Posted on 05/24/2016 9:25:53 AM PDT by McGruff
Donald Trump has fired his first shots of the general election campaign. Predictably, they have nothing to do with anything that matters. In a new video released on Instagram, Trump features audio interviews with women who’ve accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault. Against the backdrop of shadowy audio clips, the accompanying text asks if Hillary Clinton is “really protecting women.”
We hear the voices of Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Wiley, and a clip from a 1999 Dateline interview with Juanita Broaddrick. Near the end, as the sound of Hillary Clinton’s cackle fades, the words “Here we go again” flash on the screen.
I’m no great defender of Bill Clinton. He was a competent president and did a lot of things well, but he’s also received a pass from Democrats on a number of fronts. The triangulating, the serial lying, the capitulations to white Southerners – it was all transparent and nauseating. But here’s the thing: Bill Clinton isn’t running for president, and what he did with his penis 30 years ago is irrelevant.
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
“But within a couple of years of Foster’s death, it had come out that Foster had been worried to death about Travelgate and Whitewater, and that immediately after Foster’s death, HRC’s staff went into Foster’s office to remove Whitewater files.”
That came out mere hours after it happened.
“That came out mere hours after it happened.”
You’re correct, but it was dismissed as unimportant for at least a year, while the media focused on the depression-is-a-disease angle.
Remember Jerry Parks?
Trump is going to be Trump, with or without the pants-wetters vote.
Looks like Trump found a weak spot. Good to see him going after the Clintons.
That isn’t what Hillary wants them to write.
Huma will be US Secretary of State if Hillary wins.
Remember Jerry Parks?
I don’t...
Trump is educating the young ones about the Clintons. Especially Bill and his sexual escapades. Once he has completed that phase, he will then link Hillary to the Bimbo eruption team from that time.
In the fall, Trump will still have the email scandal. And I think he will also get into the Clinton Foundation cash for influence. That is where the big stuff really is.
99. The late Jerry Parks owned a detective agency in Little Rock.
According to Jane Parks, his widow, he had often done mysterious jobs for Vince Foster. She says that shortly before he died, Foster telephoned Jerry. She overheard Jerry’s half of the conversation.
She says her husband became highly agitated. He begged Foster not to do something Foster was intent on doing. After Foster died, Jerry became extremely fearful and started carrying a gun. He was gunned down gangland style within a month of Foster’s death.
According to Jane, shortly thereafter, teams of FBI agents ransacked the Parks’ house. They removed all office files, film negatives, tape recordings, and floppy disks. Jane says these searches happened repeatedly. Apparently, none of the searches or confiscations was legal.
Apart from the women, the question is whether other witnesses will come forward. In four years Kenneth Starr has accumulated prima facie evidence, but has not cracked the original Arkansas corruption cases. In Arkansas, giving evidence against the machine has proved dangerous. Paula Jones will not be able to call Jerry Parks as a witness; he was Clinton’s security chief, who as a private detective had staked out Clinton’s visits to Gennifer Flowers for an unknown client. Someone shot him in September 1993, and the Arkansas state police never established who the gunman was. (Jerry Parks, on hearing of the death of Vince Foster, paled and said, “I’m a dead man.” In a short time, he was.)
The Jerry Parks Case
Jerry Parks had been head of security for the Clinton Little Rock HQ. He was also known to be building a dossier on Clinton, perhaps for Hillary. On hearing the news of Foster’s death, he told his wife, “I’m a dead man.” Not long after he was, rubbed out on a Little Rock street in a mob-style hit. According to Parks’ family his files on Clinton were removed by federal agents. The murder has never been solved.
About My `Mad Scribblings’
The Washington Post
In his column on the epidemic of Clinton-bashing in the press, Richard Cohen mistakenly asserts that Kenneth Starr has concluded his report on the death of Vincent Foster [“Fair Play for the President, Too,” op-ed, April 15].The Office of the Independent Counsel categorically denies that this is the case.
During the last two years, a number of newspapers have stated, erroneously, that Starr was about to issue his report. But your paper was not one of them. The fact that Ken Starr is still conducting an open death investigation into the Foster case, 2 1/2 years after he took over as special prosecutor, should be an indication that the matter is not as clear-cut as Cohen seems to assume.
As for my own “mad scribblings” on the subject, I have been careful not to write that Foster was murdered or that the body was moved to Fort Marcy Park. What I have alleged, and continue to allege, is that the true circumstances of the death have been covered up. The testimony of several crime scene witnesses and paramedics, as well as the archive of documents in the case, contradict the official story. Indeed, they destroy the foundations of the Fiske Report.
