Eerie Similarities between Vince Foster Investigation and Mueller’s Russia Investigation Only two presidents in History fired FBI Directors - Bill Clinton and Donald Trump; Corrupt Investigations followed both.

Home  »  Big Government  »  Eerie Similarities between Vince Foster Investigation and Mueller’s Russia Investigation
Print This Post Print This Post
Feb 18, 2018 No Comments ›› admin

By Ben Barrack

Firing of FBI Director William Sessions

On July 19, 1993 President Bill Clinton fired FBI Director, William Sessions. The next day, deputy White House counsel Vince Foster was dead. Six months later, Clinton loyalist and Attorney General Janet Reno appointed Robert Fiske as Special Prosecutor to investigate Whitewater and Foster’s death; Foster had been a central figure in the Whitewater scandal.

Then Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporter Christopher Ruddy wrote a powerful book on the Foster death.

Fiske was incredibly favorable to Clinton. The Clintons needed someone to reach the right conclusions, not someone who would go where the facts led. In fact, there was no law in place for an Independent Counsel at the time. The White House could appoint anyone they wanted. Reno, who was as loyal to Clinton as Eric Holder would later be to Barack Obama, chose Fiske based on a law that had elapsed.

Listen to Ruddy explain the bias of Fiske during his book tour in 1997:

Fiske’s interim report, released on June 30, 1994, exonerated Clinton; it ruled no criminal activity in Whitewater and Foster’s death was a suicide. Fiske had essentially been occupying a position that did not exist. As a result, Clinton had to sign legislation that re-authorized the Independent Counsel, which required a court to appoint such an individual. Reno wanted to re-appoint Fiske but instead, the court appointed Kenneth Starr.

Instead of being independent, Starr behaved much like Fiske. Despite the court ordering his team to include the affidavit of a witness at the scene of where Foster’s body was found, Starr didn’t want to include it. He even filed a motion to keep it out. In early 1995, Starr’s lead investigator – Miguel Rodriguez – resigned over Starr’s cover-up of Foster’s murder. Here is a short clip from a CBN report:

Starr’s Team

Tuohey (L) was to Starr what Weissmann (R) is to Mueller investigation.

Starr appointed a man named Mark Tuohey as his deputy. In 1994, Tuohey occupied a position similar to that of Andrew Weissmann 23 years later. Robert Mueller named Weissmann as his deputy during the investigation into collusion between Trump and Russia.

Interestingly, Tuohey was just as much a leftist as Weissmann. In fact, the similarities between Mueller – a Republican – and Weissmann are like a carbon copy of the Starr-Tuohey relationship.

As a result, the credibility of Mueller’s investigation is additionally suspect. Via investigator DC Dave in 2013:

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.

Especially relevant is the common thread that runs through both investigations – the Clintons.

Listen to Ruddy explain:

However, Starr’s appointment of another leftist was a miscalculation in hindsight. Miguel Rodriguez was a liberal but even he was compelled to follow the evidence. Starr did not like that at all. As a result, Rodriguez ultimately retired. Consequently, Starr had to find a replacement. He decided to replace Rodriguez with a key figure in the O.J. Simpson case. Henry Lee, who helped get Simpson off, was hired by Starr.

In addition, Starr then hired a Medical Examiner named Dr. Brian Blackbourne, who was a key figure in the Fiske investigation that preceded Starr’s.

Ruddy lays it out:

The Rodriguez Exit

Miguel Rodriguez

Miguel Rodriguez was Starr’s lead investigator. He was so disgusted with the investigation that he became persona non grata.

In late November of 1994, Rodriguez met with other members of the team, which included Tuohey (but not Starr). Rodriguez made his case. The others rejected it and clearly wanted to reign him in. Rodriguez documented the details of that meeting in a 30-page memorandum.

On January 17, 1995 Rodriguez submitted his resignation.

[CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW ENTIRE 30-PAGE MEMO BY MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ]

Conclusions from the Vince Foster Investigations

Robert Fiske (L) and Kenneth Starr (R) both exonerated the Clintons in death of Foster and ignored evidence.

The details of Foster’s death notwithstanding, investigators for both Fiske and Starr worked toward a pre-determined outcome. They were there to exonerate the Clintons over Whitewater and to rule Foster’s death a suicide. They did just that.

Reno chose Fiske. He predictably ruled as the Attorney General wanted him to. Against the Clintons’ wishes, a court ruled Starr had to replace Fiske. As a result, the Clintons needed a new strategy. Starr carried the Republican moniker, which helped with the public’s perception that the investigation would not be partisan.

Most noteworthy, the truth lied underneath the veneer of objectivity. As a result, Starr was compromised. He didn’t even put his name on the report his team compiled.

So, two investigations exonerated the Clintons after Bill fired FBI Director Sessions one day before Foster’s death. Listen to how Ruddy not only explains Sessions’ reaction to that but also the co-opting of the FBI itself. This is especially relevant in light of the Mueller investigation.

Mueller was not only one of Sessions’ successors as FBI Director. Like Starr, he’s a Republican. Democrats point to that fact as evidence Mueller’s investigation into collusion between Trump and Russia is not partisan.

Sound familiar?

Firing of James Comey

On May 9, 2017 – nearly 24 years after Clinton fired Sessions – President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey. Trump did so at the behest of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. In 2016, by any measurable standard, Comey bungled the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server. Hillary committed multiple felonies. She and members of her staff trafficked in classified information on a non-secure server and then deleted 33,000 emails. Her deputies and advisors lied to investigators. Yet, Comey exonerated her. He did so despite not having the authority to do so.

Furthermore, Comey wrote that exoneration letter two months prior to interviewing Hillary, the subject of the investigation. His subordinates changed verbiage from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”. The former is a criminal term; the latter is not. He granted no fewer than five people immunity. Yet, no one was prosecuted. Comey granted immunity to a man named Paul Combetta, who deleted Hillary’s emails after the issuance of a Congressional subpoena.

Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch had instructed Comey to refer to the investigation as a “matter”, not an investigation. Lynch was then caught meeting Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Phoenix just days before Comey publicly exonerated her. The FBI was more outraged that the meeting had been leaked than the fact it had taken place.

Comey had behaved like Fiske and Starr.

Unlike Reno years before, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from anything related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. The reason? He met a Russian diplomat in public. The decision to appoint a Special Counsel fell to Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller.

The Clintons were replicating their winning strategy with the Starr investigation. Mueller the Republican would stack his team with far left-wing Democrats while he – as the face of the investigation – looked non-partisan.

Mueller’s Team

Tuohey (L) with then FBI Director Mueller (R) in 2010.

Mueller’s charge was to investigate collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to steal the election. A year later, a memo written by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI) revealed that Rosenstein was actually a co-conspirator with the Obama administration when he signed a FISA application based on unverified opposition research. The purpose of the application was to obtain a warrant to surveil Trump campaign officials and associates.

Mueller stacked his team with Clinton donors and loyalists. As mentioned, he selected Weissmann as his deputy, much like Starr selected Tuohey years earlier. He also chose a man named Peter Strzok, who was instrumental in preventing Hillary and her aides from prosecution. Text messages between Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page revealed this. Page, who was the attorney for Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, implicated her boss in the conspiracy to undermine Trump. Nunes confirmed this in his memo as well.

Two other individuals on Mueller’s team were Aaron Zebley and Jeannie Rhee. Zebley represented Clinton IT specialist Justin Cooper during the email server investigation. Zebley and Strzok worked as a tag team. Cooper indicated Clinton advisor Huma Abedin lied to the FBI (Strzok) when she said she didn’t learn of Hillary’s private server until she left the State Department.

Strzok protected Abedin while Zebley defended Cooper.

