Talk:Brett Kavanaugh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 February 25, 2006 2 April 22, 2006/Foster 3 NPOV 4 Removed POV Foster material 5 Moved Most of Associate Independent Counsel Stuff 6 Restoring documented facts 7 From Rfc 7.1 Evidence appended to Report 7.2 Documentation 8 Recent edits 9 The conspiracy theory will be left off 10 Facts from the U.S. Court of Appeals to be included 10.1 Significant historic event should be in the article

[edit] February 25, 2006

On February 25, 2006 I edited the section about Kavanaugh's work for the Office of Independent Counsel. The edits I made were primarily directed at adding the last paragraph of that section (after the blockquote), and also expanding the material inside the blockquote in order to provide context.

Additionally, I added a "background" section following the section regarding Kavanaugh's work at the Office of Independent Counsel.

Ferrylodge February 25, 2006

[edit] April 22, 2006/Foster

On April 22, 2006 I edited this Wikipedia page to trim the obsessive focus on the Vince Foster suicide investigation, and to move the remaining paragraphs about that investigation to the end. All of that Foster stuff is based on the unproven and widely rejected notion that there was a murder coverup which Kavanaugh supported. If it were up to me, all of that material would be deleted from this Wikipedia entry, but the next best thing is to move it to the end of the entry. I also deleted namecalling (e.g. "polished yuppy") from this Wikipedia entry, and added some links.

Ferrylodge April 22, 2006

[edit] NPOV

I find this article is unabashedly supporting. It has weasel words and devote most of the article to heaping praise on the subject. Thusly, I have tagged it with the NPOV template. --waffle iron ^talk 14:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No mention is made that Brett Kavanaugh is considered first and foremost a partisan loyal to very conservative interests. This needs to be mentioned as one of the reasons his nomination has been held up by the Judiciary Committee of the US Senate. It is somewhat atypical for a nomination to be held up as long as his has. The Judiciary Committee apparently has other concerns as well.

"First and foremost a partisan"? Any evidence for that statement besides "Ummm ... well, he works at the Bush White House?" I think Mr. Nameless here is the one who's "first and foremost a partisan." As to the specific charges, the fact that Pat Leahy and Chuck Schumer use Kavanaugh's name as an excuse to make a beeline for the cameras doesn't mean anything. Political posturing by both parties is not only unsurprising, but routine. Does the routine now rise to the "encylopedic"? This is supposed to be an encylopedia, remember. Not talking points for the left or right.--Smashingworth 05:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It most assuredly is NOT NPOV worthy. Keep adding the tag? I'll keep deleting it. We can play this game as long as you want. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Text97 (talk • contribs) .

Care to respond to my issues before doing that? --waffle iron ^talk 14:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There are criticisms of this ideologue out there: Here's a report on him by PFAW [1]. Since the article looked like it was written by a White House staffer, I added a section of criticism, from well-respected organizations like PFAW. If my new section is deleted it will only further prove that this article is NPOV. --24.199.67.217 22:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're section just got deleted. It was deleted because it was ridiculously inappropriate and NPOV. This is not the place to paste ideological talking points wholesale from PFAW. That's why they have their own website. Now, don't get all huffy about things. Why don't you just go ahead and place a link to your "criticisms" in the external links, and you can note in the article that "His nomination was criticised by liberal groups such as PFAW." Otherwise, forget it.--Smashingworth 02:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I also think the "Support" section should be removed in the same manner. Or else, we should have a "Support & Opposition" section, that briefly gives both sides. One paragraph each. I think the best is merely to present external links that can be labelled as support or opposition. I'm sure one of our more liberal editors would be only too pleased to make these changes.--Smashingworth 02:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I support deleting both. --waffle iron ^talk 03:12, 10 May 2006

-- why dont we call this what is really is, court packing. plain and simple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.195.77.219 (talk • contribs) 22:34 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's unlikely even his most ardent supporters or detractors would consider him other than meeting his nominator's fervent wishes to nominiate whomever he wants to as a federal judge, whether talented or a nincompoop. That is the executive's perogative after all, isn't it? Regarding the tag, is {{NPOV}} still appropriate? Would anyone object to it going away at this point? --Flawiki 23:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. Some parts need to be rewritten, but it's mostly style problems, not POV. --waffle iron ^talk 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

When Kavanaugh is confirmed in about two weeks, I look forward to overhauling this page to bring it in line with numerous other Circuit Juge pages. Wikipedia has several informative, succesful pages for such judges, even controversial ones like Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen. I should alert the other Wikipedia users, all that Indepedent Counsel stuff is something that will be targeted. WAY too much detail is given to an incident from years ago that is HIGHLY disputed and not borne out by the record. It's basically one interested guy's statement against the world. The days of this page being a plaything for partisans interested in poisoning Kavanaugh and Bush are coming to an end with his confirmation. Not meaning to be threatening or anything; just pointing out that once he's confirmed more people are going to take an interest in shaping this page up.--Smashingworth 03:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure every article can use some fixin up, but the IC stuff seems to be sourced and verified, albeit sort of long. I don't know enough about the facts to go in there with a big pair of scissors myself.

I found this article after reading early this week that judiciary comm. was going to reopen it again and that some ABA recommenders changed their votes on his qualifications. It was disappointing none of that was mentioned since it was a pretty big story (in a specialized, not so big topic...). If I can steal some time I'm going to take a swipe at adding one or two sections to document the confirmation happenings. There has been some interesting heat, for example the nominee's Tuesday refusal to answer at least one very general question, claiming executive privilege when asked if when he was on the nominee vetting committee in the white house if he'd ever even once offered a negative comment. --Flawiki 12:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what to say other than not giving Schumer what he wanted on that question was no big deal. Adversarial Senators do this all the time. They ask questions they know the nominee can't/won't answer, and then the Senator sits there and gets all huffy when they know all along the nominee wouldn't answer that. It's a set up. So Kavanaugh wasn't going to give Schumer the rope he was looking for. Well, it was a ridiculous question. As it was he said he disagreed with some things while he was there, but there's no way he was going to be specific on that. As to the ABA downgrading, the real story there is that the ABA did this for no reason whatsoever. That exposed the ABA, not Kavanaugh.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smashingworth (talk • contribs) 00:45 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you object if I were to add references with cites to reliable sources on those issues? My goal is to try to make the article more timely and complete with factual stuff, and let the chips fall where they may. --Flawiki 01:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not. I look forward to your edits. If we all work in good faith, we should be able to make a really fact-filled page. The difficulty comes from how much emphasis a certain fact gets. For instance, I think the whole Independent Counsel thing is way overblown on this page. This one guy says all this stuff happened, and everybody else, including the court reporter's transcript, totally disputes this. That being the case, I don't think it's right to give this highly doubtful account such a huge chunk of space. That's more credit than it deserves, besides happening so many years ago and not having any apparent consequence to events of the world or Kavanaugh's life. In any case, I look forward to seeing how you incorporate this new stuff. But I do think that Kavanaugh's confirmation in a few weeks will make the way he answered Schumer's questions kind of an obscure and irrelevant point at that time. Kavanaugh's not the first nominee to have a difficult time with Schumer and Leahy, and as long as Bush keeps nominating Republican judges, he won't be the last.--Smashingworth 03:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed POV Foster material

Removed the following:

Moreover, even if the OIC was incorrect about whether such a question was asked by Kavanaugh, still Knowlton's own statement quoted above has Knowlton acknowledging that Kavanaugh did not formulate that particular question about touching. Given these facts about the Knowlton testimony, it is unclear why some people editing this Wikipedia page insist upon including this section regarding Knowlton's testimony.

It's POV, commentary by an editor, and self-referential to Wikipedia. I've retained Knowlton's quote and all the factual material.--MikeJ9919 06:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved Most of Associate Independent Counsel Stuff

I've gone ahead and removed somebody's pet conspiracy theory. But don't worry, it's not gone. I've just created a page for Miquel Rodriguez and pasted it over there since he and Knowlton are basically the only ones who keep pushing this theory. Whatever the merits, it belongs on a page for Foster, Rodriguez, and Knowlton, not Kavanaugh. I've reduced it to a slight mention, though I don't really think it deserves that much. But it's there and anyone interested in more can follow the link to Rodriguez page and read more, where it's actually relevant to the page.--Smashingworth 03:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Another note on this subject, since it's become clear that we have an anonymous contributor who is devoted to splashing block quotes from Miquel/Miguel Rodriguez and Patrick Knowlton all over this page. The material is highly questionable to begin with, basically a conspiracy theory, and it has little connection to Kavanaugh, and is of little significance to his life or career. Moreoever, the material is a wholesale copy of what has already been pasted on the Vince Foster page, where at least it is relevant to the subject of the article. I did not delete the material, but rather created a page for Miquel Rodriguez, since he's the one making accusations, and put it over there. I then left a note on this page with a wikilink to the Rodriguez page. A reader of this page will see that Rodriguez has made accusations against the Independent Counsel investigation, and can follow the link to either the Foster or Rodriguez page where the full conspiracy is included in detail with links. I think that is an entirely reasonable compromise that does not seek to eliminate the conspiracy theory and "cover it up" but merely places it in proper context, so that a minor incident in Kavanuagh's life spun by a far-out theory does not overwhelm this whole page.

Those are the reasons I moved the material, with directions to where it can otherwise be found, and that is why I will continue to revert the changes of an anonymous contributor who seeks to make this page an online repository of a pet conspiracy theory while accusing those who do not agree to be "vandals," despite the labor involved in making sure the conspiracy theory lives on, just not on a page where it does not belong. A personal obsession is not the proper editorial guide for Wikipedia.--Smashingworth 20:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous editor who is in love with the Vince Foster conspiracy theory is apparently devoted to cutting and pasting this stuff onto this page come hell or high water. This really needs to stop--his edits are full of wiki-disapproved block quotes, one-sided, and redundant since they are just swipes from the Vince Foster and Miquel Rodriguez pages. This is a page about a federal judge, not the place for spinning old and rejected allegations. Anybody know how I can go about reporting him to proper wiki authorities? The edits the user does to this page are all "he" does. He contributes nothing else to Wikipedia.--Smashingworth 23:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring documented facts

Brett M. Kavanaugh’s 137-page report on the Death of Vincent Foster as Associate Independent Counsel for Kenneth Starr is available from the U.S. government printing office.Official Report It one of the most significant documents Mr. Kavanaugh has authored in his short career. It is a well-documented fact that the Court of appeals ordered that Kavanaugh’s report include comments from a grand jury witness.

The U.S. Court of appeals, on which Brett M. Kavanaugh now serves, dealt him a stunning defeat in 1997 when they ordered evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Official Report on the Death of Vincent W. Foster authored by Mr. Kavanaugh. The inclusion of this evidence by Judges David Sentelle, John Butzner, and Peter Fay marked the first time in the history of the Independent Counsel statute that evidence of a cover-up by an independent counsel’s own staff was ordered included in his report. Wikipedia readers should not be denied the opportunity to know about this historic event in the career of Brett M. Kavanaugh.

The three-judge panel of the Special Division of the court of appeals ordered the following statements to be included by Patrick Knowlton’s attorney in Mr. Kavanaugh’s report:

"Prior to Patrick [Knowlton]’s [grand jury] appearance, OIC prosecutors [Brett M. Kavanaugh] had been fully appraised by counsel of Patrick’s reports of being harassed by 25 or more men. [Brett Kavanaugh] clearly appeared not to believe Patrick’s bizarre account of having been harassed, at one point asking him to ‘tell us about the alleged harassment,’ nor did Starr’s deputies [Brett Kavanaugh and John Bates] appear to believe much of anything Patrick had to say..."

"Because Patrick did not heed the warning regarding his grand jury testimony and continued to tell the truth, including his account of the bizarre harassment he suffered, his testimony was discredited. Patrick was harassed in an effort to make him look unbalanced or dishonest. Since that time, he has been defamed by numerous individuals, most of whom are journalists. He has been attacked as a delusional conspiracy theorist, a homosexual, and as an outright liar. Patrick has been fighting to reestablish his credibility for the past two years. Patrick did nothing to deserve the outrageous treatment he received at the hands of the OIC and its FBI agents. He did nothing to deserve being yanked into this FBI debacle, having his life turned upside down, and having to endure this fight for his reputation. Patrick's only 'crime' was reporting to the authorities what he had seen at Fort Marcy Park, consistent with his understanding of his duties as a good citizen.

"Patrick respectfully asks that the Division of the Court append this letter to the Independent Counsel's Report on the Death of Vincent Foster, Jr. to afford him a measure of fairness. A denial of this relief would augment the appearance of justice having not been done and would further frustrate legislative intent. Patrick should not have to go through the rest of his life labeled as a liar or some kind of nut. He has no remedy at law for injury to his reputation causally related to the subject investigations. Patrick Knowlton merely seeks to establish that he is telling the truth and that he is mentally stable."

Now here at Wikipedia, "Smashingworth" unfairly continues to call Mr. Knowlton a "conspiracy theorist." "Smashingworth" seeks to conceal Mr. Kavanaugh’s activities by hiding the evidence made public by the U.S. Court of Appeals on October 10, 1997, in support of Mr. Knowlton.

The court ordered comments regarding Mr. Kavanaugh’s misdeeds are also supported by former Associate Independent counsel Miquel Rodriguez in telephone conversations recorded by the late Reed Irvine, Chairman of Accuracy in Media.

The Official Report on the Death of Vincent Foster released by the Court of Appeals on October 10, 1997, supports the statements by the witness Patrick Knowlton regarding his experience in the grand jury with Mr. Kavanaugh.

Removing the documented information from the U.S. Court of Appeals about Mr. Kavanaugh’s role as Associate Independent Counsel is a disservice to Wikipedia users seeking to know Mr. Kavanaugh’s documented activities as Associate Independent counsel.

"Smashingworth" has unfairly characterized as "conspiracy theory," the Official Report on the Death of Vincent W. Foster, issued by the United States Court of Appeals.

"Smashingworth" unfairly uses name-calling rather than documented facts, calling assistant U.S. attorney Miquel Rodriguez and Mr. Patrick Knowlton "conspiracy theorists."

"Smashingworth" removed almost an entire category built by others, characterizing it as "independent counsel stuff" and then renamed the section "independent counsel controversy" as if the true facts about Brett Kavanaugh’s activities are unknown. This is a impudent attempt to hide the true facts.

Removing documented information from Wikipedia destroys the contributions of others. "Smashingworth" has concealed the important U.S. Court of appeals addition to the official report authored by Mr. Kavanaugh by misplacing this information at a newly created page titled "Miquel Rodriguez." This only makes it more difficult for researchers seeking to know the background of Mr. Kavanaugh.

-Thomist May 31, 2006

The only thing being "unfairly characterized" is my attempt to make this page NPOV and clean it up. To that end I have organized and wikified, and moved some material. That which I could not rewrite in a NPOV manner was moved to another page and preserved there, where it was more appropriate.

How can I have removed the information if I actually went to the trouble of creating a page for Miquel Rodriguez and placing it there? You therefore contradict yourself when you say I have "remov[ed] documented information from Wikipedia." Rather, I have reduced its gigantic presence on this page to a more manageable and proper size, along with external links and wikilinks to the more detailed passages you are in love with, which are included under "Independent Counsel Controversy" and "External links." The trouble is not with the information itself but its disproportionately large placement on this page, as well as being copied verbatim on the Vince Foster and Miquel Rodriguez pages.

As for the conspiracy theory, that's all this is at this point. Nobody takes seriously Rodriguez' claims that the investigation was a sham and that Foster was murdered. Why don't you go to the NASA page and write a huge, huge section on the faking of the moon landing? It would be out of proportion to give all the space to an out-there theory at the expense of everything else.

Moreover, your "documented facts" do not extend beyond the "he said-she said" or "my word against yours" variety. Until you can write the section in a way that recognizes how thin a reed this whole theory hangs on, then it must be removed from the Kavanaugh page. I note once again, the material--which is inappropriately non-NPOV and voluminous with flagrant use of selective non-NPOV block quotes--is out of proportion with the subject of this page and is completely available VERBATIM on the Foster and Rodriguez pages.

Re-write and reduce the section, or it must be moved from this page. I do not have the time to do that work for you. If you're such an expert on this theory, then write it in a way that doesn't overwhelm everything else and only offers one side of the argument, however fringe it may be.--Smashingworth 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Readers should decide how they wish to interpret the facts. People do not need "Smashingworth" to decide which facts are appropriate for them to read. If an article is biased readers are intelligent and will see it. Just because some facts are unfavorable about Judge Kavanaugh does not justify taking them down. Why not add more positive facts if you want more balance?