One of the witnesses, Patrick Knowlton, has filed a lawsuit accusing the FBI of doctoring his 302 statement — the write-up of his witness statement — and conducting a campaign of intimidation to dissuade him from testifying truthfully before the Whitewater grand jury. Cohen suggests that an allegation should not be written about unless it has been made in a “court of law.” But Knowlton has alleged a conspiracy to cover up the Foster death in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case 96-2467. Cohen should look it up — and then decide who is reporting with “due regard for the facts.”
— Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
The writer is the outgoing Washington correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph of London.
************
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard interview on Jim Quinn show, WRRK 97 FM, Pittsburgh, PA.
P = Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Q = Jim Quinn, show host
Q: On the phone with us this morning is Ambrose Evans-Pritchard from the London Sunday Telegraph, the former—actually, are you officially severed now from the Telegraph?
P: Well, I cleared out my desk and I go back to London. I start a new job in September at the Daily Telegraph.
(There are many snips)
Q: Oh, I see. Well I’m not going to question you any further on this because I think I know what you’re hinting at. Have you come to any personal conclusions about why—now see, you’ve been very good at uncovering—as has Christopher Ruddy—at uncovering things that surround Vince Foster, the death, that don’t add up, and things surrounding his life extending back to the days in Arkansas back to, I guess, just after he was involved with the BCCI thing and all of that. Have you come to any personal conclusions about what might have happened to him? Why? What was the motive?
P: I’ll tell you this, I do believe there is a link between the death of Foster in July of 1993 and the assassination of Jerry Parks in September of 1993.
Q: Well, apparently Parks agrees with you or would agree with you because he’s the one who said, when he found out about Foster’s death, “Oh, my God, I’m a dead man!” And started carrying a gun.
P: That’s right. For those who don’t know, Parks was head of security for the Clinton/Gore campaign headquarters in Little Rock during the campaign. And he certainly thought that Foster’s death was his own death sentence. It was interesting, an interesting reaction.
Q: Well, yeah, what’s the tie-in?
P: Especially when you turn up dead two months later yourself.
Q: Yeah, and it turns out your prediction was right. What do you think the tie-in is?
P: Well, we now know that Jerry Parks was doing work quietly, pretty sensitive work for Foster over many years. Foster was using him as a kind of operative to collect sensitive information on things and do sensitive jobs. Some of this appears to have been done on behalf of Hillary Clinton. So, this is rather interesting that Vincent Foster would be kind of involved in this sort of thing which goes way beyond his ostensible work as a Little Rock litigation lawyer.
Q: Yes.
P: That he’d be employing a private investigator—or really more than a private investigator—sort of a behind the scenes fixer to do things. And certainly on one occasion he went out and did some surveillance of Bill Clinton. This was around the time of the 1990 period.
Q: So he was doing surveillance, following Bill Clinton around on behalf of whom? Hillary?
P: Well, it was Foster who contracted him to do it, and Foster told him that Hillary wanted it done. Now, my understanding of that is that she wanted to know how vulnerable he would be in a presidential race on the question of, how shall I put it, his appetites.
Q: [laughs] Ah, yes, which are many and legendary.
P: Right. Well, it turned out, obviously she knew perfectly well what he was doing, but she wanted to know how easily he could be caught. And it turned out he could be caught very easily, because Parks went out and caught him on camera. That was one of the things he did. But Foster told Parks that it was Hillary who set that up, who requested that this be done.
Q: Well, I have to take a break here, but I want to ask you about some of the other sensitive things that Mr. Parks was involved in with Mr. Foster, which I believe Mrs. Parks has told you about. I’d like to cover that coming up. Can you stick around?
P: Yes.
Q: Okay. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Bureau Chief of London Sunday Telegraph, or former Bureau Chief of London Sunday Telegraph, and we’ll be right back.
[FIRST BREAK]
Q: It’s eighteen minutes after the hour. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard from Washington with us on the phone this morning. Okay, the subject is Jerry Parks and Vince Foster and the ways that their deaths may be tied together, knowing that they were both involved in a number of activities that other people—some people—wouldn’t want to be public knowledge. Now in some of your investigative work you’ve uncovered the fact that apparently Jerry would drive Vince up to Mena airport. Is that true?
P: That’s what his widow told me. She knew of two occasions when this happened. On one of them he came back—I think he’d been away the entire day—and he came back and her car wasn’t working or something, so she asked to borrow his Lincoln. She opened the trunk and it was full of hundred dollar bills wrapped up in wedges. It was so full that in fact she couldn’t get the trunk closed again. She had to sit on it to get it closed. We’re talking about a very large sum of money. She was very angry about this. She picked up a bundle of it and walked into the house and threw it at him and demanded to know what he was involved in. Was he involved in drugs? And he said, no, no, he’d just been up with Vince on a trip to Mena and he was paid a hundred thousand dollars a day on a contract basis and he didn’t ask any questions. And he would just drop the money off when he got back.
