Talk:Brett Kavanaugh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Evidence appended to Report

Dear Smashingworth,

Thank you for your comments. Aristotle told us "no one is able to attain the truth adequately, while, on the other hand, we do not collectively fail."

You wrote, "That sentence has two misleading elements. The first is 'the objection of Kenneth Starr' which makes it sound like something personal to him, as if he were in court and personally objected. He may or may not have authored that motion, so I prefer ‘the objection of the Independent Counsel’ which encompasses Ken Starr and the institution itself. Ken Starr is previously identified as the Independent Counsel so I see no problem with this. He is not absent from the facts."

The motion asking the court to reconsider attaching the comments from Mr. Knowlton was, in fact, signed personally by Kenneth Starr, the Independent Counsel. But if you would prefer to call him "Independent Counsel" that is okay with me. Since there have been many Independent Counsels I thought it would be more accurate and precise to name Mr. Starr. In the interest of brevity, I did not add his title because I was trying to keep this section as short as possible. I will agree with you to refer to Mr. Starr as "the Independent Counsel" even though it may be less precise. It was Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr that filed the motion to reconsider and he signed it and not the Independent Counsel as an institution.

You wrote, "'evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up' is an objective statement that implies the plain meaning--a reader would think, 'Man, there was evidence of a cover up.'" The phrase is not misleading if, in fact, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up was actually added to the Report.

Your statement that "we have no way of knowing" if evidence was included is not true. The entire Report was made public on October 10, 1997 for all to see. As you said, "A person would have to read and make up their own mind." Aristotle wrote, "For as the eyes of bats are to the blaze of day, so is the reason in our soul to the things which are by nature most evident of all." The sun exists even if the eye of the bat does not see it and the evidence of the OIC cover-up exists even if we chose not to look at it.

By only saying allegations were made by Mr. Knowlton, we leave out the more important fact that the allegations were supported by evidence. The court intended the evidence be included over Independent Counsel Starr’s objection. We should not hide from the public what the court intended to be made public.

The official conclusion is contradicted on eight major issues by evidence that:

• The OIC concealed the investigative history.
• The OIC concealed that Mr. Foster did not own the gun.
• The OIC concealed Mr. Foster’s car was not at the scene when he was already dead.
• The OIC concealed Mr. Foster had a wound to his neck.
• The OIC falsely claimed 35 mm photos were unclear.
• The OIC concealed Polaroid photos vanished.
• The OIC concealed autopsy x-rays disappeared.
• The OIC concealed the FBI falsified witness reports and participated in witness intimidation.

And we do not have to read the entire Report to compare the relevant parts of the cover-up to the attached exhibits of evidence.

• An eyewitness mentioned on page four of the letter] corroborated the witness intimidation of Mr. Knowlton on the street. The attachment included exhibit one, to show the brown Honda he saw at Fort Marcy Park and a timeline of events leading to his grand jury testimony. A diagram in Exhibit two shows the street harassment that was part of the larger cover-up to conceal the truth about Mr. Foster’s death.

• Comparing pp. 81-82 of the OIC Report with Exhibit three reveals the flaw in the long-standing official conclusion that the silver gun brought from Little Rock, reportedly missing (OIC, p82) from the Foster residence on the evening of the death, was the one found at the scene: The official death weapon is entirely black, not silver. The OIC covered-up that the gun found at the scene did not belong to Mr. Foster.

• The OIC Report deceptively states on page 69 that civilians at the park "did not see anyone in or touching Mr. Foster's car." This is true because Mr. Foster's car was not at the park but deceptive because the OIC implies that Foster’s 1989 silver Honda was there. Exhibit 4 page 1 of 2 is evidence that Mr. Foster was dead by 4:30 pm and Exhibit 4 page 2 of 2 is evidence that civilian witnesses did not see Mr. Foster's 1989 Silver Honda in the park at the time Mr. Foster was already dead. Brett Kavanaugh admitted in a taped telephone conversation with Accuracy In Media than all of the police and rescue workers saw a brown car that was not the description of Mr. Foster's silver Honda.

• The OIC Report on page one states, "The autopsy determined that Mr. Foster's death was caused by a gunshot through the back of his mouth exiting the back of his head. The autopsy revealed no other wounds on Mr. Foster's body." Compare this with the evidence of a wound on Mr. Foster's neck from the Medical Examiner's Report the night of the death and the deposition of the paramedic at the scene in Exhibit 5 page 1 of 4.

• The OIC concealed that 35-millimeter photos taken at the crime scene were usable by stating in seefootnote 212 on page 73, "The 35-millimeter photographs were underexposed; thus the Polaroids were of greater investigative utility." Compare with the deposition of US Park Police photographer who testified the 8x10 color photos "looked good" in page 2 of 4 of Exhibit 5. And poloroids taken of the back of Mr. Foster's head vanished according to Detective John C. Rolla's deposition.

• Officer Franz Ferstl took the first seven photographs of Mr. Foster's body. These photos all vanished so only nine usable photographs of the body officially exist (seven of the body and two of the face.) see Exhibit 5 page 3 of 4.

• The missing photographs are significant as are the missing autopsy X-rays because of the 26 persons known to have seen Mr. Foster's body on July 20, 1993, NO ONE saw the official entrance and exit wounds. Of the 26, ten were trained medical personnel (two medical doctors, two paramedics, six fire and rescue workers. Of the remaining sixteen, ten were Park Police, one was a Fairfax county Police officer, one citizen, an unnamed intern, a morgue guard and two White House officials. We only have the word of the autopsy doctor that these wounds exist since he removed the evidence before police arrived to view the autopsy.

• Exhibit 5 page 4 of 4 shows that the autopsy report stated X-rays were taken, the park police report said x-rays were readable, and it was working properly and was not serviced until October 29, 1993. Compare with OIC report pp 75-76 which claims X-rays were taken but the brand new machine had "numerous problems." Yet no service was requested for four months after its purchase and three months after Mr. Foster’s autopsy.