Your point of view that the Official Report made public by the Special Division and the U.S. Court of Appeals is "conspiracy theory" is not a NPOV. The Official Report represents a significant work product, if not the most significant work product in the short career of Judge Kavanaugh. Continuing to take information about this document down is vandalism.

You are apparently a supporter of Judge Kavanaugh with a personal interest to conceal the fact that the court where Judge Kavanaugh now serves, ruled against him on a very serious matter. This fact was a significant event in American history as well as Judge Kavanaugh's career. This fact is documented with links provided. Have you read the official 137-page report that you keep calling "theory"? The neutral history of Judge Kavanaugh's time as Associate Independent counsel with the good facts and the bad facts about Judge Kavanaugh should remain as long as links to sources are provided.

History should not be hidden from the public. This is not a case of "he said, she said" as you claim. The Official Report is what it is and that it exists cannot be denied.

-Thomist may 31, 2006

No one denies that the Report exists. How could they? But the allegations by Knowlton and Rodriguez remain at the level of "he-said, she said". There was no legal conclusion that Kavanuagh did participate in witness intimidation, or that the whole Vince Foster investigation was a sham. No court of law has ever reached that conclusion as a matter of law, nor apparently taken it seriously at all. Just because the judges appended one witness' letter means little. So they included it, big deal. They didn't issue a judgment on that issue. They merely made sure that Mr. Knowlton's allegations became public knowledge through the publication of the Report. That's all they ever have been--allegations. Thus, it remains an unproven theory. Nothing more. Maybe you should re-read that Report you're so fond of.

As it is, this is not about my bias (or yours, which is very clearly in favor of the conspiracy). It is about keeping that bias from the article itself. Contrary to your desire to smear Kavanaugh with your bias "and let the readers sort it out," Wikipedia policy mandates that pages maintain a Neutral Point of View. For all I care, you can push your biased "facts" onto the Vince Foster and Miquel Rodriguez pages, and good riddance. It will not be tolerated here.

I have not deleted the material, merely redacted and relocated most of it. It has all been done in an attempt to fairly include the information in a neutral way so that readers are aware of it and can investigate it further. As it is, I have made sure the controvery and the allegations are mentioned, and the external links to the info and the "cover up" site remain and are clearly identified. Wikilinks will take readers to the more detailed Foster and Rodriguez pages. So your claim that the facts have been "hidden from the public" merely exposes your hysteria. You know very well the material is all over Wikipedia; anyone can look at your contributions and see that you've made sure of that. But this page will not be smeared with that biased material. No one is preventing your from including some kind of reference to those allegations--my edit preserves those, but without the bias.

If you want to expand it, fine. Re-write it more concisely and without the smearing agenda, and it will remain on the page for as long as you like. Until then all biased non-NPOV material will be removed from this page.--Smashingworth 00:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In the rv/rv'd material is one passage right up at the top that in one version states that "Kavanaugh was the primary author of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's report on Foster's death" and in the alternative passage states that "Kavanaugh would have been the primary author of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's report on Foster's death." I don't have a dog in the fight on preserving the bulk of the material but I do have a minor issue with the disparity here. If the alternative passage that he would have been a primary author is correct then it ought to be verified. Otherwise, this seems to me to be verboten weasel wording and ought not be reverted to. --Flawiki 00:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish I knew the answer too. If our experts could come in a clear that up, and somehow do it without just smearing Kavanaugh, it would be appreciated.--Smashingworth 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It is significant that the Office of Independent Counsel portion of the Offical Report on the Death of Vincent Foster is unsigned and no one put their name anywhere on the document. I recall the press did report that Brett Kavanaugh was the author and this may have also been noted in underlying documents from the Office of Independent Counsel. I will do some research to help resolve this. There is no question Kavanaugh was in charge of the investigation according to the Washington Post. -Thomist June 1, 2006

Please specify and do not characterize. No one is "smearing" Judge Kavanaugh, unless you think the Court of Appeals smeared Mr. Kavanaugh when they included evidence WITH PROOF that contradicted Kavanaugh's conclusions as well as evidence of witness intimidation by the Office of Independent Counsel.

In an attempt to dismiss this evidence you do not like, you have misused the term "allegations." An allegation is an assertion without proof. But the Official Report on the Death of Vincent Foster includes proof of misdeeds by the OIC. The three judge panel of the Court of Appeals included 9 pages of exhibits drawn from 23 pages of the official investigative record including Senate depositions, the official autopsy, Police Reports, the Fiske Report, the Medical Examiner's Report, and FBI Reports. You have ignored the proof.

Please read the official record and see the evidence in the final nine pages of the Official Report.

It may be proof to you, O Anonymous Conspiracy Theorist, but it is not to me, nor was it intended to be so by the Court. It was appended at the request of Knowlton's attorney and presents his side of the story. Nothing more. Again, that makes it an assertion of the "he-said, she said" kind. It's nice that there is documentation to support his statement, but that is not proof either. Just evidence. Contrary to your dogma, nothing has been proven, and until it has this page will not say otherwise.

I have only removed the biased material. I have left everything else. I have invited you to re-write it in a more neutral and concise manner. You ignore that request. There's nothing else I can do other than continue to delete the biased material you post to smear Kavanaugh. There's no place for those extensive quotes on this page. The link to the Report is fine, but reprinting it will not do. Sorry.--Smashingworth 02:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to have a discussion let's agree to be polite. Calling people names like "conspiracy theorist" and continuing to take down facts you personally do not like is inapproprate. The public is entitled to know ALL the facts made public by the U.S. court of Appeals. Why not let the public have all the facts about Judge Kavanaugh's history, the positive and the negative?

Judge Kavanaugh's part of the official report presents "his side of the story, nothing more" but the Court of Appeals wanted to the public to have the full story so they added more to the Official Report to make it fair and complete. Why not follow the example of the Court of Appeals and let the public to know all the facts in the official record?

-Thomist June 1,2006

Dear Smashington:

You wrote, "Contrary to your dogma, nothing has been proven, and until it has this page will not say otherwise."

What do you mean by the term "proven"? Please define.

Thomist June 1, 2006

Nothing has been proven as a matter of law, the way it is proven someone is "guilty" or "not guilty" at the end of a trial. That's legal proof. And we're dealing with a legal investigation and a legal document are we not? The Report represents the findings of the Independent Counsel investigation, along with the appended statement by an advocate for Knowlton. It is all evidence, but there has been nothing proven. The Court never made any legal findings, conclusions, or judgments.

Like I said, it may be proof to you, but it is not to me, and it has not been proof to countless other citizens, legal analysts, and reporters who have covered this story. So, I'd say you're in the minority on what exactly is "PROOF." That makes your passion about such proof a little heavy-handed. You think it's proof, and it's not. It's not proof to anyone who says it's not, and it's not proof to the objective courts of law either. Bottom line: just because you think it's proof doesn't make it so.

There is no attempt to remove "facts" harmful to Kavanaugh. My edit preserves them--perhaps not in the mind-numbing detail you prefer with all of its attendant exaggerations, such as the "stunning defeat to Kavanaugh"--but it preserves the facts of the controvery nonetheless, just without the hyperbole. Links to hyperbole have been provided as well. That should be enough for an interested reader.

But it is unfortunately not enough for you. So RE-WRITE IT IN A NEUTRAL AND MORE CONCISE MANNER! How hard can that be? You're the expert after all, right? Your first edit, which I think is a smear and you think is cold hard proof, will not stand. So rewrite, please.

And if you don't like being called "O Anonymous Conspiracy Theorist," then simply sign your posts. I won't have to be creative then.--Smashingworth 17:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smashington:

I asked you to plese define your term "proven" after you wrote, "nothing has been proven, and until it has this page will not say otherwise."

In your response you wrote in part, "...You think it's proof, and it's not. It's not proof to anyone who says it's not..."

Apparently only what you believe and deem acceptable can remain at Wikipedia. It should be noted that the genuinely known is not the same as the believed and acceptable.

