Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 7 Num. 75

("Quid coniuratio est?")


The title of James B. Stewart's much bally-hooed book, Blood Sport is said to be derived from Vincent Foster's supposed "suicide note": Foster supposedly complained that in Washington D.C. "ruining people is considered sport." So because Foster died a bloody death, we have a bloody sport -- get it? "Blood Sport."

So notes Foster death expert Hugh Sprunt in a solid critique of Stewart's book to be found in the May 1996 issue of Media Bypass magazine (1-800-4-BYPASS). Thanks to Kenn Thomas, I also am aware that Conspiracy Nation and Sherman Skolnick both receive one paragraph of attention from Mr. Stewart in his "limited hangout" examination of Bill Clinton & Co. (Alas, Mr. Stewart got it wrong in his coverage of Conspiracy Nation: Sherman Skolnick is a contributor, not the publisher.)

According to Sprunt, there is a GLARING discrepancy between what Clinton "team player" Susan Thomases had first told the FBI regarding her last meeting with Foster and what she told author Stewart. She had told Stewart that Foster seemed to be under a strain and that he had arranged to meet with Thomases "off campus", at which point he had unburdened himself to her. This is in contrast to Thomases' statement to the FBI wherein she declares that "She noted no change in [Foster's] demeanor or physical appearance... His death came as a complete shock to her and she can offer no reason or speculation as to why he may have taken his life."

Sprunt also examines discrepancies between what Stewart apparently sees as the death weapon and what various witnesses reported: was the Foster "suicide" gun silver or black? Stewart seems to have made a substantial error.

A big question I have is, Why do we find James B. Stewart coming forward at this time? Is it time to get the American public's toes wet, prior to throwing them into the cold (White)water? Stewart is letting loose with some risque stuff -- startling at least to the average brain-dead American television aficionado. See, for example, an interview with him in the April 28, 1996 Chicago Tribune newspaper. Says Stewart:

** Regarding what President Bill Clinton will say at his April 28 deposition: "I would be astounded if he didn't say what he has already said." Put another way, Stewart would be "astounded" if Clinton were to tell the truth!

** "[David] Hale has a lot of credibility problems." And Bill Clinton doesn't!?

** "[Hillary's] need for money overwhelmed her otherwise... good judgement." Is it "toes in the (White)water" time? Is the American public being gradually prepared for something? Something like an indictment?

** Says Hillary (according to Stewart) -- "WE are the president."

Why does author Stewart devote just one sentence to the highly credible charges that the Foster "suicide note" was forged? How can media darling Stewart fairly compact the highly sophisticated reportage of Sherman Skolnick into just one paragraph? Why aren't the paid scribblers of the elitist press crying "foul" as to Thomases' "insensitivity" vis a vis her "revelations" about Vince and Lisa Foster's marriage?

The current issue of Media Bypass is a classic. Why can't I find it at my bookstore or library?

I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."

If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to (Note: that is "CN-L" not "CN-1")
For information on how to receive the new Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to
Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? (1) telnet (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom

See also:

See also: ftp pub/users/bigred

Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9