Here's an interesting backstory on TWA Flight 800. I don't have any other information on it, only Jack Cashill's take, but if he's correct, there was clearly a lot of hanky panky going on in the investigation. I don't have any firm opinions about what actually happened, but as in the Vince Foster case, I don't lend much credibility to the official report.

It will be interesting to see if any media besides World Net Daily pick this up.

I would beware of Jack Cashill's journalistic abilities.

It would be helpful in evaluating the above comment if examples were offered to support the opinion. Some of us would be happy to be skeptical of a writer if others who are skeptical of him would explain why.

Rand, go back and re-read the 2nd paragraph. So far as I can tell, Sanders has filed a motion in a civil suit agianst the government and the government has chosen to not respond. The article doesn't mention a ruling in the case.

Cashill takes the lack of response and turns it into an admission of guilt. I don't see it that way. Perhaps the US Attorney predicts the judge will deny the motion and doesn't feel the need to respond.

You could be right, Sean. That's why I'd like to see someone else's take on it (in addition to yours, which is valuable as well).

There's something about a breathless article that goes heavily into nitpicky details and then draws broad conclusions that leaves me wondering. For one thing, I've seen the same style, from Vince Foster to UFOs to Kennedy assassination, that it just screams-- "Conspiracy Nut!". There's also something Bob Doleish about talking about your co-authors lawsuit as if you are an objective observer.

The Justice Department now concedes that it "fabricated a defense where none existed" in earlier opposing the Sanderses' civil action. It also concedes there is no defense for the 32 counts of federal lawlessness committed in pursuit of destroying a journalist and his wife.

Who is the source of the quote here? I don't see any place where U.S.Attorney Kevin Cleary is quoted instead of being paraphrased. There's no such person as "The Justice Department". If anything nothing has been conceded because the case is still pending.The writer should at least wait until rules before celebrating his victory, instead of behaving as if what he wants to happen is what is actually going to happen. (Basing arguments on the speculative instead of facts is another conspiracy theorist's trait.)

I also get this feeling that another conspiracy technique is at work here-- taking professional jargon and procedures out of context, and counting on the readers ignorance of subtle nuances otherwise obvious to someone in that profession, in this case, law. For example, I'd like to see some stats on what sort of cases the gov't doesn't bother to respond to-- how common is it, and how does that correlate to the ultimate disposition of the case.

If there really is a "massive government conspiracy", these people are doing a great job of keeping it going with their own actions.

I hope "cj" has read the above comments. That's how you do it.