At your suggestion I did remove the word "stunning" although it remains a fact that having evidence that contradicted the conclusion of his report included in the report by the court of appeals was a defeat for Mr. Kavanaugh. The Office of Independent Counsel filed a motion asking the court to reconsider, which the court denied THE VERY NEXT DAY, so that the other side did not even have to file a motion to oppose the OIC motion to reconsider. It was an embarrassing defeat. -Thomist, June 5, 2006

Thomist, I no longer have any interest in trying to be fair and patient with you. You ignore my reasons and suggestions. Rather, you choose to continue smearing me with this nonsense that I'm censoring you instead of working together to create a fair compromise. I have no choice to but to continue removing the junk you've been putting up here. If you somehow end up contributing something that is not a smear campaign (whether of Kavanaugh or me) that of course will not be removed. Until then, I'm not going to waste any more time on you. By the way, you need to improve your reading as well as your writing. It's not SmashingTON.--Smashingworth 04:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smashingworth,

You have admitted that you have no interest in being fair and you continue to characterize what is genuinely known as "nonesense" based solely on your personal opinion. You unfairly deny Wikipedia readers from knowing the history of Mr. Kavanaugh.

-Thomist June 6, 2006

Dear Smashingworth,

Please consider that the Wikipedia information about Judge Kavanaugh is not to be limited only to his success. Judge Kavanaugh's public record includes both his success and his failures. Brett Kavanaugh's activities as Associate Independent Counsel are a permanent part of the public record released by the U.S. Court of Appeals and it includes evidence of witness intimidation. My friend, your attempts to conceal the criminal activity by the Office of Independent Counsel is like hiding air bubbles in a pond, they will always bubble up to the surface.

Thomist June 6, 2006

[edit] From Rfc

First, everyone editing here should keep in mind WP:3RR and WP:SOCK and do your best not to violate these policies. Second, please take a look at the following relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies: Reliable sources, neutral point of view (especially the section on undue weight), and what Wikipedia is not. Sources like "fbicover-up.com", a personal webpage, and possibly "aim.org" do not comport with the reliable sources guideline. The section of text that has been added is not written in a neutral point of view, and, in any event, gives undue weight to a small minority viewpoint in violation of the undue weight portion of that policy. Finally, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Simply put, the text as written does not belong on Wikipedia. I recommend working out a compromise if one can be reached. - Jersyko·talk 13:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

One of your edits earlier today indicated an RFC was in play, do you have a link to it? Thanks --Flawiki 13:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Rfc post. I'd also like to note that my comment above in no way is meant to discourage expansion of the independent counsel controversy section. My point is merely that reliable sources need to be used and the material needs to be written in an neutral manner manner, excluding the conspirational, speculative stuff. - Jersyko·talk 14:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I hope that many users are able to make valuable contributions to this page instead of the vandalism and partisan material that has been posted lately. In my edits, I have left the "Independent Counsel" section on the page and even made improvements to it in an attempt to compromise with some of our "true believers," but those have been ignored and deleted repeatedly. That sort of behavior flies in the face of compromise.--Smashingworth 18:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I thank Jersyko for the thoughtful comments and suggestions. The most significant document regarding Judge Kavanaugh's role as Associate Independent counsel was the final report of the investigation he led. This historic document is continually deleted from the article page. How would it best be referenced? The document is listed, but "out of print," at the Government Printing Office site. The document is in the Washington State University collection. It is a public document available at the National Archives but not online. Online the official document can only be viewed at a personal website. In regard to undue weight being given the minority view, this is a very significant minority, three federal judges on the second highest court in the United States. The U.S. Court of Appeals decision is the most authoritative but at the same time not popular for the simple reason that their judgment has never been publicized in any newspaper. It noteworthy that the Washington Post falsely claims to have the "full text of the Report," but the Post conceals the final 23 pages added by the Court of Appeals. The Court clearly handed down a hot potato. Thomist June 8, 2006

The Report has never been deleted from the article page, as it has always continued to be available via the External links section. To say otherwise is simply untrue. And to say that the inclusion of Knowlton's complaints in the Report by order of the judges represents "a very significant minority" shows an utter miscromprehension of what the panel did. It merely allowed Knowlton's complaint to be made public. It did not endorse or accept those complaints in any way! Get that through your head.--Smashingworth 17:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not shout at me Smashingworth. The Independent Counsel statute permits the court to include submissions from individuals named in the final report, in whole or in part, at the court's discretion, to ensure that the report is fair and complete. Have you read the statute that created the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC)? Have you read the entire 137-page Report of the investigation led by Mr. Kavananaugh? It may be more accurate to conclude that the court did not endorse the official conclusion reached by the official investigation since the court, over the objection of the OIC, included considerable evidence of foul play by the OIC staff, like Mr. Kavanaugh. And the judges chose to include considerable evidence that contradicted the official conclusion. The court ruled in favor of a grand jury witness who provided evidence of witness intimidation by the OIC. Please read the court order of September 30, 1997, "ORDERED that motion of the Independent Counsel for reconsideration is denied." That order by the three judges dealt a huge defeat to Brett Kavanaugh, Kenneth Starr, and the American press, who to this day will not report it! --Thomist June 8, 2006

I agree with you that any link to the Report should link to the full, uncensored report, but you just don't know what you're talking about when you conclude that the Court of Appeals was pursuing some sort of agenda by allowing Knowlton's allegations to be included. They allowed both sides of the story to be made public. That's all. To interpret it as the Court buying Knowlton's allegations as truth, or of wanting to "deal a huge defeat to Brett Kavanaugh, Kenneth Starr, and the American press" is to just be flat wrong and hyperbolic. Every court opinion or order includes the allegations and arguments of both sides. The court did an entirely routine and mundane thing by making Knowlton's allegations, no matter how far-fetched and fringe, public.--Smashingworth 19:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The current version of the article looks fine. The previous versions obviously gave far too much weight to the AIC issue - grossly too much weight (I second everything Jersyko said above). Given how small the general biography is, there is little justification to adding anything more to the AIC section. - Merzbow 05:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The previous questions have not been answered. Have you read the statute that created the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC)? Have you read the entire 137-page Report of the investigation led by Mr. Kavananaugh? Editing the AIC section should at the least require a basic knowledge of the official documents rather than opinion. For example, the court added 9-pages of exhibits of excerpts from twenty-four documents from the investigative record. This evidence contradicted the OIC part of the report on every key issue and cast doubt on the official conclusion. To dismiss this evidence as "Knowlton's allegations" is disingenuous. The court attaced EVIDENCE of misconduct, including witness intimidation by the OIC and Judge Kavanaugh in particular. The court could not have done anything more discrediting to the OIC than it did by denying Judge Starr's motion to reconsider attaching the evidence of OIC misdeeds. No weight has been given to this historic event. --Thomist June 11, 2006

Nobody is arguing that this shouldn't be addressed in the article. But it should not constitute the vast majority of the article. I suggest you consult the WP:BLP guideline to familiarize yourself with the reasons why Wikipedia very heavily frowns upon overloading a person's biography with criticism. It clearly states that:

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.

- Merzbow 17:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Likewise nobody is arguing the historic decision by the Court of Appeals should constitute the vast majority of the article. Wikipedia guidelines do not exclude from the article any mention of the controversial final Report on the investigation led by Mr. Kavanaugh. The Court of Appeals decision to add evidence of a cover-up by the OIC is the most notable and authoritative source. --Thomist June 12, 2006

Really? Your edit history to the article shows otherwise. Have you changed your mind? - Merzbow 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not? I think it would be fair to offer a shorter summary. -- Thomist June 12, 2006

OK, but that section should certainly not be larger than the 'Background' section, since your view that this stuff is of greater importance than the rest of his career is a minority viewpoint. - Merzbow 23:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed a dead link from the Preview section. The section on Judge Kavanaugh’s period as Associate Independent Counsel has been tightened with supporting footnotes added. The word "controversy" was removed from the heading since the facts as presented are either supported by the public record or they are not. I welcome questions or suggestions to continue to improve this section.Thomist 02:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your most recent edit was miles better than your previous ones, but still had some non-NPOV and misleading statements. The "historic" importance you add to the inclusion of the Knowlton statement is overblown, so I have removed that spin on the fact. "Controversy" has been added back to the title because obviously there is disagreement about what happened. That's what makes it a controversy. As I look further into this, I am at a loss to see what this has to do with Kavanaugh. I have not seen evidence that Kavanaugh "replaced" Rodriguez. How could he since Rodriguez talks about Kavanaugh as if they worked together? Nor have I read that Kavanaugh was the lead guy on the Foster investigation. Is that in the official Report?--Smashingworth 04:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smashingworth,

Thank you for saying my recent edits were "miles better." I wish you had not removed them.

