Ken Starr, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein, Ken Starr, Bill Clinton…

9f9283d2-888f-42f6-a851-2cb9ccdbb9f4

I wasn’t very political engaged back when the Clintons’ were in office the first time & didn’t follow the blow-by-blow of Ken Starr’s investigations into White Water, Vince Foster’s death and the Monica Lewinsky scandal, so I didn’t really form an opinion of Starr. I can’t seem to help but to form one now, however, with the Vince Foster story reemerging (I had always wondered why Starr ignored the Clinton’s Body Count), together with the strange fact that Starr was the lawyer who secured for pedophile Jeffrey Epstein (an acquaintance of both Bill’s and The Donald’s by the way) an apparently illegal plea that served to protect others who might have been implicated in the underage sex ring. Clinton, it turns out, was even more closely associated with Epstein than originally revealed, and now I’m wondering how deep and how far back these incestuous relationships go. Adding to my questions about Starr was this recent post on CNN: Did Ken Starr ignore sexual assault claims at Baylor?

As an aside, a funny thought experiment occurred to me in light of arguments that Bill Clinton’s past has no bearing on Hillary’s White House bid:
Would you tell Bill
Cosby‘s wife it would be a good idea for her to run for president? Why or why not?

And here’s a funny/not-so-funny take on the whole disturbingly muted approach to this pedophilia scandal taken by the mainstream media:

This entry was posted in Agenda Alert, hillary clinton, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Ken Starr, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein, Ken Starr, Bill Clinton…

  1. hugh says:

    Monica,
    So glad you are focusing on this. There is a lot of there, there! As I understand it, a statute of limitations does not apply to murder, and I do believe Foster was murdered! Starr was heavily marketed at the time as this upstanding individual who was beyond reproach. I know as I did follow all this very closely at the time. Starr is anything but that! Pure scum, in my opinion! Hope all avail themselves of the links you provided!.

    But Monica, I would suggest you lose credibility by bringing “The Donald” into this loop. I think the material in the link you provided re Trump was earlier dubunked. That publication behind the apparent photo shopped image is pure garbage and just out to destroy Trump via fabrications! Sometimes I think you disdain Trump (or whatever the deal is) to the point where you lose objectivity. Sorry, but I do have that thought. And you know I am a big fan of yours!

    • austrogirl says:

      I simply have a view of the Trump campaign as a psyop. I treat it exactly as all of my other views – I form them based on my evaluation of events and I continue to weigh them against new evidence. You are sensitive to this one because you disagree with my conclusion, but there is nothing emotional in this at all for me. As a matter of fact, it bums me out that I don’t think he’s for real, especially since my mother gets very upset at me for this viewpoint. I hope I’m wrong.

      • hugh says:

        Monica,
        I’ve always agreed with you that Trump could be a psyop. I initially had that same concern though it has waned over time. My point here is that this particular publication, photo, etc. has no credibility. It was a clear hit piece as I tried to demonstrate in my comments to your earlier thread. You need valid information to support your hypothesis, and the free publicity Trump has receiveded credibly supports your view.

        • austrogirl says:

          Upon further research, it appears the original article was written in 2002 and was all about Epstein (whom the article describes as “an enthusiastic member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations!”), not a hit piece on Trump, who was only mentioned in passing because of that quote he gave directly to the magazine, the accuracy of which does not seem to be in dispute. The source, New York Magazine, is too prominent to get away with printing this if the quote were wrong, if for no other reason than the likelihood that Trump or his team would have challenged it at some point over the past fourteen years. (What makes you think that picture, which originally appeared in Georgia Newsday, is photo-shopped? It looks real to me as even wisps of hair cast consistent shadows in it.)

  2. Johnny Blastoff says:

    Clinton’s ties to Epstein appear much stronger but Trump’s shouldn’t be ignored just because you like him more. Ghislaine scouted and picked up underage girls for Epstein. She was on 11 plane rides with Clinton. She’s in the photo with Trump. Does that mean he knew what she did with Epstein? No. But Trump’s name was also circled in Epstein’s black book by his butler who identified him as a potential material witness. In his Florida house, Epstein kept pictures of nude underage girls all over the place in plain site and the soap bars in the bathrooms were of genitalia. It was an open secret in New York circles that Epstein was a pedophile. He wasn’t shy about it. Epstein doesn’t think what he was doing was wrong. Trump has been to Epstein’s New York house. Is it set up the same way as his Florida home? I don’t know. Is it possible that Trump was unaware that Epstein was a pedophile despite his openess about it? Is it likely? Prince Andrew was forced to issue a public apology for his relationship with Epstein because it was so well known that Epstein was a pedophile and it was foolish for him to be associated with him. Combine all of this with Trump’s comment about Epstein liking young girls and there is enough there to ask a few questions. Does that mean Trump is guilty of anything? No. But if you expect Clinton supporters to be open to the possibility that the candidate they support, and her husband, are guilty of something then you have to be open to the possibility that the candidate you support might be guilty of something as well. We can’t just ignore the smoke coming out from underneath the kitchen door because we don’t want to believe that there’s a fire. Because…..what if we ignore uncomfortable evidence connected to the public figures we like?….and we’re wrong? That’s what people did for decades in the UK despite tiny pieces of evidence here and there. They were more concerned with protecting the images of the politicians and public figures they had in their mind than exposing criminals…….As a result, they enabled them to pile up hundreds of more victims. I’m not saying Trump’s guilty. I’m saying that his connections should be given a full investigation just like Clinton’s should. I don’t know about you, but I’m not interested in being complicit in the crimes of the elite because of a refusal to be open to the possibility that someone I support might be guilty.

    • austrogirl says:

      I actually didn’t even consider the possibility that Trump engaged in any of that until this moment! I still am not actively suspecting that, though of course I don’t know either way. I just note it because his ties with that crowd are numerous and longstanding and should be [should have been] fully vetted. These connections support my view that he is on their side and plays the same kind of games they play–including engaging in psyops….Could be that Trump really is a straight shooter who wheels and deals in a traditional way, crossing paths with the dirty backroom-dealing likes of Clinton, Epstein, Kushner and the rest as necessary without regard to the implications for the country and the world of how they operate and what they’re after so long as his deals get done, and when the time comes he will use his power to foil their plans for world domination (which is exactly what they are–as noted above, Epstein was “an enthusiastic member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations” and Ivanka’s father-in-law Charles Kushner was Senator Hillary’s biggest donor before he went to jail), I just don’t think so.

      • hugh says:

        Monica,
        My comment to Johnny is also essentially a response to you too. But I do wish we were focusing on the Clintons as that is where the real issues are…multiple dead folks, rapes, financial crimes, etc.

        • austrogirl says:

          I was focusing on the Clintons! I made a passing but interesting comment about Trump in my original article, but the article was about Bill Clinton, Ken Starr & Jeffrey Epstein–the rest of my comments about Trump have been in response to your comments about Trump!

    • hugh says:

      Johnny,
      I find no fault at all with your comment and support it totally. My hunch is still that Trump is clean, but he is a red blooded Alpha male, not one of those pajama boys, Metrosexuals, or whatever they are called.

  3. bradrad says:

    Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct.- Thomas Jefferson
    I know some folks will never learn no matter how many times they buy the snake oil. It’s like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. Every time he thinks “It’s going to be different this time.”
    My only hope is that after this current choice between 2 different ends of the same turd sandwich, some rational people will realize that nothing good is ever going to come from politics. It starts in theft and ends in misery.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s