• The OIC Report on pp 4-9 covered-up the FBI role in every investigation from the initial Park Police investigation, through Fiske and Starr. The OIC declares on page two of it's Report that "two inquiries in the Congress of the United States reached the same conclusion." This is not true. The Senate investigation was restricted by resolution 229 from investigating the death of Mr. Foster. Every investigation employed the same FBI that participated in the witness intimidation, Agent Russel Bransford. The same FBI agents were used to re-investigate their own initial investigation. Compare to pp. 4-7 of the appended letter. "No OIC can fulfill its mandate to preserve and protect the appearance of justice having been done when its investigation employs the very agency it is designed to be independent from, the Justice Department." (page seven of the appendix)

It is noteworthy than the letter that contradicted the official OIC part of the Report on these issues was written by Mr. Clarke without actually seeing the OIC Report. After the Report was made public a full comparison of the OIC part with the investigative record proved that the OIC Report covered-up the murder of Mr. Foster. The court unsealed this 511-page documentdocument in 1999, with 908 footnotes to over 600 pages of exhibits from official records. It is as clear as the sun to anyone who looks that there was evidence of witness intimidation and a cover-up appended to the official Report of the investigation led by Mr. Kavanaugh. Thomist 14:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thomist, once again we're dealing with the conflict between your beliefs and Wikipedia policies. You believe that the charges are evidence, but I (and a majority of others) do not. Really, that is neither here nor there. The point is that the beliefs do not allow bending the rules. You say once again that my edit somehow covers up the truth. Once again, it doesn't. The links are right there. Anybody can read them. Whatever cover-up there may or may not have been in the Foster investigation, there certainly isn't one going on here.--Smashingworth 02:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smashingworth:

I do not believe charges are evidence. On this point you and I (and a majority of others) agree. I believe evidence is evidence, as defined by Webster's dictionary, "the condition of being evident, something that makes another thing evident, something that tends to prove." Exhibit 5 is the evidence of a neck wound and tends to prove a neck wound. Exhibit 5 is the evidence which supports the allegation the OIC concealed the neck wound. Please define and distinguish the difference between "charges" and "evidence." Thomist 10:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smashingworth:

Thank you for your willingness to discuss our differences.

I propose merging both of our versions of the article as a compromise. I included your preference “over the objection of the Independent Counsel” rather than “Kenneth Starr.” I will also call the evidence “alleged evidence” which is not my preference but a compromise for us both by merging “allegations” and “evidence”.

I have dropped my direct quote from Miquel Rodriguez and used your word “conspiracy” which I do not prefer. I am not insisting that this merged version is the best and final draft. I am sure you can help it along.

Finally, I do not think there would be any need for this section at all under the Brett Kavanaugh page if the Court of Appeals had ordered only the letters from the attorneys of Kevin Fornshill and Helen Dickey to be included in the Report. The inclusion of the contents of the letter from Knowlton’s attorney is what makes this section both significant and necessary. Never before in the history of the Independent Counsel statute has alleged (I’ll use your word) misconduct by an Independent counsel’s own staff been included in his Report.

Proposed merged version:

Associate Independent Counsel Brett Kavanaugh investigated the death of deputy White House counsel Vincent W. Foster for Independent Counsel Ken Starr. The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of the Independent Counsel, alleged evidence[2] of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report[3] of the investigation headed by Mr. Kavanaugh.[4]] The inclusion of this alleged evidence by Judges David Sentelle, John Butzner, and Peter Fay marked the first time in the history of the Independent Counsel statute that alleged evidence of a cover-up by an independent counsel’s own staff was ordered included in his report.

Former Associate Independent Counsel Miquel Rodriguez has since claimed that there was a conspiracy to fix the result of the investigation and cover-up the truth about Foster's death.[3]] Patrick Knowlton, a grand jury witness, claimed he was subject to witness intimidation.[4]] The public can compare the publicly available official documents. Compare the OIC Report on Foster's death with the court document[8]] unsealed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, September 14, 1999. (footnotes will need to be adjusted)

I am willing to leave Mr. Foster's photo off the page as part of a compromise even though his photo is far more significant than the photo of Mr. Kavanaugh's swearing in ceremony. The photo of the victim Mr. Foster appears in college history texts. The death of Mr. Foster generated thousands of news articles over a span of many years and and the investigation of his death by Brett Kavanaugh will be remembered as more significant in history than the swearing in ceremony. Thomist 12:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone want to add in sources that are not directly tied to a bias? AIM, Ruddy, etc are not acceptable sources according to WP:V. These people have purposeful and heavily explored biases. To make allegations of witness intimidation through a conspiracy website is insane. I removed the questionable Ruddy-type stuff. The head of AIM, quoting himself on an AIM website is fine as long as his bias and position is explained. Rumors by fbicoverup.com is not to be claimed as fact in the article. That garbage can stay were it belongs on a personal website.C56C 00:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

You removed a number of footnotes calling the sources "not acceptable" including the link to Washington State University record of the official Report on the death of Vincent W. Foster Jr., by the Office of Independent Counsel, In Re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association.

How is it that you claim this official document at a University library is not acceptable as a source according to WP:V? Please be specific. Report on the Death of Vincent W. Foster Jr., by the Office of Independent Counsel, In Re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association.

You also dumped as "not acceptable" the professional British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's book, published by Regnery. I understand people may disagree with legitimate authors of published books but on what basis is Pritchard's book "not acceptable" and other books are acceptable at Wikipedia? Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, Regnery (1997), p. 174. ISBN 0-89526-408-0

The official appendix to the Report is a public document available at the Washington State University Library and any public library through inter-library loan. It may be found online at a web site you do not approve of but this does not diminish that the official appendix to the official Report is what it is. The U.S. Constitution displayed at a private website is still the U.S. Constitution. Every official government document is not publicly available online but that does not negate the existence of these official public records. Exhibit 2 of the official Report exists and is available through any public library even if it is not online from a source you deem acceptable. Clearly the official Report available at FBIcover-up.com is the same page for page Report made public by the government. Why is this copy of Exhibit 2 "not acceptable? Is it not a copy of the official public record as found at any public library? Exhibit 2 of Appendix to Report on the Death of Vincent W. Foster, Jr., containing comments of Keven Fornshill, Helen Dickey, and Patrick Knowlton. 1997 Thomist 03:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

1) The Report I removed was listed as a footnote reference[1], which had no corresponding content in the body of the article. So I removed it.

2) You are asking why I removed, a conspiracy book, and two links to a conspiracy website (fbicoverup.com)? It's self explanatory.

Wikipedia says: "Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors." It states, "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" ... "Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim..." "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known..." Which includes removing "Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media."

3) If you want to add claims to deframe a FEDERAL JUDGE do it with claims offered in press articles. Not from FBICoverup.com or a conspiracy author, which was published by a conservative publishing house that has deframe others in this Foster stuff. If you want to add that type of stuff do it with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and not a biased website that runs counter to common knowledge. C56C 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

I think you are over-reaching to dismiss sources as a "conspiracy book" and "conspiracy website." People may not agree with everything in the journalist Christopher Ruddy's book nor everything they read in the New York Times but it would be wrong to dismiss them entirely. Mr. Ruddy's book, for example, was published by Free Press, part of Simon and Schuster which is owned by CBS Corporation and that certainly meets your demand for "reputable news media."

In addition, if you actually read the reliable sources Wikipedia page you referenced it states, "Full-text online sources are as acceptable as offline sources if they are of similar quality and reliability. Readers may prefer online sources because they are easily accessed." The Official Report on the death of Vincent Foster made public by the U.S. Court of Appeals is available at many university libraries and any library through inter-library loan. The exact same document, word for word, is available for the public to view online at FBIcover-up.com and therefore is consistent with the Wikipedia reliable source criteria. The official government document from the U.S. Court of Appeals is the most authoritative source on the subject of Mr. Foster's death which is in dispute. Have you read the most authoritative official document from the Court of Appeals and compared it to the copy available online?