The controversy appears to be over what NPOV means to you. For example, you simply choose not to accept the fact that Brett Kavanaugh headed the investigation so you removed it. I provided a footnote to a Washington Post article by Al Kamen that stated Mr. Kavanaugh "headed the investigation." I could provide more sources like Dana Milbank’s Washington Post article from November 18, 2002 which said Mr. Kavanaugh "led Starr’s investigation into the death of Foster." By your own admission you wrote, "I have not seen evidence" and "nor have I read." You asked, "Is that in the official Report?" If you have not read the 137-page Report or any of the footnotes I provided what makes you qualified to edit this section? In good faith I have provided the facts that are well documented in the public record. You admit you have not read the footnotes or offical record.

The word "evidence" seems to trouble you and you keep replacing it with the word "allegation." Evidence is an indication, a sign that makes another thing evident. The official Report, which you admit not reading, has nine pages of evidence with exhibits to excerpts from 24 documents in the official investigative record. The evidence includes, U.S. Senate depositions, police reports, EMS reports, FBI reports, autopsy report, medical examiner’s report and so on. An allegation is an assertion without proof. In law, its maker proposes to support the allegation with evidence. The court attached allegations AND supporting evidence. Your POV is to acknowledge the allegations and ignore the evidence. The evidence of witness intimidation and cover-up should remain because these are the facts in the public record. I have provided links to the evidence. Please do not remove things without evidence to show the facts are unsupported by the public record.

Lastly your admitted confusion over how Brett Kavanaugh and Miquel Rodriguez could have worked together demonstrates your lack of knowledge of Starr’s Office of Independent Counsel. Do you know how many Associate Independent Counsels worked in Starr’s OIC? How many can you name? You are unfairly taking down the facts and supporting footnotes because they are facts you do not know and have chosen not to know. Thomist 12:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

SmashingWORTH here, for those who are more interested in blindly attacking without bothering to even properly name their intended victim. Once again, I am forced to police this page and clean up the mess you make and then return to the Discussion page in order to defend myself from your conspiratorial implications and attempt to calmly respond to your attacks on me and my motivations. I frankly admit to not believing the Knowlton side of things. Big deal. But I have never removed the bare facts from this page, only attempted to preserve them free of your overblown kool-aid drinking spin about their undeniable truth. I disagree that I lack the expertise to remove your spin cycles. Nobody needs to read a hundred something page Report to recognize someone taking sides in a forum that is supposed to be non-NPOV. It is clear to everyone but yourself that you violate Wikipedia policy with your edits by using non-NPOV and misleading statements, and by attempting to give disproportionately undue weight to the whole section. Nor does my inability to name every associate counsel in the whole office make any difference to my problem with the claim that Kavanaugh replaced Rodriguez. I did not say they never worked together. Rather, the fact that they worked together undermines the claim that one replaced the other. Where is your source for this? You do not appear to have one, and you do not bother to answer the question in the first place. Rather, you chide me for not being able to name every lawyer associated with the investigation (something I doubt anybody could readily do) as a reason I should not be allowed to touch your expert opinions. Why don't you try filling in some blanks here instead of attacking those who question you as merely ignorant or prejudiced?

However, in my latest edit I have restored your claim that Kavanaugh headed the investigation, though why I rely on your good faith after your continuous smearing of me is beyond my understanding. I cannot rely on your footnote because it is not a link. I must trust that it says what you say it does, though I have not found that to be true much else you have said. For instance, I never removed remove a single one of your footnotes, so quit complaining about imaginary wounds. Try and stick to facts. Just because you believe in the Foster conspiracy doesn't mean everyone else is in a conspiracy against you. It's a wonder your spin on this whole affair is tolerated at all on this website. Be thankful that it is.--Smashingworth 20:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smashingworth,

I am sorry I misspelled your name. My error was not intentional and not part of some plot to smear you. I corrected my error.

Rather than continuing to revert the page I suggest we pause to discuss the facts. I am agreeable to leaving your version up while we discuss the facts.

Regarding Brett Kavanaugh replacing Miquel Rodriguez you asked, "How could he since Rodriguez talks about Kavanaugh as if they worked together?" They did work together and it is not uncommon for a subordinate to replace his superior in the workplace if his superior resigns.

You also asked, "Rather, the fact that they worked together undermines the claim that one replaced the other. Where is your source for this?" Mr. Rodriguez had been in charge of the Foster death investigation from the time he was summoned by Kenneth Starr in the fall of 1994 to review Foster’s death until he resigned in March of 1995. Mr. Kavanaugh replaced him. This is not a controversy. See the Washington Times, Jan 13, 1995, Page A8, The Secret Life of Bill Clinton by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Regnery 1997, page 111, and The Strange Death of Vincent Foster by Christopher Ruddy, Free Press 1997, page 216.

I am sorry the source articles I gave for the Washington Post are not able to link on line. Everything published is simply not readily available on line with a link. The sources I have given can be found at any public library. I do not expect you to believe what I say, I invite you to check the facts. The truth is not something we find alone, but we find it with others.

You have inserted this statement into the article, "Former Associate Independent Counsel Miquel Rodriguez has since claimed that there was a conspiracy..." You support this with a link to footnote three. A check of the comments of Mr. Rodriguez shows he has never said there was a "conspiracy." In fact, he said the opposite. Your statement is not supported by the footnote. Do you have any evidence to support your statement?

On the other hand, the footnote did support the statement by Mr. Rodriguez that witnesses "were being inappropriately treated." You have taken down that statement from the article. Why?

On this discussion page you have continually thrown out the word "conspiracy," for example, "pet conspiracy theory," "basically a conspiracy theory," "the full conspiracy," "the conspiracy theory," "the Vince Foster conspiracy theory," "the conspiracy theory," and "O Anonymous Conspiracy Theorist." Most recently you wrote, "Just because you believe in the Foster conspiracy doesn't mean everyone else is in a conspiracy against you." Please provide evidence to support your allegation that I believe in "the Foster conspiracy?" I have never said there was a "conspiracy." Why do you keep saying I have a "conspiracy theory?"

The Court of Appeals ordered the Report to include allegations and supporting evidence submitted by a grand jury witness. Can we agree to mention both the allegations and the evidence in the article? The evidence of witness intimidation and cover-up should remain because these are the facts in the official Report. I have provided links to the evidence. For example, is this evidence? Why or why not? Please explain.

You wrote, "Nobody needs to read a hundred something page Report to recognize someone taking sides in a forum that is supposed to be non-NPOV." The 137-page final Report of the Office of Independent Counsel investigation headed by Brett Kavanaugh is crucial to understanding the facts. By your own admission you have chosen not to read the Report. As I said before you are unfairly taking down the facts with supporting footnotes because they are facts you do not know and have chosen not to know. Thomist 00:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased that we can take a breath from constantly reverting each other's edits. I once again reject the charge that I am "unfairly taking down the facts with supporting footnotes." The facts remain. The links remain. Perhaps not in as much detail as you prefer, nor with the emphasis and spin you prefer, but the facts ARE there. And everyone one of your footnotes. And everyone of your external links. You mischaracterize what I have done here by suggesting I'm removing facts and footnotes. I have done neither. Though I have re-written some of your edits to make them more neutral, I haven't touched a single one of your documenting links. I don't know why you persist in claiming otherwise.

"Conspiracy" is an entirely appropriate word to describe the claim that Kavanaugh participated in a massive cover-up of Foster's death. Rodriguez alleges that evidence was buried and witnesses were intimidated all with the goal of hiding key facts and fixing the result. I call a spade a spade, and I call a cover-up of the truth through witness harassment, threats, and evidence manipulation and destruction by the FBI a conspiracy. A huge conspiracy; a massive conspiracy. If that doesn't qualify as a conspiracy, it would be hard to imagine what would qualify.

As to the claim of evidence, when you write things like the letter contains evidence of whatever, that has the appearance of accepting the truth of the charges made. They remain allegations because they have never been proven, whatever statements, documents, or charts have been offered to back them up. If there was some way to write that the letter contained appendices or something without making it sound as if we were taking sides, then that would probably be fine. The other problem though is that lends itself to going into too much detail and placing too much emphasis on the subject.

And we don't need too much emphasis on this page. We don't need quotes from Rodriguez, or quotes from the Report and all that. Not on this page. I note that you did not bother to create a Rodriguez page to air his charges there in more detail. I did that. Nor have you bothered to create a page for Knowlton. They're the ones making the charges; it should be detailed on their pages. Not on this page. It is enough that the record shows the charges were made. That satisfied the Court of Appeals, and I think it should satisfy the editors of this page.--Smashingworth 01:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smashingworth,

A while ago I asked you what you meant by the term "proven." You said, "Nothing has been proven as a matter of law, the way it is proven someone is 'guilty' or 'not guilty' at the end of a trial." You seem to have set a high standard for facts to be posted at Wikipedia. What in your current Brett Kavanaugh article has been "proven?" And how was it "proven?"