Rhee represented Obama official Ben Rhodes during the Benghazi investigation. She represented Hillary and the Clinton Foundation during the email investigation and, like Page, worked for McCabe.

Unfortunately, the equivalent to Miguel Rodriguez in the Foster investigation doesn’t seem to exist.

Clinton Miscalculation?

Co-Conspirator Rosenstein (L) recommended Trump fire Comey so he could appoint Mueller to investigate Trump. AG Sessions (R) recused himself.

The corrupt investigations into Foster’s death and Whitewater were Clinton operations that were defensive in nature. So was the staged investigation into Hillary’s email server. Had that been the end of it, the Clintons would have gotten away with both.

However, it didn’t end there. They wanted Mueller to go on offense to undermine Trump’s presidency. If Mueller’s investigation has revealed one thing, it’s that the charge of collusion between Trump and Russia is nothing short of projection by the Clintons.

Hillary and the DNC hired law firm Perkins Coie. Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS hired former British spy Christopher Steele. Steele then compiled a bogus dossier intended to destroy Trump. Steele gave this dossier to the FBI in Rome, Italy. The dossier then went to FBI leadership and was used by Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein and others to secure a FISA warrant to spy on Trump’s campaign and later, his administration.

In the Starr investigation, the Clintons co-opted the FBI. This time, the Clintons and Obama co-opted the FBI, the DOJ and the FISA court as well.

The Real Conspiracy

The FBI and DOJ deceived the FISA court, or did they? Steele’s dossier was the basis for the FISA applications. As such, the DOJ sought warrants based on opposition research done by one party on another party. The judges should be outraged. Instead, they have been silent. In fact, one judge is still hiding Comey’s memos from the public. Those memos detail the former FBI Director’s conversations with Trump. Comey said he wrote them out of concern that Trump might obstruct justice.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who sits on HPSCI, has read them. He maintains they would constitute “EXHIBIT A” for the defense (Trump). Here is Gowdy on Fox News Special Report in December of 2017:

Yet, FISA Court Judge James Boasberg ruled Comey’s memos could not be released. He did so on the same day the Nunes memo was. If Gowdy is correct, Boasberg is protecting Comey. Most noteworthy is that Boasberg did so on the same day he supposedly learned Comey had deceived him.

Why would a judge protect a person who made a mockery of his court? The only logical explanation is that Boasberg is part of the conspiracy.

The players in the real conspiracy are numerous. They include at least 12 individuals who have been fired, have resigned or been re-assigned. Among them are Comey, Deputy FBI Director McCabe, DOJ Official Bruce Ohr, FBI Agent Strzok and his mistress Page, DOJ #3 Rachel Brand, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI General Counsel Jim Baker, and others.

Conclusions from the Mueller Investigation

Mueller’s investigation has looked increasingly foolish. Like an animal gripped by a python, every movement made by Mueller seems to weaken his case. He is investigating innocent parties on behalf of guilty ones.

On February 16th, Mueller’s team indicted 13 Russians and three Russian entities for meddling in the U.S. election.

In a piece for Law and Crime, Robert Barnes nails it:

Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted foreign citizens for trying to influence the American public about an election because those citizens did not register as a foreign agent nor record their financial expenditures to the Federal Elections Commission. By that theory, when will Mueller indict Christopher Steele, FusionGPS, PerkinsCoie, the DNC and the Clinton Campaign? Mueller’s indictment against 13 Russian trolls claimed their social media political activity was criminal because: they were foreign citizens; they tried to influence an election; and they neither registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act nor reported their funding to the Federal Elections Commission.

In 1997, Ruddy accurately called attention to what happens when law enforcement is co-opted for political reasons. His point was indeed as prescient as it was chilling:

It’s critical that the real criminals face indictments before it’s too late.

Follow on twitter @Barrackaid

Tagged with: , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

%d bloggers like this: