Jump to content

The P B S Whitewash Of Clinton's Legacy


Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/20/fbi-exoneration-of-hillary-clinton-raises-disturbi/

FBI exoneration of Hillary raises a disturbing question: What if the fix was in?

What if the folks who run the Department of Political Justice recently were told that the republic would suffer if Hillary Clinton were indicted for espionage because Donald Trump might succeed Barack Obama in the presidency? What if espionage is the failure to safeguard state secrets and the evidence that Mrs. Clinton failed to safeguard them is unambiguous and overwhelming?

What if President Obama never really liked his former rival whom he appointed as his secretary of state? What if he had no real interest in seeing her succeed him because he and his wife simply could never trust her?

What if, when Mrs. Clinton suggested to the president that the United States wage a secret, undeclared war against Libya, the president went along with it as a no-lose proposition? What if he assumed that if her secret war succeeded he’d get the credit, and if her secret war failed she would get the blame?

What if the means of fighting the secret war consisted of employing intelligence assets rather than the U.S. military? What if Mrs. Clinton concocted that idea because the use of the military requires a public reporting to the entire Congress but the use of intelligence assets requires only a secret reporting to a dozen members of Congress?

What if Mrs. Clinton expanded her war by permitting American and foreign arms dealers to bypass the NATO arms embargo on Libya by selling heavy-duty, military-grade arms directly to militias in Libya? What if this was Mrs. Clinton’s dream scenario — an apparent civil war in Libya in which the victorious side was secretly armed by the United States, with democracy brought to the country and Mrs. Clinton the architect of it all?

What if the CIA warned Mrs. Clinton that this would backfire? What if the CIA told her that she was arming not pro-Western militias but anti-American terrorist groups? What if she rejected all that advice? What if providing material assistance to terrorist groups is a felony? What if the Department of Political Justice actually obtained an indictment of an American arms dealer for going along with Mrs. Clinton’s schemes?

What if Mrs. Clinton’s secret war in Libya was a disaster? What if she succeeded in toppling the Libyan leader, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, only to have him replaced by feuding warlords who control anti-Western terrorist groups that not only failed to produce democracy but instead produced destruction, chaos, terror, torture and death?

What if Mrs. Clinton managed her Libyan disaster using a non-secure email system even though she regularly sent and received state secrets? What if she sent many emails containing state secrets about her Libyan war to her friend Sid Blumenthal? What if Mr. Blumenthal had been turned down for a State Department job by the president himself?

What if Mr. Blumenthal did not have a government security clearance to receive lawfully any state secrets? What if Mrs. Clinton knew that? What if the FBI found that Mr. Blumenthal’s emails had been hacked by intelligence services of foreign governments that are hostile to America?

What if there were terrible secrets that Mrs. Clinton wanted to keep from the public and for that reason she used private servers and nongovernment-issued mobile devices? What if those terrible secrets involved her enabling the unlawful behavior of her husband and his shoddy, unlawful foundation? What if Mrs. Clinton made decisions as secretary of state that were intended to enrich her husband and herself, and she needed to keep emails about those decisions away from the public?

What if the president recognized all this and authorized the FBI to conduct criminal investigations of Mrs. Clinton?

What if, after the ascendancy of Donald Trump in the Republican presidential primaries, the president warmed up to his former rival? What if Mr. Trump so got under the president’s skin that it drove him to embrace Mrs. Clinton as his chosen successor and as the one Democrat who could prevent a Trump presidency?

What if the president sent word to the Department of Political Justice to exonerate Mrs. Clinton no matter what evidence was found against her? What if, in response to that political interference, the FBI investigation of her failure to safeguard state secrets and her corruption took irregular turns?

What if FBI management began to intimidate FBI agents who had the goods on her? What if FBI management forced agents to sign highly irregular agreements governing what the agents can tell anyone when it comes to what they learned about Mrs. Clinton?

What if the Department of Political Justice never subpoenaed anything from Mrs. Clinton? What if it never convened a grand jury to seek and hear evidence against her? What if the FBI requires a grand jury to subpoena documents and tangible things? What if it is highly irregular for a major FBI criminal investigation to be undertaken without a grand jury?

What if the attorney general was involved in a publicity stunt with Mrs. Clinton’s husband and then used that stunt as an excuse to remove herself and her top aides from making decisions in the case? What if this was a sham, done so as to make it appear that FBI professionals — rather than someone politically motivated, such as the president or the attorney general — were calling the shots in the case?

What if Hillary Clinton has engaged in espionage and public corruption and FBI agents know that she has? What if they have evidence to prove it but they could not present anything to a grand jury because President Obama wants Mrs. Clinton, and not Donald Trump, to succeed him in office? What if this blatant political interference with a criminal investigation is itself a crime? What if, midstream in this criminal investigation, the fix was put in?

What do we do about it?


And I’ll add two more.

First, what if James Comey was threatened with exposure of the FBI’s complicity in looking the other way in the murders of Vince Foster and Ron Brown? What if his family was threatened? How else does one explain the bizarre situation of Comey saying Hillary was guilty of everything that was charged and then not recommending indictment on the basis of FOUR lies made by him in his announcement and testimony to Congress. Here are the four lies …

Comey claimed that there have been no other cases that were similar ... and where there was no intent to harm the US ... where the person was indicted. FALSE … https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials .

Comey claimed it's policy not to record interviews. FALSE … http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/dept-of-justice-new-department-policy-concerning-electronic-recording-of-statements/ , http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/05/21/314616254/new-doj-policy-calls-for-videotaping-the-questioning-of-suspects , and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/22/fbi-recording-policy_n_5374413.html .

Comey claimed intent is required to indict under 18 U.S. Code § 793. FALSE … see sections ( d ), ( e ), ( f ), and ( g ) of 18 U.S. Code § 793 … https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 .

Comey claimed "non-paper" means a nonclassified document. FALSE … https://fam.state.gov/FAM/05FAM/05FAM1310.html#M1318 .

Second, what if the reason that the GOPe in Congress haven’t done anything effective about this is that there aren’t really two parties anymore … just one? Just saying …

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/20/bill-hillary-lynch-grand-jury-and-emails/

Bill, Hillary, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and the emails

Corruption in plain sight

So, let’s review what took place:

Tuesday, June 28: Former President Bill Clinton suddenly appears to Attorney General Loretta Lynch in the cabin of her airplane parked on the tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona. Secret Service agents deny access to news photos and videos of the visit. They visit for 30 minutes.

Thursday, June 29: Lynch denies that any discussion with Bill Clinton of the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal took place, and states that she expects to accept the recommendation of the FBI as to further actions in the Clinton case. She does not, however, recuse herself or appoint a Special Prosecutor. The FBI also announces that the Clinton interview will take place on this coming Saturday, during the holiday weekend.

Friday, June 30: Hillary Clinton campaign leaks that Loretta Lynch may be retained in her present job under a Hillary Clinton administration.

Saturday, July 1: Hillary Clinton’s long-delayed interview with the FBI takes place. It lasts 3 1/2 hours. Clinton not under oath. FBI Director Comey does not attend, will not reveal who was in attendance.

Tuesday, July 5: FBI Director Comey conducts a press conference without questions. Details a long list of Clinton’s violations, but concludes that he met with prosecutors and decided not to make a criminal referral for either convening a Grand Jury or an indictment because she didn’t mean to do anything bad. He cited “reasonable prosecutors” (presumably the ones he consulted) who would not want to prosecute the case.

Tuesday, July 5: While Comey was making his announcement, President Barack Obama, in a previously scheduled appearance, was campaigning in North Carolina with Hillary Clinton.

Wednesday, July 6: Attorney General Lynch announces that she accepts the recommendation of Comey and will not review the evidence herself.

What really happened appears to be that Bill Clinton successfully conveyed to Loretta Lynch that she would keep her job if Hillary is elected. Lynch then successfully conveyed to Comey that she expected a clean referral from the FBI. Finally, Comey undertook a nearly unprecedented step by publicly announcing all the reasons for a criminal referral, then refusing to follow his own logic. In the meantime, Obama, boss of Lynch and Tomey, obviously knew well in advance what the outcome of this charade would be and scheduled accordingly.

There has already been a mountain of commentary on this sequence of events. Two aspects stand out to me. The first is how a heretofore well-respected public servant stood before a decision which impacts the future of America no matter which alternative he chooses. He chose the lesser path. He proved that, when the cards are all face up on the table, he could not summon the courage to take his appointed place in the nation’s history by exposing the corruption of the highest law enforcement officials in our government and of the law and the U.S. Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

Ironically, he made his fateful decision on the Fourth of July, when we commemorate the men such as Patrick Henry (“Give me liberty or give me death!”) and Nathan Hale (“I regret that I have but one life to give for my country!”) Instead he joined Chief Justice John Roberts, who faced a similar choice in the matter of Obamacare. Like Comey, he chose to abandon the rule of law and take a coward’s way out of the dilemma by inventing a new and illogical interpretation of the Constitution. Much as Comey invented a new role for the FBI, which has always been the investigator, not the prosecutor.

The second feature of this unspeakably tragic event is how blatant it all was. There was not even a significant attempt to hide the corruption of this sequence of actions. The participants simply acted out their contempt for the law right there in the public square, where no one who was paying attention could miss the fact that the highest law enforcement officials of our country blithely participated in bribery, subversion of their offices, outright lies, and reinforcing the already widespread impression that there is one law for the elite and another for the rest of us.