It appears that everything that you have removed offends your POV but the sources you removed are valid by Wikipedia standards and should not have been taken down. Rather than take down referenced sources, you might consider adding additional reliable sources to support your POV. And to be fair you should put back up what you have taken down. Thomist 02:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again! C56C, you've woken him up! Expect many, many, many, many long long long long posts from Thomist about how all your changes are biased and outrageous. There's no winning with him. But I'm sure Thomist is not surprised to learn that I thank C56C for doing what my own lack of energy had prevented me from doing.--Smashingworth 18:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to play semantics, Thomist. For whatever reason you choose to accept conspiracy theories offered by a bias group that run contrary to various science, facts, and investigations. Bottom line is, don't libel or slander someone without credible sources. C56C 21:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

The most credible source regarding Mr. Kavanaugh's investigation is the final report of the investigation made public by the U.S. Court of Appeals on October 10, 1997. It is the most authoritative source. The entire report is available on line. Have you read the Report On the Death of Vincent W. Foster Jr., By The Office Of Independent Counsel In Re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association?

The official Report by the Office of Independent Counsel is central to the section on Brett Kavanaugh's role as Associate Independent Counsel which you previously removed from the article page. To be fair, one should at least read the entire report before editing the Independent Counsel section of the article. If you have not read the Report you are really not qualified to discuss it. Hurling insults and accusing others of "conspiracy theories" does not address the facts.

I welcome a discussion of the facts. Thomist 00:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, your spinning your wheels. You cited Christopher Ruddy as a source. You wikilawyering inability to understand that you are adding conspiracy theories that have no evidental backing makes this impossible to engaged in a debate with you. If you want to add in this garbage make sure it comes from a Verfiable source and read WP:NPOV ("undue weight"). C56C 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smashingworth:

Please be reasonable. Previously I respected your efforts to improve this page. I unilaterally agreed to leave your previous editing standing while we discussed our differences. I did not destroy your work. Let's agree to work on a compromise version for the Independent Counsel section. We do not make this page at Wikipedia better by tearing it down.

Sincerely, Thomist 21:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smashingworth:

We can both be polite and fair in discussing the facts. You have again taken down the most heavily documented section of the article without discussion. On June 19, on this discussion page I presented an additional 22 hot links to the official government record to support the section of the article you continue to erase. On June 20, I offered a compromise to your version of the article. During our dicussion I unilaterally agreed not edit your version. You never responded. I waited. Recently C56C removed your version of the Independent Counsel section of the article. You praised the removal or your version and have continued to take down this section, which has been better documented with references than anything else on the entire page.

It is unwise to engage in an endless battle posting and removing the article. Please consider my compromise version and I invite you to offer your own. The historic event of U.S. Court of Appeals attachement to the Report of Mr. Kavanaugh's investigation is too important to be ignored when it is so well documented and availabe to the public.

Sincerely, Thomist 12:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Leading the death investigation of Vincent Foster for the Office of Independent Counsel is the most significant event in the short career of Judge Kavanaugh, therefore this section should not be omitted from the article. I have restored the previous version of the Independent Counsel section written by Smashingworth with edits by Zenohockey. I do not think it is the best version but it is the best version that has stood for a period of time. Thomist 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted earlier because the version you put up was not acceptable. As to the earlier version you proposed that I did not respond too, your post was so long it was overwhelming, and I decided to wait until you made edits before getting back in the water. I invite you to make one change: your suggestion of the term "alleged evidence." I think that's fine and fair. If you want to go ahead and put that in be my guest.--Smashingworth 23:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it back to Smashingworth's version. Conspiracy theories, such as the one cited with the laughable Christopher Ruddy book, is undue weight and does not meet WP:V. C56C 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

I wrote to you here on July 11 that people may not agree with everything in the journalist Christopher Ruddy's book nor everything they read in the New York Times but it would be wrong to dismiss them entirely. Mr. Ruddy's book, for example, was published by Free Press, part of Simon and Schuster which is owned by CBS Corporation and that certainly meets the Wikipedia standard for "reputable news media."

I personally do not agree with everything in Mr. Ruddy's book (there are provable errors) but the original reference to the quote from Mr. Ruddy's book on page 216 (see article version of June 15) is supported by several other sources including the London Sunday Telegraph as well as the tape recorded voice of assistant U.S. attorney Miquel Rodriguez.

If you have better evidence to refute the fact I invite you to post it here. Tearing down footnotes that support the article is not helpful. Thomist 02:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You have no evidence. You have biased claims derived from hearsay presented by biased groups. C56C 06:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thomist, will we never be rid of this merry-go-round? You insist upon maintaining this conspiracy theory on the Kavanaugh page. You are the only one who wants it here. I agree with C56C that it has no place here.--Smashingworth 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And I have remove it again. C56C 06:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smashingworth:

You had agreed only recently to the compromise version that I had suggested saying, "I think that's fine and fair. If you want to go ahead and put that in be my guest." Now you have changed your mind and wish to take down the most significant event in Judge Kavanaugh's brief career.

The most credible source regarding Mr. Kavanaugh's investigation is the final report of the investigation made public by the U.S. Court of Appeals on October 10, 1997. It is the most authoritative source. The entire report is available on line. Have you or C56C read the entire Report On the Death of Vincent W. Foster Jr., By The Office Of Independent Counsel In Re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association? Without having read this relevant official document it is unfair to dismiss it as "conspiracy theory."

Everything in the brief section on Judge Kavanaugh's role as Associate Independent Counsel is more heavily footnoted than anything else in the article, to sources acceptable by Wikipedia standards. To accurately represent Judge Kavanaugh's career this short section should remain. I understand your concern that it may not reflect well on Judge Kavanaugh but the article should represent the facts as they are and not serve as a platform to support or criticize Judge Kavanaugh.

I have tried to be fair and have made considerable changes and improvements thanks to your suggestions. The compromise version represents a combination of both of our efforts to improve this article. Thomist 03:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You are spining your wheels. You are virtually saying there is a controversy because you think there is. All your "citations" come from bias sources and do not meet WP:V. C56C 06:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C: Hurling insults like "tin foil hat club," "conspiracy web pages," and "bias sources" does not support your POV with any facts. The Unites States Court of Appeals is the most authoritative source on this topic and you have not acknowledged that you have even read the official report issued by the court. Until you have at least read the official report from the court which is available on line please stop removing sections of the article. Please stop calling people names and characterizing. Can we agree to discuss the documented facts? Thank you. Thomist 10:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The only "evidence" you have presented is from biased, uncredentialed, questionable, in some cases debunked-yes, Ruddy's book is a joke, sources. You have not shown how the entire justice system, media, and American public lacks this fringe belief with good reason. It's a conspiracy theory.

You have not presented any documented facts. Pointing to a link and a conspiracy book and saying, "here this proves my case" is not just cause to leave a conspiracy theory in the article.C56C

I agree with you, C56C. I went through this rigamarole with Thomist too. You're wasting your breath arguing with him. It never changes.--Smashingworth 00:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Consensus is wikipedia policy. 2) WP:RS is wikipedia policy. Right now Thomist is the only person who wants the conspiracy stuff in. Unless he meets consensus it stays out. You need reliable sources... that is no stuff from questionable sources... Ruddy's book was even made fun of by Ann Coulter as bunk.

