COPS WERE BLOCKED IN FOSTER CASE WITNESS DISCUSSES ROLE OF FIRST LADY. A White House attorney said Thursday he learned shortly after the suicide of deputy counsel Vincent Foster in 1993 that first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton did not want police to be given ''unfettered access'' to Foster's office. The testimony of Stephen Neuwirth was greeted by Republicans on the Senate Whitewater committee as evidence the first lady may have been part of what they believe was an effort by top White House officials to obstruct the investigation of Foster's death on July 20, 1993.
2007-11-24 04:55:53 · 19 answers · asked by T-Bone 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If she had nothing to hide why stop police from doing their job?
PS The statue of limitation does not apply to murder.
2007-11-24 05:08:13 · update #1
Hillery has mentioned the Foster case just once! When she accused the Clintons detractors of having the audacity to accuse them of commiting (amongst other things) MURDER!
They know what they did, but just try to hang it on them...why the nerve! Its a vast right wing conspiracy!
The sky is falling
Hillery gets no hard questions.
Tim Rusert, bless his liberal little heart...tried to ask Hillery a tough question for the first time in her political life, and
1) she flubbed it
2) Tim was castigated by the Clinton attack machine for being unfair to the poor lady!
There are indeed many very questionable things about the Vice Foster "suicide"
Like the wound on the right side of the head ...when Foster was a left handed person (and a liftie)
Fosters own private statements to associates that he wanted out of the Clinton Whitehouse...so shortly after gatting there?
The "suicide note" torn up and found inhis trash can. which three of the best hand writing experts in the country concluded was NOT in Fosters writing at all!
I hope this coverup for a capital crime is unleashed to the full light of media and judicail investigation! The Clinton Library will be demolished after Bubba is sentanced to the gallows!
2007-11-24 05:06:41 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Yes, and what was the result of that "evidence?" It came to nothing didn't it? But why mention that when you can just tell a part of the story so it sounds really bad. And what's with the cute comment about that there's no statute of limitation on murder? It wasn't murder, it was a suicide. If you think you can prove otherwise, please fill us in. Perhaps you have some pertinent information that wasn't already gone over and dismissed by the investigators who determined it was indeed a suicide. Don't have it? Imagine that.
And where is the question you would like Sen. Clinton to answer. You mention a question, yet you don't tell us what question it is that she didn't answer.
2007-11-24 06:16:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No she will be able to not in any respect be honest till she is elected. She needs to assert each little thing that human beings opt for to take heed to instead of affirming what she truly thinks about an difficulty. i imagine that contained in the lengthy time period this can get her into hardship. check out how the Republicans picked aside Kerry for waffling on Iraq. Clinton would not purely waffle on Iraq she waffles on each difficulty.
2016-10-25 00:03:35 · answer #3 · answered by loewus 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She did not want "outsiders", i.e., Park Police, rummaging through Foster's files, which no doubt contained sensitive and personal info that was not their business but that the press would have loved to get their hands on.
The whole thing was thoroughly investigated by the Park Police, the FBI, an Independent Counsel, the Special Prosecutor and numerous Congressional Committees controlled by Republicans. And no wrongdoing was found, hard as they tried.
You're beating a dead horse. Waste your time on something meaningful.
2007-11-24 05:14:31 · answer #4 · answered by golfer7 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
The investigation WAS obstructed, there was no effort by Janet Reno to get the whole truth out {go figure}, and even though this is old news, I remind all the liberal posters that there is NO statute of limitations for murder, so that is why this needs to be fully investigated.
How about appointing a "Special Prosecutor"...that old lib wetdream when going after anybody but thier own kind ?
2007-11-24 05:10:33 · answer #5 · answered by commanderbuck383 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Can you at least wait until January 20, 2008 to start complaining? Geez.
2007-11-24 05:48:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Think the Clinton's have a whole lot of things to hide.
2007-11-24 05:30:10 · answer #7 · answered by Dave M 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
She is totally guilty. She knows the law and government and she knew who to hire. Money talks
2007-11-24 05:33:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
In an ongoing case that would involve you, you might very well be concerned that evidence in that case might be tampered with or lost. One would have the same concern if they were innocent or guilty. I would not find her concern to be an admission of guilt or as trying to hide anything, especially in view of the fact that she herself is an attorney.
2007-11-24 05:07:12 · answer #9 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Has Hillary ever directly answered a question?
2007-11-24 05:35:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