We can never again claim without hypocrisy that “no one is above the law”. That fallacy was certainly obvious when none of the bankers and accountants whose malfeasance caused the real estate crash of 2008 went to jail or were even prosecuted. But even that situation does not rival this one for audacity and notoriety. Americans are left with the prospect of a criminal becoming our next president. Mr. Comey had the rare opportunity to join Patrick Henry and Nathan Hale this Fourth of July. Instead, he looked to Benedict Arnold.


AMEN.

 

And the Republicans in the House are derelict as well for not impeaching Comey at this point.

 

HE EVEN LIED UNDER OATH TO THEM, as I've proven already on this forum.

 

Seems none of them care about the truth or justice any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh look... Be a Loser just LOVES to bring up his greatest failures.

This guy is a glutton for punishment and ridicule,

 

 

Obviously you didn't even take the time to read what I posted before responding. What do you think that shows, es? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously you didn't even take the time to read what I posted before responding. What do you think that shows, es? :D

You're right . I don't read the posts of a mad man.

im an excellent judge of character and have always been good reading people.

Back in the day I could see what kind of nutcase you were after just a few of your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for proving my point, es. :D

You have a point?

Did you rent one?

 

 

I'm in a generous mood. Let me educate your ignorant ass about one of your obsessions.

 

 

eRumor Vince Foster Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rocks Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.

 

The Truth:

 

Vince Foster was Deputy White House Counsel and the Clintons lawyer. He was found dead in Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993. Three investigations into Fosters death, including one by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, have concluded that the death was a suicide. Although there are numerous theories about what may have happened to Foster and why, none of them has been proven.

 

https://www.truthorfiction.com/clintonfriends/

 

 

 

thats you LOSER. The great conspiracy theorist of this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a point?

Did you rent one?

 

 

I'm in a generous mood. Let me educate your ignorant ass about one of your obsessions.

 

 

eRumor Vince Foster Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rocks Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.

 

The Truth:

 

Vince Foster was Deputy White House Counsel and the Clintons lawyer. He was found dead in Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993. Three investigations into Fosters death, including one by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, have concluded that the death was a suicide. Although there are numerous theories about what may have happened to Foster and why, none of them has been proven.

 

https://www.truthorfiction.com/clintonfriends/

 

 

 

thats you LOSER. The great conspiracy theorist of this forum.

But Ken Starr planted that green oven mitt!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Truth:

 

Vince Foster was Deputy White House Counsel and the Clintons lawyer. He was found dead in Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993. Three investigations into Fosters death, including one by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, have concluded that the death was a suicide. Although there are numerous theories about what may have happened to Foster and why, none of them has been proven.

 

Just read the thread, folks. Because es admits he won't do it. You'll see he's wrong.

But Ken Starr planted that green oven mitt!!!!

 

Which you can't explain.

 

Nice to see you making friends with es, though.

 

It tells us soooooo much about you, SM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just read the thread, folks. Because es admits he won't do it. You'll see he's wrong.

 

Which you can't explain.

 

Nice to see you making friends with es, though.

 

It tells us soooooo much about you, SM.

It pretty revealing that you think the fix was in for HRC but The Republicans didn't rig anything in the 2000 election. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It pretty revealing that you think the fix was in for HRC but The Republicans didn't rig anything in the 2000 election.

 

 

Well I have links to numerous emails that prove the FIX was in for HRC.

 

What do you have.

 

NOTHING BUT OPINION AND SPECULATION.

 

You offer me something that proves Bush won in 2000 by corrupt/illegal means and I'm all ears.

 

But you offer nothing in the way of proof, so what am I to do ... TRUST YOU?

 

LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Well I have links to numerous emails that prove the FIX was in for HRC.

 

What do you have.

 

NOTHING BUT OPINION AND SPECULATION.

 

You offer me something that proves Bush won in 2000 by corrupt/illegal means and I'm all ears.

 

But you offer nothing in the way of proof, so what am I to do ... TRUST YOU?

 

LOL!

Did I not say it was debateable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This escaped mental patient thinks he knows more than official independent investigations do.

He really really does.

Told you he was crazy.

 

Here, let me repeat the two posts I just made to es' friend, ScottMoN, on another thread:

 

****************

 

BeAChooser, on 24 Jul 2016 - 2:42 PM, said:

Pluck, pluck, pluck.

Is it opinion and speculation that Ken Starr's top investigator quit saying Starr's investigation of Foster's death was a sham?

 

Link?

 

Just so everyone knows, links have been offered to ScottsMoN repeatedly on this topic.

 

He won’t look at them.