Adding in the conspiracy is ignoring the those two policies and it WILL be removed. C56C 23:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

Hurling insults like "conspiracy stuff" is not evidence from reliable sources. I have presented a number of autorities, the most significant being the U.S. Court of Appeals and the Official Report on the Investigation lead by Mr. Kavanaugh. I have supplied numerous footnotes to academic, journalism, and published materials regarding the official records. You have offered as a counter argument that Ann Coulter, "made fun of" a book published by Simon and Schuster. The U.S. Court of Appeals is a higher authority than Ann Coulter. See the Documentation section below.

If you haven't done any serious research please leave the article to those who have. Thank you. Thomist 00:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Documentation

Contributing to Wikipedia should be more than characterizing sources as "conspiracy theory" and name calling. Wikipedia readers deserve good scholarship from contributors.

Mr. Ruddy's book which has some factual errors also has a good deal of well documented information. Simon and Schuster, a highly reputable publisher, which is owned by CBS, published Mr. Ruddy's book. Many of the footnotes in Mr. Ruddy's book are to Senate depositions, FBI lab reports, The Fiske Report, Park Police Reports and other official public records. To simply tear down the article based solely on the charge that the book is "conspiracy theory" is unscholarly.

Critics of the section on Mr. Kavanaugh's role as Associate Independent Counsel have not read Mr. Ruddy's book or the official Report from the U.S. Court of Appeals. These same critics have not researched the thousands of pages of the underlying investigative records that are publicaly available. Rather than do the serious research necessary to discuss the facts they shout, "conspiracy theory" and thrown away anything that offends their POV.

The Web site FBIcover-up.com has been dismissed as "conspiracy theory" by C56C however, the proof section of that web site offers a 510-page court document filed in the U.S. Court of appeals which has 908 footnotes to 610 pages of official investigative records including the Official Report by the OIC, The Fiske Report, the Police Reports, FBI investigative records, FBI Lab Reports, autopsy reports, Medical examiner reports, Depositions, U.S. Senate testimony and more.

It is absurd to characterize the official reports and official investigative records as "conspiracy theory." C56C is silent when asked if he has read even the 137-page official report. I doubt if C56C has read Ruddy's book or any of the official investigative records or anything else related to this discussion. C56C is not capable of discussing the facts therefore name-calling is the preferred argument.

A good scholar on this topic should be able to point out facts that are correct as well as the errors that can be found in both the Official Report and Mr. Ruddy's book. I have tried to present the facts supported by the official records. Some public documents are not online at any site other than FBIcover-up.com but Wikipedia accepts these links as long as they accurately represent the actual documents. The actual documents can be obtained at any public library for those willing to do the research.

People who do not do any research hurl insults and call names. Thomist 02:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's look as your "sources:"

• Accuracy in Media For Fairness (AIM), Balance and Accuracy in News Reporting, Tape recorded comments of assistant U.S. attorney Miquel Rodriguez to Reed Irvine, Chairman of AIM
• The Strange Death of Vincent Foster, Christopher Ruddy, Free Press 1997, page216. ISBN 0-684-83837-0
• The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Regnery 1997, page 174. ISBN 0-89526-408-0
• Failure of the Public Trust, John Clarke, Patrick Knowlton, Hugh Turley, McCabe Publishing, 1999 ISBN 0-9673521-0-X

• • AIM was part of the group funded by Scaife in the Arkansas Project. Its sole purpose is to attack what it perceives as liberal. Scaife also paid Christopher Ruddy (NewsMax) to dig up dirt on Clinton when Ruddy worked for various conservative groups and Scaife- owned Pittsburgh Review (where Ruddy was reported). His book is trash even the American Spectator (a very conservative, and anti-Clinton magazine) said it only contained hearsay from questionable sources. The Secret Life of Bill Clinton can be filed with the questionable other stuff Regnery Publishing puts out due to its inherent bias. An editorial review noted that The Secret Life of Bill Clinton "connects the president to everything from 1997's Oklahoma City bombing to Arkansas's drug underworld to the mysterious death of White House aide and longtime Clinton friend Vince Foster, and, of course, to Paula Jones."[2] So was Clinton part of the Oklahoma City bombing too? (Geez...)

• • Thus, your allegations come from biased and debunked sources. This, persumably, is due to a belief system that you are seeking to justify. The "facts" and "sources" are laughable. If you want to put this stuff in there it needs come from dependable independent sources. C56C 00:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

You continue to attack sources and ignore the facts. From your POV the world is either left-wing or right-wing, liberal or conservative. This is reflected in your numerous edits throughout Wikipedia. Actually the truth about Mr. Kavanaugh transcends the narrow left versus right POV.

You have ignored evidence supported by the Washington Post and the Official Report found at Washington State University library. These institutions do not fit neatly into your POV that I must have some kind of "right wing" bias.

Futhermore your POV is problematic because Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and his Associate Independent Counsel Brett Kavanaugh are also known as "anti-Clinton" conservatives. How is it that these "biased," "anti-Clinton" sources like AIM and Scaife are exposing criminal activity by the "conservative" Kenneth Starr's "anti-Clinton" Office Of Independent Counsel? How do you explain these biased conservatives attacking conservatives?

See Starr and Kavanaugh whether conservative or not aren't part of a fringe group. They were federal investigators. The people at AIM and FBI-Coverup have no credentials and rely on hearsay mixed with their bias. C56C 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The truth is known by examining all of the facts. There is a mixture of truth and error in the Official Report, the Washington Post, Mr. Ruddy's book, Mr. Pritchard's book, and at Accuracy in Media. Each of the multiple sources reflect on one another. Not one of them managed to capture the entire truth. Only a careful study and examination of the official record can make the truth clear. The official Report, which you have not read, is the most authoritative source, especially with the final 20 pages added by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Ruddy, Pritchard, and AIM are known conspricacy theorists. C56C 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Because Mr. Ruddy's book and the Washington Post are not entirely accurate about every detail is not a good reason to dismiss these sources entirely. Finding what is the truth is the goal.

Now ware getting somewhere. So the book is questionable and contains things that are neccessarly the truth. However, you passed it off as the truth. C56C 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The only thing sourced to Accuracy in Media are the tape recorded conversations of Mr. Kavanaugh and his predecessor assistant U.S. Attorney Miquel Rodriguez. Their individual voices speak for themselves. If these recordings had been made by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting rather than AIM someone might have argued "liberal bias." What Kavanaugh and Rodriguez tell us about their investigation is what is important and not any bias by whoever tape recorded their conversations.

It's not the bias that the problem. AIM is not a reputable group. C56C 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The truth is not a simple matter of dismissing this or that because the source may be linked to a liberal or conservative bias.

