Kavanaugh-Starr Coverup In Foster Death Not Going Away.

by Jerry Alatalo

“The intention makes the crime.” – ARISTOTLE 

Attorney Allan Favish continues seeking the truth of what happened in 1993 and the death of Vincent Foster, particularly the role played by a then 29-year old attorney and newly sworn-in United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

lthough the number of men and women determined to reach the truth about what happened to Bill Clinton White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster leading to Foster’s death in July 1993 is very small, they understand the enormous stakes involved in letting go for the future of the country, – so they are staying on in the legal, public awareness battle.

Vincent Foster’s death under suspicious circumstances in 1993 made his passing that of the highest positioned American government official or public figure since the equally controversial assassinations of United States President John F. Kennedy (JFK) in 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, and Robert F. Kennedy, brother of JFK, also in 1968 – while running for president.

What makes the deaths of the Kennedy brothers, Martin Luther King Jr. and Vincent Foster stand out as a special category is the subsequent high level of national debate among citizens regarding the truthfulness of so-called “government narratives” claiming to have “solved” the cases. Many point to James Douglass and his book “JFK and the Unspeakable” as the go-to book for the truth, reinforcing the idea held by many that JFK’s murder was a coup d’etat, and that America has been a far lesser nation ever since.

William Pepper is held up by many as the man who was most responsible for bringing the shocking truth about Martin Luther King Jr., particularly after he led the extremely under-reported 1999 Memphis, Tennessee civil trial in which a jury, after hearing testimonies from 70 witnesses, absolved James Earl Ray posthumously of the murder.

Perhaps someday – hopefully soon – attorney Allan Favish will join James Douglass, William Pepper and others in the category of human force behind getting to the bottom of America’s most disturbing death-related debates and divisions-producing controversies. Many would add the esteemed academic David Ray Griffin to the select category as well, albeit the debate/controversy is somewhat different from one individual’s death: his work in leading the way for 9/11 truth involves state-sponsored covert mass-murder.

One need only to acknowledge the very high levels of partisan, divisive debates which occurred across America during the recent Senate hearings over the nomination by Donald Trump of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court to realize the need for resolving controversial matters calmly, reasonably, and wisely.

Those men and women mentioned at the start refusing to let the Kavanaugh-Starr-Foster scandal go and forget about it are unanimous in their criticism of the Senate Supreme Court nomination process that just ended, for the obvious reason that neither republican or democrat senators so much as mentioned the alleged cover-up of critical facts surrounding Vincent Foster’s 1993 death.

For Americans unawares of the Kavanaugh controversy over Vincent Foster’s 1993 death, there has been an enormous amount of information compiled in the 25 years since the event. Three sources of relevant information providing perhaps the deepest legal insights – on the 2004 case and decision by the Supreme Court – into this matter are freely available at attorney Allan Favish’s website:

1. Brief to the Supreme Court on the merits of respondent Allan J. Favish | http://allanfavish.com/images/PDF/ajf_merits_brief.pdf
2. Opinion of the Supreme Court | http://allanfavish.com/images/PDF/US%20Supreme%20Court%20Opinion.pdf
3. Response to the Supreme Court’s opinion regarding the Vincent Foster death scene photographs | http://allanfavish.com/index.php/vincent-foster/148-response-to-supreme-court-s-opinion-re-death-scene-photos

More information, including that compiled since that 2004 Supreme Court decision, is available at FBICover-up.com.

In the following interview of attorney Allan Favish with host Cliff Kincaid, Mr. Favish suggests that were straightforward, honest investigations done with respect to the 1993 death of Vincent Foster by Ken Starr, Brett Kavanaugh and others responsible from the start, that perhaps there would be no “Washington, D.C. swamp” today.

The term became popularized by – in supremely and cruelly ironic fashion – the same man whose nomination placed Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court of the United States … Donald Trump.

Ironic, also, is that while running for president in 2016 Donald Trump became sharply criticized for asserting there was “something fishy” about events surrounding the death of Vincent Foster.