 

For example, here’s something I posted directly to SM during an earlier discussion …

 

In the same link as the first one (http://www.allanfavish.com/images/PDF/er_11.pdf#page=3 ), you’ll also find a sworn affidavit from Ambrose Evans-Prichard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose_Evans-Pritchard ). He states under oath that

 

3. I have seen the photograph showing an apparent neck wound to Mr. Foster’s neck, as recounted below (BAC - in his book):

p.140:

Wary of entrusting anything to the FBI crime labs, Rodriguez (BAC - again, he was Starr’s lead investigator) turned to the Smithsonian Institution for enhance of the original (BAC - photo). The work was done by the Smithsonian’s subcontractor, Asman Custom Photo Service on Pennsylvania Avenue. A set of five “blowups” of the original were made. They revealed a dime-sized wound on the right side of Foster’s neck (his left side) about halfway between the chin and the ear. It was marked by a black “stippled” ring — a sort of dotted effect, like an engraving — that was suggestive of a 0.22 caliber gunshot fired at point blank range into the flesh.

 

p. 141:

The photograph, which I [Evans-Pritchard] have examined carefully, is one of the few surviving Polaroids taken at Fort Marcy that night.

4. An individual or individuals who were in a position to have had firsthand knowledge told me the facts in the following passages. To the best of my information, knowledge and belief, these facts are true:

 

p. 111:

Associate Independent Counsel Miquel Rodriguez was summoned to the Washington Office of the Independent Counsel in the fall of 1994 by Kenneth Starr, with the explicit task of reviewing the Foster death.

 

p. 136:

At first Rodriguez pretended to be following orders. He went about his business quietly, confiding only in his closet aides at the Washington office of the Independent Counsel … he was spending his evenings combing through the archives of documents in the Foster case, and he did not like what he saw.

 

p. 112:

For four months Rodriguez probed the case. He called witnesses before a grand jury to answer questions for the first time under penalty of perjury, and soon discovered serious indications of a cover-up by the FBI. By the early spring of 1995 he was starting to probe a hypothesis that the crime scene at Fort Marcy Park had been staged, that the gun had most likely been planted in Foster’s hand and that a crucial photograph of Foster’s neck and head had been falsified.

 

p. 143:

Four of the rescue workers testified in secret before the Whitewater grand jury in the spring o f1995 that they saw trauma to the side of Foster’s head or neck. [Author interview with confidential source at OIC] Two of them, including Arthur, described it as a gunshot wound. What they revealed under intensive cross-examination was a far cry from the innocuous observations attributed to most of them in their FBI statements. This information was submitted to Kenneth Starr in a memorandum from Miquel Rodriguez summing up the proceeding of the Whitewater grand jury in Washington.

 

p. 126:

“When I was before the grand jury they showed me two polaroids,” I was told by a member of the Fairfax County rescue squad, as we traipsed through the shrub in Fort Marcy Park. “And you know what? You could see blades of grass coming through the forefinger and the second finger in one, and another had grass between the second and third fingers. The prosecutor was real interested in that, real interested.” [author interview with member of Fairfax Country rescue squad March 1995]

 

p. 125:

Well, what was it, he was asked under cross-examination at the Whitewater grand jury in early 1995, was it people running away or was it the flash of cars? “It was people,” he answered. It could have been cars, he said, but what he saw was people.” [Author interview with confidential grand jury source, January 1996]

 

p. 185:

Associaste Counsel Miquel Rodriguez… read the perjury statues line by line to the Park Police officers at the grand jury.

 

p. 149:

The first thing he [Rodriguez] noticed were little roadblocks left in his path. His requests for subpoenas were being held up. He was unable to call witnesses before the grand jury in a timely fashion. He was even having trouble obtaining Foster’s credit card and travel records. Then the campaign of leaks began. In February 1995, planted stories started appearing in the Washington press alleging that he had been badgering Park Police officers at the grand jury. It was half true. He had been reading them the perjury statues in a deliberately pointed manner. With good reason. Their accounts were flatly contradicted by the Fairfax County paramedics, who had no obvious incentive to lie. On Park Police officer ultimately broke ranks under cross-examination and testified that the crime scene had been tampered with after he arrived.

 

p. 167:

 

These were the questions that Associate Counsel Miquel Rodriguez was about to explore before his investigation was stymied.

 

p. 136:

It became obvious that the FBI agents who did the nuts and bolts work for the Fiske Report were engaged in a systematic cover-up. Now a year and a half later the same FBI agents were still there in the Office of the Independent Counsel, the gatekeepers who controlled access to the witnesses, the documents, the evidence. Yet Kenneth Starr had kept them on, allowing them to be the judge of their own past work.

p. 112:

But Rodriguez believed that the investigation was being sabotaged by prosecutors and FBI agents in his own office. He turned to Starr for support. Nothing was done to resolve the matter. In March of 1995, Rodriguez resigned. The only serious investigation into the death of Vincent Foster came to an abrupt end.