I agree. C56C 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You know very little about the investigation that Mr. Kavanaugh conducted. You have not read the official report of underlying investigative records. To be fair you should leave this section of the article to those of us who have done the research. Thomist 01:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What you "know" comes books that also claim Clinton was invovled in the Oaklahoma City bombing. C56C 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

You wrote: "What you 'know' comes (sic) books that also claim Clinton was invovled (sic) in the Oaklahoma (sic) City bombing." This is an outrageous attempt to smear the footnotes I have provided as sources in support of the article.

Your statement is absolutely FALSE. I challenge you to provide proof.

Please prove your charge by providing the titles of these books, the exact page numbers from the books, with the direct quotes from the books that claim Clinton was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing. On line book reviews making the same false charges are poor scholarship and not acceptable. You have made the charge that the books make the claim, please provide the proof. Thomist 19:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you dispute the editorial reviews by Amazon.com and NY Times? C56C 23:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

Your statement was that "books" not "editorial reviews" made the claim Clinton was involved in the bombing. You used a false statement to unfairly dismiss a source as "conspiracy theory." You should either provide some proof FROM THE BOOKS or withdraw your false charge that books say something the books clearly do not say.

Let's be honest, "books" NOT "editorial reviews" are the sources I have used. The dispute is not over "editorial reviews." Please keep this discussion to the actual books and not mere opinions about the books. Thomist 16:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

It appears to me that Thomist is pursuing a novel synthesis in respect of the report. I have removed this form the article and asked Thomist to achieve consensus here befopre reinserting this content. Per WP:BLP we take a conservative view potentially damaging content and the onus is firmly on the person wishing to include material to make their case. Just zis Guy you know? 08:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I welcome a discussion of the facts and the opportunity to make the case for the content. The policy JzG cited states: "Articles about living persons require a degree of sensitivity and must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page."

Please note that the Wikipedia policy states, "unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons should be removed," which is not the case here. Content is based on reliably sourced material and not a "consensus" of two.

This is the section that was removed by JzG:

== Associate Independent Counsel Controversy==

Associate Independent Counsel Brett Kavanaugh investigated the death of deputy White House counsel Vincent W. Foster for Independent Counsel Ken Starr. The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of the Independent Counsel, alleged evidence^[3] of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report^[4] of the investigation headed by Mr. Kavanaugh.^[5] The inclusion of this alleged evidence by Judges David Sentelle, John Butzner, and Peter Fay marked the first time in the history of the Independent Counsel statute that alleged evidence of a cover-up by an independent counsel’s own staff was ordered included in his report.

Former Associate Independent Counsel Miquel Rodriguez has since claimed^[6] that there was a conspiracy to fix the result of the investigation and cover-up the truth about Foster's death.^[7] Patrick Knowlton, a grand jury witness, claimed he was subject to witness intimidation.^[8] The public can compare the publicly available official documents. Compare the OIC Report on Foster's death with the court document^[9] unsealed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, September 14, 1999.

== Footnotes ==

1. ^ Exhibit 2 of Appendix to Report on the Death of Vincent W. Foster, Jr., containing comments of Kevin Fornshill, Helen Dickey, and Patrick Knowlton. 1997
2. ^ Report on the Death of Vincent W. Foster Jr., by the Office of Independent Counsel, In Re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association.
3. ^ Washington Post, November 18, 2002, Page A19, In the Loop, by Al Kamen
4. ^ Accuracy in Media For Fairness, Balance and Accuracy in News Reporting, Tape recorded comments of assistant U.S. attorney Miquel Rodriguez to Reed Irvine, Chairman of AIM
5. ^ The Strange Death of Vincent Foster, Christopher Ruddy, Free Press 1997, page216. ISBN 0-684-83837-0
6. ^ The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Regnery 1997, page 174. ISBN 0-89526-408-0
7. ^ Failure of the Public Trust, John Clarke, Patrick Knowlton, Hugh Turley, McCabe Publishing, 1999 ISBN 0-9673521-0-X

One problem with this section is in the title "Controversy" which was demanded by Smashingworth. This term implies, without any source provided, a POV that the facts in the section may not be reliably sourced. It should be titled "As Associate Independent Counsel." Also the term, "alleged evidence," inserts, without any support, a POV that the evidence is questionable. Evidence either exists or it does is not. Allowing the words "controversy" and "alleged" into the article without any documented support is an error. Ambiguous words should not be inserted to appease a POV not supported by a reliable source.

If we remove the word "alleged," the first two sentences would read: "Associate Independent Counsel Brett Kavanaugh investigated the death of deputy White House counsel Vincent W. Foster for Independent Counsel Ken Starr. The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of the Independent Counsel, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation headed by Mr. Kavanaugh."

Does anyone want to refute these two sentences?

JzG has accused me of "pursuing a novel synthesis in respect of the report." Good scholarship requires that we read the official Report being discussed. Has JzG read the official Report? Has anyone, other than myself, read the official Report made public by the U.S. Court of Appeals? Thomist 13:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I object to the claims you are making because of the sources. The one independent source (the Starr report) is footnoted; even though it is just mentioned. The actual content of the report is not in dispute, but the sources with controversial material are. There are serious problems with:

• Accuracy in Media For Fairness (AIM) - A conservative conspiracy website that accuses people of being communists.
• The Strange Death of Vincent Foster, Christopher Ruddy, Free Press 1997, page216. ISBN 0-684-83837-0 - A conspiracy book that has even been dubbed as a "conspiracy book" that was debunked by Ann Coulter.
• The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Regnery 1997, page 174. ISBN 0-89526-408-0 - This book links Clinton to the Oklahoma City Bombing.
• Failure of the Public Trust, John Clarke, Patrick Knowlton, Hugh Turley, McCabe Publishing, 1999 ISBN 0-9673521-0-X - Another partisan book of questionable sources written during the height of the anti-Clinton publishing frenzy.

If Thomist can come up with mainstream press sources it can be included as of now it is a conspiracy theory based on sources of dubious origins. Good scholarship requires solid sources and the sources provided are not good sources. C56C 20:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

You wrote: "The one independent source (the Starr report) is footnoted; even though it is just mentioned. The actual content of the report is not in dispute, but the sources with controversial material are."

Let's be clear. The Official Report is titled, "Report on the Death of Vincent W. Foster Jr., by the Office of Independent Counsel In Re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association." We should agree not to refer to the Report as "the Starr report" because it can be confused with the OIC report on Monica Lewinsky, which is popularly called "the Starr Report." Let's agree to call it the Official Report for our purposes here.

Unfortunately, you have not done much reading so you are at a definite disadvantage here. You have not read the Official Report yet you state, "the actual content of the report is not in dispute." You have relied on book reviews as a substitute for reading books. You really do not know what is contained in the books or the Official Report. If you did, you would know that the references to facts that I cited from the books is consistent with what is also contained in the Official Report. In other words the contents of the Official Report supports what is cited in the books and references within the books supports what is in the Official Report.