Mr. Favish, then, wonders how long the “Washington, D.C. swamp” would survive if there were a new, 100% transparent investigation into Vincent Foster’s death today.

Most importantly, one wonders if Americans will ever even know.

(Thank you to USA Survival at YouTube | Posted: October 15, 2018)

Advertisements

Brett’s Brown Honda.

by Jerry Alatalo

In America, murder has no statute of limitations

ill anyone in the legislative, executive or judicial branches of the United States government call for remedial action in response to concerns raised over Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged cover-up of Vince Foster’s 1993 murder? Nobody knows how many Americans share those concerns, but in the (3) months since the video below of a talk between host Cliff Kincaid and researcher-journalist Hugh Turley became published, close to 17,000 people have watched it.

One might only guesstimate how many of those 17,000 people were left believing Brett Kavanaugh indeed participated in covering up the murder of Vince Foster, and disappointed the official narrative remains after (25) years that Foster committed suicide. It’s likely those who’ve come to accept there was a cover-up have shared their perceptions with family, friends and associates through all the routine means available. But again, the accumulated total is simply unquantifiable.

The highly ironic and compelling aspect of this particular discussion is that Mr. Cliff Kincaid isn’t exactly what you’d call a “lefty, commie, libtard…” (words seen millions of times in online political battle comments in recent weeks)  – in fact, quite the (complete) opposite – but a man holding tightly to very conservative views, making his and others in his political sphere’s push for the truth on this controversial matter that much more powerful.

While a minimum estimate of Donald Trump supporters who have concerns on this matter might be in the 8-10,000 range or more (we’re only talking about those conservatives who’ve watched this video; more videos are online, some receiving hundreds of thousands of views, so certainly there are significant numbers of others, probably in the millions), the question becomes one of what actionable options government officials have available for responding to citizens’ serious doubts about Kavanaugh’s appropriateness for serving on the Supreme Court.

In other words this matter cannot be swept under the rug, nor should it. The situation requires prompt and reasonable law enforcement action to resolve the concerns of a significant number of American citizens, not to mention that the person or persons who murdered Vince Foster have yet to become caught, prosecuted and punished – if these allegations are proven.

Miguel Rodriguez sent his letter of resignation (read it at website below) to Ken Starr after he: 1) felt the certain, real pressure to conform to the Foster suicide narrative, 2) noticed severe problems with evidence and mis-recording of facts, and, 3) finally, made up his mind not to participate in what he later described as cover-up of a murder. Mr. Rodriguez then tried to get his seriously disturbing story out to the American people, reaching out to over (100) media organizations.

Ken Starr named 28-year old Yale Law School graduate Brett Kavanaugh associate prosecution attorney to replace Miguel Rodriguez in the investigation into the death of Vince Foster.

Perhaps it’s best to just forget about this historical event; it was, after all, (25) years ago. Brett Kavanaugh has already been sworn in as the newest Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. But, then again … it is murder which is the subject being discussed here. There is no statute of limitations for the crime of murder in the United States.

Is there anyone in America with the moral courage necessary to successfully push back against the “ultimate power”?

***

(Description of video) “Possible Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh “is part of the ongoing cover-up of the murder of the [Clinton] White House deputy counsel” Vincent Foster. So charges researcher and journalist Hugh Turley. In this explosive video, learn how the Swamp operates in bipartisan fashion to cover up crimes, including murder, and how Deep State agents are deployed to intimidate witnesses and alter evidence. Turley worked with AIM’s Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid on this case for years, only to face a cover-up from the liberal AND conservative media.”

The discussion was 1st posted on July 4, 2018 at USA Survival – YouTube channel.

For more information, please visit FBICover-up.com

These (3) men are 100% confident their 20-page addendum to the Starr Report, the adding of which was fought against by Ken Starr himself, provides undeniable proof of the cover-up of Vince Foster’s 1993 murder. The 20-pages are available to read in PDF format at the website, for anyone interested in this matter.

 

Julian Assange Remains Imprisoned.

By Jerry Alatalo

***

“I want no money raised by injustice.” 

“Letter of State”, 1027; after pilgrimage to Rome.