 

p. 158:

Instead, their [Doody & Feist] observations were reduced to this anodyne summary in the Fiske Report: “neither individual heard a gunshot while in the Park or observed anything unusual” … “They were going to be my secret weapon,” Miquel Rodriguez confided to friends at the Starr investigation. But he never had a chance to call them before the grand jury. Kenneth Starr concluded his suicide report in July 1997 without taking their [Feist & Doody] testimony under oath. [They] were never called before the grand jury. Instead, he sent FBI agents to reinterview them.

 

p.151:

Rodriguez resigned on March 20. His closet aide resigned in sympathy. He returned to his old job in Sacramento, refusing to give interviews to the press… The grand jury was disbanded and sent him. It was replaced by a new jury with no knowledge of the periopatetic gun, or the missing photos, or wound in the neck.

 

p. 126:

The grand jury learned a good deal about the revolver in the early months of 1995, during the probe of Associate Independent Counsel Miquel Rodriguez. But the jury was disbanded before it could do any damage. it learned, for instance, that Franz Ferstl, the second Park Police officer to reach Fort Marcy, had questioned the probity of the crime scene photos taken later that evening after he had left. He stated under oath that the gun was in a different position when he saw it. Somehow the right hand had been edging out away from the body.

 

p. 126:

Miquel Rodriguez kept holding the photograph up in the light, wondering. He knew there was something wrong with it. The resolution was too blurred, even for a blowup of a Polaroid. [Author interview with confidential source inside the Starr investigation]

 

p. 136:

All you could see was a smear of blood on the right side of Foster’s neck. It was the mysterious “contain stain” that nobody was able to explain. How had the blood found its way there, against the laws of forensic science, against the gravity? It was nagging at him day and night.

 

p. 136:

Rodriguez kept muttering about the photograph. “Is this all there is?” he asked.

 

p. 136:

“Yes, that’s all there is; that’s the original,” replied his FBI staff. And so it might have rested if it had not been for the courage of one person in the Office of Independent Counsel who managed to gain access to the locked files. Hidden inside was a folder of crime scene photographs that had been deliberately withheld from the prosecutor.

 

p.136:

Among them was the original Polaroid of Foster’s neck. What it showed was something very different from the “contact stain” in the fraudulent picture that had been circulating. Evidently, somebody had taken a photo of the original and then touched it up to disguise the incriminating evidence. This second-generation copy had then been used to create an enhanced “blow-up.”

 

p. 136:

It was a blatant obstruction of justice. Indeed it was worse. Whoever had done this was now an accessory after the fact in the death of the Deputy White House Counsel, and they had made the mistake of failing to destroy the original.

 

p. 149:

Clearly, Starr had been assured a long time ago that there was nothing to Foster’s death. He was none too pleased when Miquel Rodriguez started sending memos warning that there was something deeply wrong… But he had no idea what to do when Rodriguez told him that an original Polaroid showed a wound in the neck, and that renegade elements of the FBI were covering up the case.

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 30, 1999.

 

Of course, I think Ambrose is wrong about one thing. He gave Starr way too much credit for honesty. The evidence clearly proves that Starr was part of the coverup from the beginning. In any case, in case you want to discount Ambrose’s sworn testimony, you can go listen to Miquel Rodriguez, himself, being interviewed on this matter, corroborating the details that Ambrose swore to in the above affidavit:

 

http://www.aim.org/special-report/death-of-vince-foster-part-1/

 

http://www.aim.org/special-report/death-of-vince-foster-part-2/

 

But will you?

 

Maybe you’ll surprise me, yet.

 

But do PIGS fly? :D

 

 

The links at the bottom are a transcript of an interview where Rodriquez calls the investigation bogus, as I said.

 

Not that this will convince SM of anything.

 

****************

 

Or es ... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here’s the other post to SM …

************

http://buelahman.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/dissenting-memo-surfaces-from-starr-team/

SEPTEMBER 27, 2013

Dissenting Memo Surfaces from Starr Team

It’s an important historical document. The team assembled by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to investigate the July 20, 1993, death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr., had been on the job for almost three months by November of 1994. They had looked at the evidence gathered by the U.S. Park Police, the FBI, and special prosecutor Robert Fiske. And the leader of the investigative team, Miguel Rodriguez, an assistant U.S. attorney from Sacramento, California, had discovered quite a large number of loose ends.

Before we continue further, an observation on the likely reaction to the revelations in this document is in order. They will be ignored. They thoroughly undermine the official lie that Foster committed suicide out of depression, and such notions are not to be entertained. Anyone laboring under the misconception that our nation’s writers of books on history and public policy are interested primarily in the truth needs to readjust his thinking. We have the evidence to the contrary. We are confident in our prediction because that has been the reaction to previous such disclosures. In January of 1995, at the end of his rope, Rodriguez would tender his resignation. We posted his resignation letter here in 2009, and it has been ignored. It has been like a tree falling in the woods with no one to hear it. The Wikipedia page on Foster repeats all the official lies and freezes out such things as this resignation letter using the excuse that by its rules only what has been published by acceptable media, that is, mainstream newspapers, magazines, books, or web sites can be used as a source.