You should be aware that the contents of the Official Report, which you said "is not in dispute" discusses the grand jury witness intimidation. The outside sources do the same. For this reason, I chose to use multiple sources in addition to the Official Report.

You have chosen to attack books in general based on reading book reviews that fit your POV. You have accused one book of making a claim about President Clinton that you cannot prove. I would concede that the books, and even the official Report, may have some factual errors (regarding other issues), but the parts that I have cited from the books are fully supported by the Official Report. And you yourself have said, "the actual content of the report is not in dispute." Thomist 16:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

More diatribes... I could careless how much someone on wikipedia claims to have read. The "OFFICIAL REPORT" isn't in dispute, the sources you've used to make claims against it is. Provide reputable sources. C56C 01:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

Please specify do not characterize. Precisely how have I used sources to make claims against the Official Report? Exactly what claims have I made against the Official Report? Thomist 02:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You wrote, in the article, "Former Associate Independent Counsel Miquel Rodriguez has since claimed^[10] that there was a conspiracy to fix the result of the investigation and cover-up the truth about Foster's death." I would like solid evidence before you even consider inserting in that there was a "conspiracy" about "fixing" the "OFFICIAL REPORT." C56C 01:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

It is painfully clear that you have not read this discussion page. If you had, you would know that the sentence you have taken issue with was not written by me. I did not insert the word "conspiracy" into the article. That edit was inserted by Smashingworth on June 15 at 20:25.(see article history and discussion).

Like a copnspiracy theorist... getting hung up on one small portion knowingly interpreting it in your way. Don't get hung up with the word conspiracy. A conspiracy is exactly what you are claiming: "conspiracy: act of working in secret to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations."[11] C56C 04:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Smashingworth, like yourself, has not read the Official Report or sources I provided but still insisted that my original sentence be changed. My version of the sentence which, I still prefer was, " Mr. Rodriguez said that Mr. Kavanaugh and others at the OIC were treating witnesses inappropriately." My version is an accurate description of what Mr. Rodriguez actually said.

Smashingworth has been as adamant as you about editing the article, having written, "Once again, I am forced to police this page and clean up the mess you make..." Anything unacceptable to Smashingworth was always taken down and, like you, Smashingworth often calls me names like, "conspiracy theorist." In frustration I agreed to accept Smashingworth's sentence in an effort to reach a compromise. But I added this comment on the discussion page, "I have dropped my direct quote from Miquel Rodriguez and used your word 'conspiracy' which I do not prefer."

So you can see dear C56C by writing "You wrote in the article..." you have made another false statement. Most of the problems that you have with this page are the result of you not doing any homework. You have not read the Official Report, you have not read the source books, you have not even read this discussion page.

It is really unfair to the readers of Wikipedia that someone as uninformed as you insists on making the final determination about what is appropriate in the article.

At least we both agree Smashingworth's sentence is inappropriate. We finally agree on something! (sigh) If it is okay with you I will remove Smashingworth's sentence and replace it with the original. Perhaps Smashingworth would like to comment about the proposed change?

If you don't mind C56C, you have still not responded to my challege that you provide proof for your false charge, "What you 'know' comes (sic) books that also claim Clinton was invovled (sic) in the Oaklahoma (sic) City bombing."

You are disputing the Amazon.com editorial? "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton [from the Amazon.com editotrial:]"connects the president to everything from 1997's Oklahoma City bombing to Arkansas's drug underworld to the mysterious death of White House aide and longtime Clinton friend Vince Foster, and, of course, to Paula Jones." [12]C56C 04:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You used a false statement to charge that Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's book was not reputable. When you write, "provide reputable sources" are you still claiming that the Cambridge educated, investigative journalist for the London Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is not a reliable source? Thomist 02:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Round and round we go. Thomist claims every edit of his material is a manifest injustice and posts LOOOONG posts daring us to refute him, as if we were members of Starr's investigation ourselves. How dare we remove his spin if we haven't read the Official Report? That's all this is really about isn't it? Just propaganda to get people to read a Report that you think has been forgotten. That's the whole problem isn't it? That's not the purpose of Wikipedia.

Now, it's true that the sentence C56C points out was at least mainly written by me. It was my honest interpretation of what Rodriguez was getting at and called a spade a spade. I wasn't saying there was a conspiracy, only that Rodriguez was claiming one. Not that I really care. That sentence was a product of many edit wars with Thomist. I wanted the whole thing gone, but what was left was a compromise to try and pacify Thomist. I want the whole section removed and I want an end to defending myself to a conspiracy theorist. Just go post yourself on a Conspiracy Theories article. I'm sure there is one.--Smashingworth 04:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thomist, The Flat Earth Society claims the earth is flat[13], should their opinion be put into wikipedia geography articles as fact? Provide WP:V proof for your claims or go away. This is not a message board.

The burden of proof is on YOU. Provide WP:RS you whining isn't going to get some fringe belief in the article. C56C 04:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smashingworth:

Your "honest interpretation of what Rodriguez was getting at" is your POV and comes from you and not an acceptable Wikipedia source. We should have stuck with what Rodriguez actually said, which is documented and not your interpretation. I do not care if you read the Official Report but it only seems fair to the readers of Wikipedia that you have knowledge of the official facts before you remove material from the article. Both you and C56C admittedly have not read the official record, yet you both insist on removing material based solely on your POV or the POV of others (from book reviews). Even if we disagree we should at least treat each other with respect. Would you please stop calling me names? Thomist 12:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

A book review is not equivalent to the book. You stated that "the book" not "a book review" was responsible for the claim, "Clinton was invovled (sic) in the Oaklahoma (sic) City bombing."

Using someone's book review as a source is inadequate. You attacked the book for saying something the book never said. Defending your criticism of the book with someone else's criticism is no defense. You are arguing, a book reviewer said so. You have not provided a quote from the actual book to support your argument.

The fact is you made a false statement about a book, a book you had not even read. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is a credible source. You have not defended your false statement about Evans-Pritchard's book. Thomist 12:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

Smashingworth has admitted, "it's true that the sentence C56C points out was at least mainly written by me." You had falsely attributed the sentence to me and accused me of saying there was "a conspiracy." Because you have read so little, including the discussion here, you continually make false statements. You have made false statements about Evans-Pritchard's book and about me. This is another false statement about me, "A conspiracy is exactly what you are claiming." Really? please prove your statement with evidence (hopefully more than someone else said so). Thomist 13:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• 1) While the sentence may not be exactly written by you it contains points contrary to common knowledge. Points that you are admittedly upset that were removed.[14]
• 2) You are disputing the Amazon.com editorial? "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton [from the Amazon.com editotrial:]"connects the president to everything from 1997's Oklahoma City bombing to Arkansas's drug underworld to the mysterious death of White House aide and longtime Clinton friend Vince Foster, and, of course, to Paula Jones." [15]
• 3) I have nothing to prove. The proof is on you. You want garabage added in your provide WP:V to do so.
• 4) Yes, I proudly admit that I have read no conspiracy books on this subject.
• 5) You whining and complaints don't interest me. Either you have WP:RS or you don't. It appears to be the latter. Grow up. Either prove your case and go away. C56C 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

Please. Let's agree to discuss the facts necessary to improve the article on Brett Kavanaugh. You should not continually make this a discussion about me. Personal insults do not belong here.

