accessory after the fact in the death of the Deputy White House Counsel, and they had made the mistake of failing to destroy the original.

Wary of entrusting anything to the FBI crime labs, Rodriguez turned to the Smithsonian Institution for enhancement of the original. The work was done by the Smithsonian's subcontractor, Asman Custom Photo Service on Pennsylvania Avenue. A set of five "blowups" of the original were made. They revealed a dime-sized wound on the right side of Foster's neck(his left side) about half way between the chin and the ear. It was marked by a black "stippled" ring---a sort of dotted effect, like an engraving---that was suggestive of a .22 caliber gunshot fired at point blank range into the flesh.

One medical examiner who looked at the photo thought that the wound might be the result of a 40,000 volt stun-gun, designed to cause temporary paralysis for about fifteen minutes. Fired at short range it can leave burn marks. But it was more likely to be a low caliber gunshot wound. Something had perforated the skin, causing blood to ooze down the side of the neck and into the collar.

The photograph, which I have examined carefully, is one of the few surviving Polaroids taken at Fort Marcy that night. The rest disappeared. This includes most of the Polaroids taken by detective John Rolla.

"I mean, I had them in the office that night, I did reports, and I don't know what happened....I put them in a jacket, I don't know."
The Secret Life of Bill Clinton - Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

[BeAChooser]

What does this have to do with Campaign Finance Reform??

Ron Brown was the channel for TENS of MILLIONS of dollars in ILLEGAL campaign contributions from foreign and domestic sources to the Clinton and DNC campaign organizations. That's a PROVEN FACT. The facts also suggest someone(s) in the democRAT party had him killed him because he was threatening to expose what was going on. The only campaign finance reform that matters is stopping the democRATS from continuing to illegally add MILLIONS of dollars to their coffers. Investigating the Brown case may be the ONLY way to do that.

[WOSG]

CFR opponents have already lost in the media and on the politics.

Actually, the nice thing is the CFR opponents are *winning* the politics for the first time. Why? Well NOW instead of the big money issue, it is about whether this bill attacks the FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF ALL OF US... Think about it. Right up the election, you will hear about a supposedly great bill that Demoncrats pushed for YEARS, getting reviewed by the USSC. If we are really lucky, the Supreme Court will hear the case First thing in their October session and RULE JUST BEFORE THE ELECTION. So instead of the public seeing this as a 'reform' they will see it for what it really is, legally: An attack on our free speech rights.

NOW CONSIDER all the Democrats and RINOs that voted for this. Get your letter to the editor ready. "CongressRat X voted for a bill that restricted my and your First Amendment Rights!"

oh yeah, and Bush admin is "defending" this crap. boo hoo. I think they are smart enough not to argue this too hard; i hope Ted Olson calls in sick and they send in the legal intern. maybe even David Boies will be free; he too helped deliver this election to Bush, maybe he can gut CFR by defending it. :-)

[BeAChooser]

"Somebody better because you "move-on"ers can't just let what I post stand uncontested."

Sure we can. We do it all the time.

How would you know, sinkspur? You yourself wrote on another thread I have never argued the facts of the Ron Brown case because I don't know the facts of the Ron Brown case. What's more, I dont' care about Ron Brown. He's dead. You also wrote that I don't come on the Ron Brown threads. In fact, I've NEVER been on a Ron Brown thread.

And your arguments on the Brown topic during the few "discussions" you and I have had can be sumed up by the following quotes by you:

The absolute worst thing a Bush administration could do is to go back and drag these Ruddy-led conspiracies out of mothballs.

You're obsessed with Ron Brown.

Any time the Republicans have pursued CLinton, THEY have suffered, not Clinton.

You'd be better off arguing the JFK assassination again.

Was Vince Foster murdered? Did the Navy shoot down TWA800? Did the US government blow up the Murrah building in OKC? Did John Danforth cover-up for the government on Waco?

In other words, there wasn't one instance where you actually argued the facts in the case. NOT ONE. All you did was resort to the same debating tactics that democRATS use ... adhominem attack, disinformation, smear, distraction, "move-on" ...

And guess what ... those are exactly the same tactics every other "move-on"er has used when I raised the Brown specter. I dare you to prove me wrong. Cite the URL of a discussion I have had on Brown where one of you "move-on"ers has actually debated the facts in the Brown case. You MIGHT find one or two where someone selectively argued one or two facts out of the DOZENS (and ALWAYS lost). I could easily list DOZENS of threads where move-on'ers have run from the facts. In fact, here's one, showing you doing just that ... http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3aa3e65a3857.htm.

[lawdude]

I was feeling fine until I saw this! GAG.

[BeAChooser]

Dig all you want to.... won't bother me... have fun

No, that's the job of Ashcroft, don't you think?

Now the topic of this thread ... what do you think of Starr being the lead attorney?

You tell me given that Starr allowed the Clinton administration to keep hundreds of those illegal FBI files in the Whitehouse for YEARS after Starr told everyone it was illegal for them to have them. And Starr failed to mention this when the Whitehouse and FBI publically stated that the files had been returned (i.e., they LIED).

You tell me after analyzing the job Starr did reviewing the Foster death. And why did Starr refuse to answer the questions Representative Barr asked about that case? Why did he say everyone in his office believed it was a suicide at the park when O'Reilly adamently maintains that some of Starr's investigators say this is not true?

Is the man HONEST enough to do the job?

[sinkspur]

You're hyperventilating again.

Get a life, BAC. Nobody cares.

[WOSG]

I am hearing Justice Starr right now on cspan-2, and the team fighting CFR ... I am very pleased that he is making clear and convincing argument against individual contribution limits.

... "procrustean limits" ... I am hearing alot of convincing arguments (to me) about many many parts of the bill. soft money ban to parties will funnel and create "K-street" entities. many references to buckley v. valeo. issue ads are protected.

mentions that bill forbids TV ads, but not direct mail of the same content/type!!! what a nutty bill.

[truthkeeper]

Yes'm, I'm with you. Should we remind these people that it was Judge Starr who finally got Slick impeached?

[Howlin]

Facts mean little to people with an agenda.

[deport]

Yes..... are you honest enough to accept him?