If there is a cover-up of the murder of Vincent W. Foster it does not necessarily follow that there must be a huge conspiracy. This is a popular myth. If there was a cover-up it would seem reasonable that the lead investigator, Associate Counsel Miquel Rodriguez, would have known about it. Mr. Rodriguez did not describe a huge conspiracy but something different. These are his own words:

There's not that many people who know these things really. You don't need a lot of people to know what's going on. In fact, you don't need many at all. Everyone makes a very big mistake when they believe that a lot of people are necessary to orchestrate some kind of – some result here. Very few people need to know anything about anything, really. All, all people need to know is what their job is, not why – be a good soldier, carry out the orders.

And there are a lot of people from – starting at the very night that the body was investigated, all the way down the line, there were, there were, people told to do certain things and they didn't – and their explanation now is, that they were following orders, being told what to do.

Nobody, ah, and this goes for, the FBI agents – they all, they don't necessarily know the big picture – they don't know what other people are writing in their reports. When you write a report all you have to do is make sure that it's consistent with – the most innocuous thing is to make sure it is consistent with the result that you ultimately want to get, which is not embarrass your other colleagues who have made their conclusions already.

It's a motivation which is that simple and, and, you know all of a sudden your notes don't exactly reflect what other people have said. It's very simple. It's a very, a very, ah, clean formula to achieve the result. You don't have to know the big picture. All you need to do is just have a couple of people involved.

In other words, if Braun and, you know, two or three others are out there assisting and making this all go smoothly, right, then they're the ones who ultimately collecting all the notes of the other officers, right, then they, all they do is submit their own notes and their final report. You see, very few people, okay, they've sent people out there and you, you, ah, talk to those people, interview 'em and I'll be over in a little while. You know, you come over, you get their notes and you write your report. Your report's wrong, you hope nobody's gonna catch you on it but if they do so what. It gets obscured and obscured and obscured because you, you control the central figures in the investigation. You don't need all these Park Police and all these FBI agents to know the overall scheme.

from Accuracy in Media

In the current version of the article you wrote, "Former Associate Independent Counsel Miquel Rodriguez has since claimed that there was a conspiracy..." Do you still think that statement is accurate?Thomist 02:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smashingworth,

My version of the article from June 15 is more accurate than the current version in several ways. For example, I accurately wrote Mr. Foster's name, "Vincent W. Foster" and his job title, "Deputy White House Counsel," while the current article has changed this to "White House attorney Vince Foster." I have been equally careful with all the facts in my version from June 15th which you have removed. My first sentence stated, "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, 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]" Please note that I did not say the court included "proof" of witness intimidation and a cover-up only that the court included "evidence." The sentence is accurate and supported by three footnotes. By arguing it has "never been proven" you are dismissing something that was never stated.Thomist 09:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thomist, I specifically based my writing on that very excerpt from Rodriguez's transcripts, so this is not a case where you're catching me off-guard. I have already read that. Rodriguez is still alleging a conspiracy when he talks about "orchestrating" things to reach a "result." It's a huge conspiracy because, in Rodriguez's words, because a few "central figures" are controlling the actions of many, "who don't know the big picture." But "the big picture" is the conspiracy. That is what conspiracy is! A secret agreement to achieve a particular result, usually unlawful or wrong. I'm sure you agree with me that manipulation and cover-up over evidence that reveals the truth by the very people who are oathbound to discover and reveal the truth would be "unlawful." Thus, Rodriguez charges that certain people in charge of the investigation intentionally and secretly agreed to change the findings of the investigation in order to achieve a particular result, i.e. the cover up of how Foster really died. Rodriguez has therefore charged a "conspiracy."

As to what the Court did, I think my edit is much more accurate. The court included a letter from Knowlton's attorney over the objection of the Independent Counsel. That's entirely true without taking sides, as your edit unfortunately appears to do. The letter is linked and anyone can read it for themselves. There is no need (and it is inappropriate to do so) to advocate for the public to go read 100 page documents and other orders and make up their own minds. The links are there and people can read them or not. It is non-NPOV to implore readers to read further so that they may discover the truth.

I assure you, removing Foster's middle initial, and calling him White House attorney were not attempts to obscure facts. I didn't think the "W" was needed, since the link works without it, and I honestly couldn't remember his exact title at the time of the edit so I wrote a statement that was true, though not as specific as possible. Fortunately, you are here to improve that. That's exactly the kind of work that makes you valuable. Changes that go beyond that and attempt to "prove" what has never been proven, however, are inappropriate with the prohibitions against "undue weight" and "non-NPOV."

Further, why do you not content yourself with the Knowlton and Rodriguez pages as a place to expound your theories? This page links to them, and any reader could thereby found out all you want him or her to find out. But you have not even done anything with those pages. Instead, you insist upon staking out your turf here? Why? This page contains the facts and all the links you have installed. Why is that not enough for you?--Smashingworth 14:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smashingworth,

You asked, "This page contains the facts and all the links you have installed. Why is that not enough for you?" It is not enough because we should make the article as accurate as possible.

The current article has retained the previous links but you removed the previous facts and inserted your own. For example, you inserted your point of view that Rodriguez "claimed there was a conspiracy." You then improperly used my original footnote, as support for your POV statement. But Rodriguez never actually said there was a conspiracy, it is your interpretation of what he has said, in other words your point of view. Your POV may be correct, but it is still your POV.

Mr. Rodriguez actually said that witnesses "were being inappropriately treated." This is not my point of view of what he said, but what he actually said and this fact was supported by the footnote which you took to improperly use to support something he never said.

I never said your spelling of Mr. Foster’s name was an attempt to obscure the facts. Please do not suggest that I did that. My interest is in accuracy. I have tried to improve the article by getting each detail correct, including the correct name and title of persons in the article. I have tried to include the straight facts as accurately as possible, without my opinions of what I thought someone said.

I would politely disagree that your version is more accurate. Compare this sentence, "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, 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]"

with your substitute sentence, "The federal court supervising the Independent Counsel appended a letter from Knowlton's attorney to the Report[5], over the objection of the Office of the Independent Counsel, alleging[6] grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up.[7]"

The second sentence fails to accurately name the federal court. The second version states a letter was appended to the Report but actually three letters were appended. The second version fails to state the important fact that evidence of witness intimidation and a cover-up was appended. Instead the second sentence describes the mundane, by stating "a letter from Knowlton’s attorney" was included. If this were significant one might add that letters from the Kevin Fornshill’s attorney and Helen Dickey’s attorney were also appended. But letters being appended per se is not really worthy of being noted.

The second sentence in substituting a mundane fact for the significant facts, retained the original footnotes which really no long fit, since they were intended for the original sentence. And to be more accurate the Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr filed the motion to reconsider, which was denied. Therefore it is more accurate to say the evidence was included "over the objection of Kenneth Starr" than as worded in the second sentence, "over the objection of the Office of Independent Counsel."

I asked what you meant by the term "proven." You said, "Nothing has been proven as a matter of law, the way it is proven someone is 'guilty' or 'not guilty' at the end of a trial." You seem to have set a high standard for facts to be posted at Wikipedia. What in your current Brett Kavanaugh article has been "proven?" And how was it "proven?"