The Wikipedia article about Brett M. Kavanaugh should not fail to mention the single most significant and historic event in young Mr. Kavanaugh's career, his investigation of death of the deputy White House counsel Vincent W. Foster.

Does anyone agree/disagree with this statement, why or why not? "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation of Vincent W. Foster's death headed by Mr. Kavanaugh." (sources provided are the Official Report and Washington Post). Thomist 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Where's the source? What Washington post article? What page of the report? C56C 05:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

The Washington Post article that I cited by Al Kamen is found in my edit from June 15. I have already provided the date and page number of the article. Apparently you have not read the article. It states that Mr. Kavanaugh, "headed the investigation into allegations that Clinton deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster was murdered." Within the appendix of the 137-page Official report see nine pages of Exhibits, sourced to over 20 official investigative records and pages 1-11. The Report states in part, "During the course of two days beginning the day FBI Agent Bransford served the secret grand jury subpoena. Patrick suffered the cumulative effect of intimidation by at least 25 men." and "In light of...evidence of a cover-up by the FBI already in the public domain, the OIC's use of the FBI in this matter undermines the purposes of the [Ethics in Government] Act." and "Much evidence of obstruction of justice by the FBI is documented in Patrick's lawsuit in this District Court (No. 96-2467) for inter alia, violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985 (2),'...Obstructing justice; intimidating... witness...';"

I cannot transcribe the entire 137-page report here. For additional information I advise interested persons to read the Official Report made pubic by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Judges David Sentelle, John Butzner, and Peter Fay presiding. Thomist 13:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Using LexisNexis and the archive at washingtonpost.com Al Kamen's Nov 18, 2002 article on page A.19 claims nothing about "witness intimidation." I reproduced the full thing:

• Author: Al Kamen
• Date: Nov 18, 2002
• Start Page: A.19
• Section: A SECTION
• Document Types: Commentary
• Text Word Count: 881

The heretofore television-averse Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage popped up on the tube last week for a long interview with Jim Angle of Fox News, the conservatives' favorite network. Most curiously at this time of great anxiety over war with Iraq, general Mideast turmoil, those wacky North Koreans and such, a substantial portion of the interview was taken up over a question most viewers would not consider a top concern: the nomination of Maura [Maura Harty] to be head of State's consular affairs bureau.Harty had been deputy to former bureau chief Mary Ryan, who was axed when it became known that the agency improperly granted visas to the 9/11 terrorists. Harty also has been involved with the bureau's children's affairs office, which has been much criticized for its handling of cases involving overseas child abductions. Conservatives in town and on the Hill had been yammering that Harty was too much like Ryan and rumbling about opposing her.There's no word on a successor, but one possibility being heard around town, if the administration goes in-house, is associate White House counsel 'Brett Kavanaugh', a former Supreme Court clerk, partner in Kirkland & Ellis and brain-truster for special counsel Kenneth W. Starr, who headed the investigation into allegations that Clinton deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster was murdered. If Kavanaugh gets the nod, he would sit in Foster's old office.

So your source is compeletely wrong there. Here is the complete Kenneth Starr "official report"[16] (appendix here[17]) by chapter, which section/page does it mention witness intimidation? C56C 18:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

Please READ CAREFULLY. The Al Kamen Washington Post article was provided only as a source that Mr. Kavanaugh "headed the investigation." I supplied the relevant quote in my previous message and it is found near the end of the passage you reproduced. The Al Kamen article was never intended as a source of the witness intimidation.

You didn't specify that originally. Are you moving the goal post now? C56C 22:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Your claims were misleading then:

Does anyone agree/disagree with this statement, why or why not? "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation of Vincent W. Foster's death headed by Mr. Kavanaugh." (sources provided are the Official Report and Washington Post).

You should explained that originally. As it reads above and your claim now, it is very misleading. C56C 22:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please READ CAREFULLY. You have linked to the wrong report. I warned you earlier (16:57, 29 July 2006 to be exact) not to use the phrase "The Starr Report" to refer to the Official Report under discussion. I gave you the official name of the report so you could avoid the mistake of confusing it with the Monica Lewinsky matter. But you made the mistake anyway.

[18] Is the Foster report. I was trying to be helpful and give you a link. You need to supply the sources, and FBIcoverup.com isn't good enough. C56C 22:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sincerely trying to help you find the source material. Since I have read everything and you have not, you could learn from me. Your response to my effort to help you avoid your carelessness was, "I could careless (sic) how much someone on wikipedia claims to have read." I have already told you how to find the official report. Thomist 21:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No proof from any WP:RS still? C56C 22:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

Your revised link to the Washington Post version of the official report is better, but you are incorrect to call it "complete." It is not complete.

If you READ CAREFULLY there is some bold print at the Washington Post link that reads, "This file does not contain the report's footnotes or appendix." Unfortunely the Washington Post only displays the first 114 pages of the report and those pages do not include the footnotes either. The Post's version is NOT the full 137-page Official Report. If you want to see the source text in the official report you will have to view the full 137-page report which is publicly available. Thomist 22:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And if you want to add in stuff to build a conspiracy segment in the article you have to prove your case here. As with the Post article, your sourcing is flawed. Moreover, you don't even explain who this "Patrick" (missing last name) is, and how you make the leap to Christopher Ruddy's book.

If you want to add it in prove your case. Nothing goes in until you do. C56C 22:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW: You don't need to quote the report, any mention of this in the mainstream press would allow it to be included. C56C 22:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

The Washington Post source is flawed because it is incomplete. My source is the complete 137-page Report made public by the U.S. Court of Appeals so it is not flawed. Please refrain from using loaded words like "conspiracy." Let's stick to the facts. The important thing now is for you to get copy of the complete Report so you will have the actual source document. We should avoid seeking an account in the press since the Washington Post has already demonstrated they are unreliable and they leave out information.

The Official Report is publicly available and the most authoritative source. As WP:RS states "Until more authors publish online, and more material is uploaded, some of the most reliable and informative sources are still available only in printed form. If you can't find good sources on the web, try a local library or bookstore. Major university libraries usually have larger collections than do municipal libraries."

I am confident you can get a copy from inter-library loan.

Why can't you supply one press article about it? C56C 23:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There is another option, WP:RS also states, "Full-text online sources are as acceptable as offline sources if they are of similar quality and reliability. Readers may prefer online sources because they are easily accessed."

I recommend you go to the library so you can compare the library copy to the online copy and verify the quality and reliability. Thomist 22:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

FACT: That one sentence claim is not directly linked to Kavanaugh by your citation in the report.

FACT: You need a souce that links Kavanaugh to "intimidation" and not innuendo.