A dozen years before, in September of 1997, over the strenuous objections of Starr himself, the three-judge panel that appointed him ordered that he include in his official report on Foster’s death, issued a month later, the letter of the dissident witness, Patrick Knowlton, whose testimony had been falsified by the FBI. That letter also completely contradicts and undermines the suicide conclusion. As Hugh Turley revealed in the small local monthly, the Hyattsville Life and Times, the judges were motivated by the fear that if the letter were not appended, they ran the risk of “be(ing) charged as conspirators in the cover-up.”

The judges might have gotten themselves off the hook with their actions, but Starr and the remainder of his team, that is, less Rodriguez, remained on it along with the entire American opinion molding establishment. They completely blacked out the news of the Knowlton letter, attached as an appendix. The Washington Post, which was a very active party to the cover-up from the very first day, went so far as to post on its web site Starr’s Report, but it carefully left off the appendix.

In denial of the Orwellian notion that underlies the efforts of the press, that is, that “ignorance is strength,” and with the confidence expressed by Emile Zola in the Dreyfus Affair that truth will ultimately prevail, we feel obligated to make public Miguel Rodriguez’s 30-page memorandum memorializing his extremely frustrating November meeting with key members of the Starr team. He begins:

Present for this meeting were Mark Tuohey, Brett Kavanaugh, Jeff Greene, and me. The meeting was convened to discuss my review of the Foster death materials.

I began by citing my earlier memorandum indicating independent review observations, in summary. I explained that (1) the Fiske counsel report conclusions are not fully supported by the existing record and that the report contains misstatements and supposed facts that are inconsistent with the record; (2) there is not “overwhelming” evidence in the existing record to support voluntary discharge of the weapon in suicide or to support that VF was alone the afternoon of his death; and (3) there is not “overwhelming” evidence to support the report’s conclusions regarding motivation for suicide. Before any discussion, Tuohey disagreed.

We have added the emphasis.

Tuohey is the politically well-connected Washington lawyer who was between Starr and Rodriguez on the staff of the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC). Starr has been painted as a partisan Republican out to get the Clintons, but the man he chose as his right-hand man could hardly have been a more loyal Democratic Party operative. Most recently Tuohey is said to be the front-runner as President Obama’s nominee for Ambassador to Ireland. He is also married into the powerful Daley family of Chicago, partisan Democrats all.

Immediately below Rodriguez in the initial OIC pecking order was the ambitious 29-year-old Yalie, Kavanaugh. When Rodriguez resigned, it was Kavanuagh who replaced him as lead investigator and who got to question the dissenting witness Knowlton when he was called before a grand jury. One can be certain that Rodriguez would have performed somewhat differently from Kavanaugh in that role. Here is how Richard Poe describes it in Hillary’s Secret War:

Perhaps the most telling indication of Starr’s attitude toward Knowlton is the humiliating cross-examination to which this brave man was subjected before the grand jury. Knowlton says that he was “treated like a suspect.” Prosecutor Brett Kavanaugh appeared to be trying to imply that Knowlton was a homosexual who was cruising Fort Marcy Park for sex. Regarding the suspicious Hispanic-looking man he had seen guarding the park entrance, Kavanaugh asked, Did he “pass you a note?” Did he “touch your genitals?”

Knowlton flew into a rage at Kavanaugh’s insinuations. (Ambrose) Evans-Pritchard writes that several African American jurors burst into laughter at the spectacle, rocking “back and forth as if they were at a Baptist revival meeting. Kavanaugh was unable to reassert his authority. The grand jury was laughing at him. The proceedings were out of control.”


When told of what transpired, Rodriguez responded, “Who asked him if he touched his genitals? (Kavanaugh) How could Brett stoop that low? I can’t believe Brett did that.”

Though decent people might be offended by the performance of the less-principled young understudy, the powers that be obviously were not. When he took office in 2001 George W. Bush gave him a job in the same Office of the White House Counsel where Foster had worked, and then successfully nominated him to be a federal judge. Rodriguez, in his later telephone conversation with Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media* had been prescient:

The games are being played with people, you know, like, like Tuohey and, and – the young aspiring people, you know, who I used to work with back in that office – who will, will say and do what they have to, to move up the ladder.


He wasn’t so young, but another member of the Starr team, John Bates, also moved up the ladder. President Bush also made him a federal judge.

The fourth man at the meeting, Jeff Greene, is probably the least known. He was a longtime homicide detective for the Washington, DC police. He has since died. Foster’s body had been found outside his jurisdiction, across the Potomac River in Virginia and in a federal park. If he was chosen for his sharp investigative skills, they were nowhere in evidence in the product that the OIC turned out. It is altogether possible that all along Greene, while officially working for DC homicide, was an agent of one of our clandestine organizations like the CIA or the FBI, and was the real heavyweight at the meeting, put in place to make sure that no one got too far out of line. An observation later made by Rodriguez about the various people at Fort Marcy Park might apply to Greene, as well:

God! I’m just brimming over, I’m bubbling over. And I’m angry that I cannot respond. I am angry myself. Because there is much to be said. Let me suggest to you, investigate, be investigative reporters. Investigate these people too. What background did they have? Wouldn’t it be surprising if, these people were special liaisons in a prior life to, in some capacity. And were there any other supervisor people out there? And, and what were the backgrounds of some of those police that were out there? There’s a whole host of fertile ground out there. And have you really identified all the main players out there at the park police?


The Memorandum

It is very clear what motivated Rodriguez to write this 30-page memorandum to “File.” It is the same as what motivated Judge John Butzner when he argued with his two colleagues for inclusion of Knowlton’s letter with the Starr report. He could see already that a cover-up was taking place. He probably had already figured out that he was powerless to stop it, but he wanted the official record to show that he had tried. (Partially covering her behind at the same time was Rodriguez’s assistant, paralegal Lucia Rambusch. Her initials can be seen at the bottom of every page along with those of Rodriguez.)

To summarize all the anomalies in the investigations of the Park Police and the Fiske team that Rodriguez had discovered would require almost as many words as the memorandum itself. His core suspicion is probably best captured in footnote 17 at the bottom of page 22 as he wrestles with the problem of disappearing or spoiled early photographs of the body, surviving photographs that contradict other surviving photographs, and witness testimony from county emergency workers that contradicts the testimony of the police and also contradicts what the later photographs show. All the names are those of U.S. Park Police officers who were on the scene at Fort Marcy Park where Foster’s body was discovered:

In short, Rodriguez was well on his way to discovering what later research has established almost conclusively, that the famous photo we have seen of Foster’s dead hand clutching a black revolver with his thumb on the trigger was staged with a gun that was brought to the scene after the body was discovered. Furthermore, he was pretty sure that Foster had been shot in the neck, just below the jaw line, and with a different weapon. Any honest reader of the full memorandum can see that if any evidence is “overwhelming,” it points to Foster’s murder.

(Robert) Edwards apparently showed these photos to (Christine) Hodakievic, plus Edwards’ own photos. Later, I suggested, after the corpse was staged with the revolver brought by (Cheryl) Braun, (Pete) Simonello and (John) Rolla. (sic, incomplete sentence) New photos were taken and thus (Franz) Ferstl’s were never produced to the OIC. This explained the different arm/body distance, gun/hand postions, Hodakievic’s problems with the photos, Ferstl’s missing photos and EMT problems with the photos (and their observations of a different gun).

What Rodriguez Didn’t Know

vince_foster_handgun.png?

At the time of his meeting, Rodriguez actually had much stronger evidence available than he realized that Foster did not kill himself. On page 14 he writes, “W2 (witness 2, Patrick Knowlton) saw VF’s car parked where it was later found—at a front (approximately 4th) parking space as one enters the lot….W2 clearly identified VF’s car.”

Then on page 16 we have, “Upon returning to the parking area, W5 (“confidential witness,” later identified as Dale Kyle) looked into VF’s vehicle, the brown Honda, and observed VF’s coat, briefcase, and tie.”

The problem here is that Foster’s Honda (actually his daughter’s car), was not brown, it was gray. Apparently, Rodriguez had not seen the actual car but had relied upon the poor quality photographs taken by the Park Police and what would seem to have been the authoritative interview of Knowlton by the FBI. Evans-Pritchard had not yet ferreted out Knowlton and shown him the FBI 302 (transcription of the interview). Knowlton had, in fact, been adamant that the car he saw was an older model reddish-brown Honda Accord with Arkansas license plates than the later model Accord with Arkansas plates whose photograph was shown to him. Agents Larry Monroe and William Columbell had resolved the problem by falsifying his testimony, a fact that Rodriguez did not yet know.

It is well established that Foster was lying dead in the back of the park at the time that Knowlton stopped by. If that was not Foster’s car that he saw then someone else had driven Foster to the park.

The other inadvertent error occurs on page 5. In a schematic accounting for Foster’s actions the last days of his life Rodriguez states for July 20, Foster’s last day, “ No one admits to know what work related tasks VF did in morning or what he was to do in afternoon.”