This earlier version of June 15 is more accurate in: 1) the correct name of Mr. Foster, 2) Mr. Foster's correct job title, 3) that evidence was included in the Report, 4) that it was the motion of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr which was denied, 5) the correct name for the U.S. Court of Appeals, and 6) precisely what it was that former Associate Independent Cousel Miquel Rodriguez said. The more accurate version should replace the current less accurate version of the article. I took time to improve the article and get the accurate facts. Now it is your turn. For the time being we should put up the best available article. If you can turn out something better later we can add more improvements. Together we can make the article better. Thomist 17:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, my version more accurately states what was included. A letter from Knowlton's attorney was attached. The edit reflects that in a way your's did not. Who's presenting the allegations is very important, but you ignore that. Moreoever, your link only goes to a letter from Knowlton's attorney. There's no link nor mention of anything from anybody else. As to who signed the motion, that is not of any particular consequence. The head attorney would routinely sign such a motion though he may not have been the author. In any case, the section already points out that Ken Starr was the Independent Counsel. Obviously, the motion to reconsider reflected his will. Which once again raises the specter of why the hell we're arguing about Ken Starr's signature on a Brett Kavanaugh page? And you're nitpicking things like whether the court is identified? The link is provided for crying out loud! There is no pleasing you on this subject. You care so much about this page's accuracy (which you have no ability to maintain impartially), and yet you don't edit pages for Rodriguez or Knowlton. You care about smearing Kavanaugh over something he is at best tangentially connected with, not with putting the facts where they belong. I see no reason to make any other changes.--Smashingworth 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And if you're unhappy with the footnotes, then re-arrange them. But if you edit the words again to reflect bias, I will again change it.--Smashingworth 19:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smashingworth,

I am sorry you feel that I am nitpicking. I am only trying to be accurate. I am still curious as to what in your current Brett Kavanaugh article has been "proven?" And how was it "proven?" I would like to help improve this page with you.

Can you please explain what specifically you consider bias in this earlier version of June 15 of the article. I recall you wrote earlier, "As to the claim of evidence, when you write things like the letter contains evidence of whatever, that has the appearance of accepting the truth of the charges made. They remain allegations because they have never been proven, whatever statements, documents, or charts have been offered to back them up." You seem concerned about the mention of the evidence in support of the allegations being included in the Report. Am I right? You seem to be saying that the mention of the evidence being included in the Report may make it appear the allegations were proven. Is that right? You are certain that the allegations are not true, correct? You don't see any need to read the official Report of the investigation led by Associate Independent Counsel Brett M. Kavanaugh which is the subject of our discussion. Right? Thomist 21:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no other facts on this page in dispute other than your section. Everything that you are trying to push is disputed and generally discredited. And, once again, NO I don't need to read over a hundred pages in order to spot bias in your edits.--Smashingworth 23:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smashingworth,

On June 7, User Jersyko was kind enough to stop here and suggest we work out a compromise. I think it was good advice. I stopped posting and took some time to write a better article. I was working on a compromise to your concerns, one of which was "undue weight." I shortened the article. You even praised my June 15 edit saying, "your most recent edit was miles better than your previous ones." I am trying to have a dialog with you to discuss your other concerns. You did not respond to my previous questions. By saying "everything that you are trying to push is disputed and generally discredited," you are not being specific. In the first sentence from my earlier edit June 15 what exactly is "disputed and generally discredited?" Please be specific regading the sentence, "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, 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]"

I hope we can work this out. Thank you. Thomist 01:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thomist,

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.

Also, "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." But whether what was included was evidence or merely ludicrous overstatements or whatever we have no way of knowing. A person would have to read and make up their own mind. So I prefer my edit which accurately states exactly what was included--a letter from Knowlton's attorney. Not only is this accurate, but it is essential because it provides context. For instance, knowing who it is from allows the reader to immediately understand that it cannot be an objective source because an attorney represents a client and must always seek to fulfill his client's ends, whether it may or may not be true. That context is important for the reader when hearing that charges have been made. My edit preserves the fact that charges were made, identifies who made the charges, identifies what exaclty was appended to the Report, and provides links to that material. It is more specific, accurate, and neutral then a blanket and vague assertion that "evidence of a cover up was attached." That is why my edit should be preserved over yours.

Moreover, you are mistaken to think that there is supposed to be a compromise between your edit and my edit. The compromise is to have any section at all. I think the whole thing should be deleted, but in order to compromise with your edits which were inappropriate, I edited them to preserve the facts but remove misleading elements, undue emphasis, and bias. So that edit, rather than your edit or removal of the whole thing, is the compromise.

--Smashingworth 17:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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[2], 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)

[edit] 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."[3] 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)

[edit] 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^[4] of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report^[5] of the investigation headed by Mr. Kavanaugh.^[6] 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^[7] that there was a conspiracy to fix the result of the investigation and cover-up the truth about Foster's death.^[8] Patrick Knowlton, a grand jury witness, claimed he was subject to witness intimidation.^[9] The public can compare the publicly available official documents. Compare the OIC Report on Foster's death with the court document^[10] 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^[11] 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."[12] 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." [13]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[14], 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.[15]
• 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." [16]
• 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"[17] (appendix here[18]) 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.

[19] 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. [20] 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.[21] 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.[22]

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[23]. 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)

[edit] The conspiracy theory will be left off

Thomist added in a conspiracy on Kavanaugh being linked to wrong doing in Feburary 2006,[24] it is now August 2006[25]. Since Feburary he has engaged in revert wars when he was told he must have WP:RS by numerous people. Recently, as noted above, by an adminstrator he must present well-sourced material as such or it will be removed.

As demonstrated above he was given the opportunity to give court docket numbers, report page numbers, media sources, etc. Instead of offering those relavant materials, Thomist has chosen to argue semantics, and play wikilawyer. I am not will not get into an arguing match, I don't have time nor interest.

If Thomist chooses to present WP:RS material, he will be fairly heard, but that hasn't happened. For six months he has kept garabage on with the justifcation that an appendix page presented by a conspiracy (fbicover-up.com) webpage here proves something the media, court system, and government have (as he believes) been overlooked.

Thus, the material will be left off the page. If Thomist choose to actually offer WP:RS instead of arguing he will be heard. As is, with the above argument, reasoning with him is going nowhere. C56C 21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts from the U.S. Court of Appeals to be included

Dear C56C:

You are being unfair trying to label the Official Report from the U.S. Court of Appeals, "conspiracy theory." You are putting up straw men and knocking them down. You are trying to change the subject into a discussion about me. This should not be a discussion about me. This discussion concerns the source document I provided, the Official Report, specifically the Appendix to the Report on the death of Vincent Foster, Jr., made public by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Since you will not view the copy online, have you obtained a library copy so we can discuss the witness intimidation on pages 3 and 4 of the letter by Attorney John H. Clarke? Have you read about the mention of the "cover-up" in the Official Report?

Please be fair. Thomist 02:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

YOU HAVE STILL NOT OFFERED ANY WP:RS AS YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED! AND YOU PUT THE GARABAGE IN SIX MONTHS AGO!

A link to a library catlog is not WP:RS for the conspiracy theory. What is the docket number, what's the court cases name, who were the judge(s), what's the decision citation? The claims are less than what youput in the article.

If any of this happened as you claim, then go to the court's webpage and give a link of the decision

How many more times should I ask for these citations? Pointing to an appendix page of an obscure record isn't convincing for these claims. For six months you were given the chance to source this better. This is not a debate class, give proof for your claims.

Oh yeah, please be fair to Brett Kavanaugh.C56C 05:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

Obtaining a copy of the Report on the Death of Vincent W. Foster, Jr., by the Office of Independent Counsel in Re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association is not difficult. You have rejected online copies because you say they are a "conpiracy theory." The other option is to go to a public library.

Use the Find a Library site and simply enter your own postal zip code and you will be provided the nearest location with the Official Report.

The government has placed the document in libraries all over the country but not on line. This is not unusual. Demanding the document must be made availble at certain government web site is asking for something that is not available. WP:RS has stated, everything is NOT available on the Internet. This particular official document IS on the Internet, just NOT WHERE YOU WANT IT TO BE on the Internet.

Your unwillingness to obtain the public document issued by the Court of Appeals does not justify your claim that no source has been provided. I am surprised you are asking me to provide the names of the judges. They have been mentioned several times. Haven't you read this discussion page? I continue to give you the source and you continue to say that I have no source. Perhaps we should seek some mediation here.

The most authoritative source has been provided and it is available online or at a public library. Thomist 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

YOU HAVE STILL NOT OFFERED ANY WP:RS AS YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED! AND YOU PUT THE GARABAGE IN SIX MONTHS AGO! It is not acceptable to just say, "read this book/report and you'll believe Kavanaugh is linked to a conspiracy."

A link to a library catlog is not WP:RS for the conspiracy theory. What is the docket number, what's the court cases name, who were the judge(s), what's the decision citation? The claims are less than what youput in the article. Any media sources? C56C 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C

This discussion is about adding this statement to the article, "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."