FACT: You have no mainstram sources backing up ANYTHING of this claim.

FACT: In the segment linked a last name of the "witness" is not given.

FACT: Claims like "the first time it has been included in" a investigation are uncited.

I recommend you think long and hard about these conspiracy theories and how hard it is for you to verify "witness intimidation." What's your "theory" on why you can't find any articles in the media on this? C56C 23:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

Please do not change the subject. Our present discussion concerns this statement, "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation of Vincent W. Foster's death headed by Mr. Kavanaugh."

I have have provided a newspaper article as a source that Mr. Kavanaugh headed the investigation and the Official Report from the U.S. Court of Appeals is another source for the statement. You have commented on the Official Report, "The actual content of the report is not in dispute," (20:13, 28 July 2006) and "The 'OFFICIAL REPORT' isn't in dispute..." (01:40, 30 July 2006). We agree. The Official Report is the most authoritative source and it is the source being used here.

It is inappropriate to suggest some other source be substituted since "The Official Report isn't in dispute." The official document is far superior to secondary source media articles that may not include everything in the Official Report. Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Thank you. Thomist 01:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Here we are days later after demanding proof, more diatribes. In regards to your claim "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation of Vincent W. Foster's death headed by Mr. Kavanaugh."

You have not provided WP:RS for:

1) The U.S. Court of Appeals order 2) The "objection" of Kenneth Starr 3) Evidence of a "cover up" 4) Witness "intimidation" (I would like to be sure that such claims are not being taken out of context or wrongly asserted. A media source or another WP:RS should back this up.) Afterall such a thing of grand jury intimidation would be looked into.

Your sentence also implicates:

1)Kavanaugh as part of a conspiracy (if you are in fact claiming this you need a source. If you are not it must be reworded.)

Provide sources for these 4 (or 5 points). C56C 05:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

Thank you for your continued interest. Have you obtained the 137-page Official Report? The Appendix is the source for the statement under discussion.

No I have not yet. C56C 23:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Official Report is the most authoritative source. As WP:RS states, "editors should seek to use the most authoritative sources." Unfortunately your suggestion to use additional media reports would only offer sources less authoritative and possibly biased. They are not needed. The U.S. Court of Appeals is the ultimate authority on this matter.

I don't see a conspiracy in the statement. I am sorry. It is just the factual information supported by the Official Report. Please explain why you think it states "Kavanaugh is part of a conspiracy."

Regarding the court order, the Official Report includes the actual requests from three individuals that things be included in the Report. Their existence in the Report makes it self-evident the court ordered them included, just as it is self-evident which way is up. Anything included, in whole, or in part, is at the discretion of the court. I this helps make it clearer until you can get a copy of the actual Appendix. ;-)

Good give us page numbers. And what docket number the document references. Here's the report minus the appendix. [19] Where is it at? C56C 00:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Naturally you can obtain copies of actual orders from the U.S. Court of Appeals, if you need them. A good example of a U.S. Court of Appeals order denying an Independent Counsel’s motion and ordering something "be included" in a Report can be seen here.

Federal court of appeals opinions are documented online.[20] Give a citation. C56C 00:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The process of why the court has authority over the Independent Counsel and the Official Report can be found in the phrase Ethics in Government Act found near the top of the court order, linked above.

By your continuing to ask good questions this dialog hopefully helps makes the facts clear and provides others with the source documents. Thanks. Thomist 23:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stay focused. You wanted to add in: "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation of Vincent W. Foster's death headed by Mr. Kavanaugh."

Let's assume for a seciton the conspiracy webpage you provided has a 100% correct copy of the page you are citing.[21]

You STILL have not provided WP:RS for:

1) The U.S. Court of Appeals order (A docket number, a link to the judgement, or a newsreport) 2) The "objection" of Kenneth Starr (a page number or a newsreport) 3) Evidence of a "cover up" (a page number or a newsreport) 4) Witness "intimidation" (See below:)

Your sentence also implicates:

1)Kavanaugh as part of a conspiracy (If you are in fact claiming this you need a source. If you are not it must be reworded.)

Provide sources for these 4 (or 5 points).

If you are trying to assert all these claims are in the appendix, they are not, at least according to the copy you cited at FBIcoverup.com[22]. Kavanaugh's name isn't mentioned at all on the Witness "intimidation." Give page numbers, court docket numbers, newsreports, etc. C56C 23:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

Please. Let's not call names. Calling a Website "conspiracy website" unfairly uses a derogatory adjective to insert your POV. Whatever faults the Website may have it accurately displays the official documents for our purpose. Being polite makes the task of seeking the truth pleasant for all.

You have made an excellent point. The link to Exhibit 2 from the Appendix is not an adequate source for everything stated. When I introduced the statement at 05:53, 1 August, 2006, I did not source it to Exhibit 2. I wrote, "sources provided are the Official Report and Washington Post." The court order, the Appendix to the Report and the Washington Post article are all needed to accurately support the statement with WP:RS. You were correct to point this out.

Regarding your other concerns:

• I have provided a link to the Appendix and page one of this pdf file is the court order.
• There is no docket number for the Independent Counsel. The Special Division comes under the Ethics in Government Act. Please read the statute for more information about the Court of Appeals and Independent Counsel. You has asked for something that does not exist.
• The objection of Starr is obvious from the order "that the motion of the Independent Counsel for reconsideration is denied." The Independent Counsel's motion to reconsider was the origin of the order that reconsideration is denied. Clearly the court would not deny a motion for reconsideration if one had not been made.
• A "cover-up" is stated on page seven and documented in footnote nine on page six of the letter from Attorney Clarke in the Appendix.

Regarding your concern, "Kavnaugh's name isn't mentioned at all on the Witness 'intimidation'" The statement under discussion makes no such claim. What is stated is that the court ordered, "evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report" and it states that the investigation was, "headed by Mr. Kavanaugh." A source is not need for something not stated. Thank you for your continued help and patience. Thomist 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You have offered nothing new. You have not given any more WP:RS. You have been told that FBICoverup.com is not an acceptable source. You have been asked for docket numbers, report page numbers, media reports, court decisions, and other citations, but have failed to produce them.

I am not interested in arguing sematics. If you choose to present evidence, I will respond, but I will not respond to your diatribes.

As you have been told by others, the material you presented with the sources you have is not acceptable for wikipedia inclusion as such. It will be removed without warning. C56C 21:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

I am sorry that you would say I have not provided a source. The Official Report IS the source I have provided. If you chose not to view it online because your POV is that the online copy is not valid, I have also told you it is available at any public library through inter-library loan. I provided the Washington State University link to the document listed at the Government Printing Office here.

You can aquire the Official Report to satisfy yourself. It is false to declare a source has not been given when the Official Report is clearly the source.

I suggested several days ago that you read the Official Report from the U.S. Court of Appeals. Have you obtained a copy?

Thank you, Thomist

Sorry page 137 does not link Kavanaugh what you claim. And that is using YOUR source that fails WP:RS. Give a source not a debate. C56C 05:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)