Snip…
P: I think the Clinton circle and the Clinton campaign may well have been. From what Jane Parks told me about this money brought in at Mena which Foster seemed to be handling, it looked like campaign money. This would suggest to me that there were other sources of—one of those occasions was in the primary campaign when he was in trouble and running out of money early in the primaries, you know, when scandals were breaking. It looked as though he was losing momentum and he was running out of money. There is a possibility that they could have flown in some cash below radar, so to speak, to help prop up the campaign. How they would have spent the cash, I’m not quite sure how you do that, how you get around the normal oversight.
Q: Yeah, I mean, you just don’t walk into a TV station and plunk down a hundred thousand dollars in cash and say I want to buy some time.
P: But there were certain things that were going on that we now know. Clearly they were monitoring bimbos, for example, they were having investigators look into their backgrounds, offering them jobs, threatening them and so forth. All these kinds of things take money. So there was a major control operation going on. Now maybe these cash infusions were paying for that sort of thing.
Q: Well, there’s a lot of dead people that circulate around the Clinton sphere of influence, and I have to admit to you that some of them, some of the people on the list, I don’t think are credibly attributable to the Clintons anyway. But among some of the more credible, or the more suspicious deaths, the common thread seems to be that they were all involved in one way or another with Bill Clinton’s campaign finance.
P: Right. I think that’s true, although I’ve only concentrated on two deaths, and that’s Foster and Parks.
Q: Um hm. Well, the rest you’ll leave to us conspiracy theorists, and it’s probably just as well...[AEP laughs] because you don’t want to damage what credibility you have left after the White House takes out after you.
Salon — The Daily Urinal.
In any case, the media is engaged in extraordinary malpractice if it continues to refuse to consider the possibility that Foster was murdered at least as seriously as it considered the details of the O J Simpson trial or, most recently, has speculated fully and freely on what happened to JonBenet Ramsey.
A good place to start would be with a story written by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the London Sunday Telegraph last October 6. In it Evans-Pritchard tells of a phone call Foster made to Jerry Parks in Little Rock the night before Foster’s body was found in a Virginia park. Parks had been chief of security at the Clinton-Gore presidential campaign headquarters in Little Rock. Parks’ wife told AEP that Foster had called from a pay phone. “It was an angry exchange. Jerry told him, ‘You can’t give Hillary those files, they’ve got my name all over them.’”
Mrs. Parks is a Pentacostal Christian suffering from multiple schlerosis. Two official investigators have told AEP that they think her story is credible. Since speaking to reporters and investigators she has received at least three death threats.
When Parks learned of Foster’s death, he told his wife, “I’m a dead man.” Two months later he was — gunned down in a gang type slaying in Little Rock. After his murder, his house was searched by the FBI, Secret Service, the IRS and, Mrs. Parks believes, the CIA. Parks’ computer was purged and some 130 telephone tapes were taken. Parks had been conducting surveillance on the man he was meant to be guarding .
In interview last month, AEP said, “Foster was using him as a kind of operative to collect sensitive information on things and do sensitive jobs. Some of this appears to have been done on behalf of Hillary Clinton. . . Foster told him that Hillary wanted it done. Now, my understanding . . . is that she wanted to know how vulnerable he would be in a presidential race on the question of — how shall I put it? — his appetites.”
Mrs. Parks’ also told AEP that she had opened the trunk of her husband’s Lincoln one day and found what must have been hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash. “It was so full I had to sit on the trunk to get it shut again.” She asked her husband whether he was dealing drugs, and he allegedly explained that Foster had paid him $1,000 for each trip he took to Mena and that he didn’t “know what they were doing, and he didn’t care to know. He told me to forget what I’d seen.”
Was the money from drugs or was it cash coming in, perhaps from foreign shores, for campaign walking-around money and to hush up people who might want to blackmail a presidential candidate? Did the campaign finance scandals start much earlier than anyone imagines? What was the connection to the drug running and CIA operations that were going on at the Mena airport? Why did the Lippo Group, a huge Indonesian operation, invest in a bank in the tiny town of Mena during the period?
Such are the questions that follow the ghost of Vince Foster. Even if the media doesn’t want to know the answers, the public deserves them.
An excellent question - but when one considers that, one can see why the whole case is closed down. Too risky. Too many powerful interests involved.
Wow. Great post. Thank you.
The Clinton campaign refusing to respond to such an all out attack is the big story. They just get stuck in deeper mud if they do. Amazing to watch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.