Only the facts in the statement need a source. The sources for the facts have been provided. There is no need to provide a source for a fact not stated. There is no "conspiracy theory" stated. What is the conspiracy theory in the statement? Please explain. Thomist 18:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. However, as you have been told, the information as-is is not acceptable to be included. C56C 04:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

Please explain why the statement is not acceptable? "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 EXPLAINED THIS BEFORE. Page 137 of the report[26] does not say "U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up". Nor does it link the "witness intimidation" to Kavanaugh. You are taking elements of an appendix page, which lacks contextual information, and piecing a theory around that. You need WP:RS for your claims. C56C 07:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The facts in the statement are sourced to a Washington Post article (that Kavanaugh headed the investigation) and to the publicly available Official Report from the U.S. Court of Appeals. Unless something in the statement is not supported by an authoritative source, it should be acceptable.

Please answer the previous question. You have said there is a conspiracy theory. Please explain what is the conspiracy theory in the statement as it is? Thomist 15:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

You falsely stated the facts at 07:09, 9 August 2006. Exhibit 2 of the Appendix to the Official Report is not the source for the statement to be inserted. (you also incorrectly called Exhibit 2 "page 137" of the Official Report. You continually link to this one page of the Official Report to argue that it alone does not support the statement to be inserted. No one is arguing that Exhibit 2 is alone intended to support the statement. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. The statement to be inserted does not state that Brett Kavanaugh was linked to witness intimidation therefore no source for such a link is needed. It only states, "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." This is a statement of the facts as they officially are according to the Report on the death of Vincent Foster, Jr., made public by the U.S. Court of Appeals. PLEASE do not insert that Mr. Kavanaugh was linked to the witness intimidation, which is not stated. You are being unfair to use something not stated in order to dismiss the statement.

It is self-evident that grand jury witness intimidation was included in the Official Report to anyone who has read the Appendix to the Report. You have not provided a valid reason not to include the statement.

Please respond to my previous question. You have said there is a conspiracy theory. Please explain what is the conspiracy theory in the statement as it is? Thomist 12:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in evidence. You have failed to provide any. C56C 21:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

The publicly available Official Report from the Court of Appeals is the evidence. You have been told how to obtain a copy from your local library. You are ignoring the source provided and you have ignored my repeated question. Thomist 22:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(See above in several sections for what you have been asked to provide.) C56C 06:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

The section above shows you wrote: "A link to a library catlog (sic) is not WP:RS for the conspiracy theory."

A library source for the Official Report is a WP:RS because Wikipedia policy states at #7, "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." # 7 Finding good sources may require some effort In addition an authoritative and qualified source has been provided on line which also meets WP:RS because Wikipedia policy states at 6.6, "Full-text online sources are as acceptable as offline sources if they are of similar quality and reliability." # 6.6 Online sources vs. offline sources

You asked, "What is the docket number, what's the court cases name?" The Official Report of the Independent Counsel does not have a docket number or case name. You have been told the OIC comes under the Ethics in Government Act and the Independent Counsel statute requires that the Independent Counsel be independent from the Justice Department. You insist that something be produced which does not exist because you lack the basic knowledge of the statute.

You asked, "who were the judge(s)? There were three and they have been named repeatedly on this discussion page, which you also apparently have not read. Your failure to grasp the basic facts in the official record does not constitute a failure on my part to provide the authoritative sources for the statement to be inserted. Your choice to remain ignorant of the facts does not justify your continuing to remove the facts from the article.

You wrote, "If any of this happened as you claim, then go to the court's webpage and give a link of the decision." Again please read WP:RS which states, "...some of the most reliable and informative sources are still available only in printed form."

The Washington Post article and the Appendix to the Official Report, which is available through a public library as well as on line provide WP:RS in support of the statement. Your demanding a "docket number" for a document mandated by the Independent Counsel statute only demonstrates your ignorance of the law and the purpose of the Ethics in Government Act.

You have consistently demonstrated you unwillingness to read the source documents and have even relied on book reviews as a substitute for reading books. Your lack of knowledge makes you poorly qualified to have a voice about what is appropriate in this article. I have been patient with you and tried to direct you to the public record. You choose to ignore the facts and dismiss them with prejudice that they are some sort of "conspiracy theory" which you have never explained. Please explain the "conspiracy theory" in this statement to be inserted, "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 headed by Mr. Kavanaugh."

Your self-confidence that you are an "expert" is matched by your own admission that you haven't read much of anything related to official investigation headed by Mr. Kavanaugh nor have you bothered to read the Official Report of the investigation. You are admittedly ignorant of the facts, except that you read an online book review, yet you are adamant that your uninformed opinion is correct. Thomist 16:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What a joke. C56C 21:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

Calling the Official Report from the U.S. Court of Appeals "a joke" is not a sufficient reason to reject this authoritative source.

This additional statement should also be included in the article to note the historic significance, "The inclusion of this evidence by Judges David Sentelle, John Butzner, and Peter Fay marked the first time in the history of the Independent Counsel statute that evidence of a cover-up by an independent counsel’s own staff was ordered included in an Independent Counsel's Report." Thomist 01:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your responses, evasion of evidence, and diatribes are a joke. Not the official report. You stilll have not addressed issues from weeks back or sourced it better when you entered it into the article in Feb 2006. C56C 07:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

Please do not change the subject. We are not discussing the article in Feb 2006. We are discussing adding 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 headed by Mr. Kavanaugh." which is sourced to the Official Report and an article in the Washington Post. Using invectives like, "evasion," "diatribes," and "a joke" fails to address the officially documented facts. You have admitted not reading the source documents. Name-calling is not a substitute for scholarship and an insufficient reason to reject the insertion of the statement. Thomist 14:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Significant historic event should be in the article

Brett M. Kavanaugh conducted the investigation of the death of former deputy White House counsel Vincent W. Foster Jr.

Mr. Foster, the highest government official since John F. Kennedy to die a violent death, was found shot to death on July 20, 1993. Thousands of news reports over a span of five years reported the death and subsequent investigations. There were investigations by the Park Police and FBI, two independent counsels and two Congressional hearings into the White House and Park Police handling of the investigation. College history textbooks mention the event. Virtually every book written on the Clinton Presidency has an account of the death: “The Agenda,” Bob Woodward; “The Seduction of Hillary Clinton,” David Brock; “The System,” Haynes Johnson & David Broder; “Blood Sport,” James Stewart; “Unlimited Access,” Gary Aldrich; “Boy Clinton,” Emmett Tyrrell; “Spin Cycle,” Howard Kurtz; “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” Ann Coulter; “Discovering Clinton,” Michael Isikoff; “All Too Human,” George Stephanopoulos; “Truth to Tell,” Lanny Davis; “The First Partner,” Joyce Milton; “Front Row at the White House,” Helen Thomas.

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 headed by Mr. Kavanaugh. This is the only time in the history of the Independent Counsel statute that evidence of a cover-up by an independent counsel’s own staff was ordered included in an independent counsel's report.

In the brief career of Judge Kavanaugh, what has been more significant than his investigaton of Vincent Foster's death? Yet his role in heading the investigation of Vincent Foster’s death is conspicuously absent from his official judicial biography, his official White House biography, and his official Department of Justice resume. Judge Kavanaugh's significant role in American history should not be absent from his Wikipedia article. Thomist 11:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It can't be included, see above. C56C 02:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

C56C, I applaud your steadfastness in maintaining this page.--Smashingworth 03:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. If it's not in the biographies, it's not verifiable. Just zis Guy you know? 08:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This statement is not true, "If it's not in the biographies, it's not verifiable." Senator Orrin Hatch stated at Judge Kavanaugh's Senate confirmation hearing that Mr. Kavanaugh conducted the investigation into the death of former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster. Clearly it is verifiable that Mr. Kavanaugh did conduct the Foster death investigation even though it is not stated in Mr. Kavanaugh's biographies. The goal is not to right a great wrong but only to state the facts that officially are true. Thomist 14:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions his work with Starr, the objections are with the other claims you wish to add. C56C 23:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone object to adding this single statment to the article? Everything stated is officially true based on the statement by Sen. Hatch.

Associate Independent counsel Brett M. Kavanaugh conducted the investigation into the death of former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr. Thomist 01:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It is already in there! The last paragraph reads:

Prior to his service in this Administration, Kavanaugh was a partner at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, where his practice focused on appellate matters. Kavanaugh also served as an Associate Counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel', where he handled a number of the novel constitutional and legal issues presented during that investigation and was a principal author of the Starr Report to Congress on the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton and Vincent Foster investigation.

C56C 01:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding that phrase, do you think it should have a reference to his confirmation hearing? Thomist 19:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)