That might well have been true when Rodriguez wrote his memo in December of 1994. However, we have discovered in the National Archives an OIC interview of White House intern Kyle Chadwick conducted by FBI agent Russell Bransford on June 29, 1995 that updates that statement. From the interview we learn that Chadwick and Foster had missed calls to one another concerning a Florida statute relating to tort reform. They connected shortly after Chadwick discovered that Foster had returned his call at 12:40 pm. Foster then told Chadwick by phone that he was pleased with the requested excerpt that Chadwick had copied, but would now like to see a copy of the entire statute.

Had Rodriguez known of this exchange his argument that Foster was hardly in a suicidal frame of mind a short time before his death would have been strengthened. He was going about his work as usual and assigning tasks that he would soon need to follow up on.


Miguel Rodriguez as Hamlet?

It didn’t take Rodriguez very long to discover that something was, indeed, very rotten in the state of the Office of the Independent Counsel. One might argue that his reaction to the discovery was well nigh heroic, going well beyond that of the Prince of Denmark in Shakespeare’s play. The memorandum we see here on display is some evidence of it, but his telephone conversations with Reed Irvine is much greater evidence. He really did try to blow the whistle on the cover-up. What he had found, though, is that the rottenness extended well beyond the OIC, the Clinton administration, or even the federal government. The would-be whistle-blower had discovered that there was no one to blow the whistle to. As he told Irvine:

I have talked to a number of people that – you know, from Time Magazine, Newsweek, Nightline, the New York Times, Boston Globe, the Atlanta whatever, um, you know there have been well over a hundred, and this – this matter is so sealed tight um, and, the reporters are all genuinely interested but the ah, the ah, um, – reporters are genuinely interested but the ah – when they start to get excited and they’ve got a story and they’re ready to go, the editors – and they – I’ve gotten calls back, I’ve gotten calls back from all kinds of magazines worldwide, what the hell’s wrong, why can’t, you know, you were telling me that you, you didn’t think this would go anywhere and sure enough I wrote the stories.

They went to all the trouble of writing, and then it got killed. Again, I, I, you know, I spent almost eleven hours with, with (Stephen) Labaton, or six hours with Labaton, and ah, you know, I know the guy knows, um, that there’s a lot more, um, ah – I know, I know the New York Times has it – knows, and just won’t ah, ah, I know that they won’t do anything about it and I do know that, that many people have called me back. Reporters that I’ve spent a lot of time with called me back and said the editors won’t allow it to go to press. The accepted media here has always had, ah, a certain take on all of this. And there’s been story lines from the get-go.


Balked at every turn, he submitted his resignation, went back to his U.S. attorney’s job in Sacramento, and dummied up from then on. He apparently did what he could to see justice done when he was on the OIC staff, but when it comes to paying any major price for his efforts, he was certainly no Bradley Manning.

 


And here is the Rodriguez Memo that was discovered:

http://www.dcdave.com/article5/MiguelRodriguezMemo.pdf

Read that memo, keeping in mind that it was written by Starr's TOP investigator while still on the job … and then try to convince yourself there wasn't a coverup in the Vince Foster case. I DARE YOU.

 


Or you can go stick your head back in the ground like SM's about to do.

All I can say is that it won’t be unexpected from SM.

:D

************


Or es, either. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Here, let me repeat the two posts I just made to es' friend, ScottMoN, on another thread:

 

****************

 

 

Just so everyone knows, links have been offered to ScottsMoN repeatedly on this topic.

 

He won’t look at them.

 

For example, here’s something I posted directly to SM during an earlier discussion …

 

 

The links at the bottom are a transcript of an interview where Rodriquez calls the investigation bogus, as I said.

 

Not that this will convince SM of anything.

 

****************

 

Or es ... :D

2 things. Your post misspelled Miguel and all articles link back to WND. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 things. Your post misspelled Miguel and all articles link back to WND. :D

 

LOL!

 

Again you demonstrate how desperate and petty you are … and how little you know.

 

First of all, the articles do more than link back to WND. And even if that’s all they did, you haven’t proven that anything WND has written about the Foster case is false. All you are doing is trying a dishonest Truther debating tactic.

 

Second, Rodriguez went by both Miguel and Miquel. That’s because in spanish Miquel is the Catalan version of Miguel (http://mymemory.translated.net/en/Catalan/Spanish/miquel ). You didn’t know that, MORON?

 

Now if you’d only read the posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

LOL!

 

Again you demonstrate how desperate and petty you are … and how little you know.

 

First of all, the articles do more than link back to WND. And even if that’s all they did, you haven’t proven that anything WND has written about the Foster case is false. All you are doing is trying a dishonest Truther debating tactic.

 

Second, Rodriguez went by both Miguel and Miquel. That’s because in spanish Miquel is the Catalan version of Miguel (http://mymemory.translated.net/en/Catalan/Spanish/miquel ). You didn’t know that, MORON?

 

Now if you’d only read the posts.

WND ? Seriously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...