– CANUTE “THE GREAT” (995-1035) King of England and Denmark

ikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange remains by almost any definition or perspective a political prisoner inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, U.K.. Despite having never been charged with a single crime and many expert attorneys and the United Nations stating his detention is simply … well, – wrong,  Mr. Assange is still being held after more than 6-years and denied his clearly justified freedom.

Two historical examples similar to Julian Assange’s are those of Israeli nuclear weapons whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu and Nelson Mandela of South Africa. Remarkably, in both cases unjust, extreme political retribution became chosen and actualized by apartheid states against men opposed to their governments’ policies.

Mr. Vanunu told the world of Israel’s previously secret possession of nuclear weapons and paid the price of enduring long-term silencing and loss of freedom. After the Israeli nuclear technician leaked information on Israel’s secret nuclear weapons to British press in 1986, he was eventually caught in Italy and returned to Israel, where after a behind-closed-doors trial he became sentenced to 18 years in prison, of which 11 of those years were especially brutal in solitary confinement. Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg once described Mordechai Vanunu as the “prominent figure of the nuclear era”.

Nelson Mandela, who became a practicing attorney, spent the years 1963-1990 locked up in South African prisons until built-up worldwide pressure started bringing down apartheid. He was finally granted freedom, and after being released from prison he was met by massive crowds of celebrating supporters. Mandela then eventually joined with South African President F. W. de Klerk in bringing an end to apartheid. Mandela shared the Nobel Peace Prize with President F.W. DeKlerk – the man he succeeded as president after Mandela won election in 1994. Nelson Mandela is remembered as one of the most influential political figures of recent history.

In the last years of his life, Nelson Mandela would joke about being labeled a “terrorist” – by those trying to sustain South African apartheid – to fellow members of The Elders group, including Ireland’s former president Mary Robinson, America’s former president Jimmy Carter, former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan (who passed away at 80 on August 18), and other retired leaders in the group. Mr. Mandela wondered out loud to his Elder friends about whether he’d be allowed to pass through the Pearly Gates – considering he was a “terrorist”.

***

any hold the erroneous perception that Julian Assange is a whistleblower, but in fact he is a publisher who facilitates dissemination of information obtained by those who find “sitting on” facts which must absolutely become known by all people both unconscionable and willingly accepting of one’s own moral bankruptcy. If one could imagine life were truth, WikiLeaks represents the emergency room and intensive care unit anguished whistleblowers go to after coming to the painful realization they have no other options. Julian Assange’s millions of supporters around the Earth unanimously agree: “Julian’s only ‘crime’ is that of sharing the truth – and that is not a crime.” It is important to note that WikiLeaks’ entire archived, searchable mountain of published materials is 100% accurate – a phenomenal achievement in journalism, taking into account that means WikiLeaks’ over 10,000,000 (ten million!) documents.

Of the nations most responsible and closely associated with the unjust, over 6-years-long imprisoning of Julian Assange – United States, United Kingdom, Ecuador, Australia, – none have the nationwide societal conditions which warrant comparisons to formerly apartheid South Africa and present-day apartheid Israel. South Africa was practicing apartheid through extreme, violent racial discrimination and separation between majority blacks and minority whites, and Israel practices apartheid now through violent racial discrimination and suppression of human rights directed against Palestinians.

The uniquely related form of apartheid visible in the case of Julian Assange is extreme discrimination directed against him specifically and, by extension, all free speech advocates on Earth seriously intent on gaining and sharing vital truth.

The extraordinary situations, circumstances and facts differ between the three men when considering their respective experiences, yet those knowledgeable of Nelson Mandela, Mordechai Vanunu and Julian Assange’s life stories understand they belong with other equally courageous, respected men and women in a distinct grouping. Is it reasonable to suggest “Mandela, Vanunu, Assange …” – positioning the three men in the same sentence – represents a definite distinct continuum?

Here’s the simple, direct, 100% accurate answer …

Free Julian Assange.

***

(Thank you to #Unity4J at YouTube)

 

Bill Browder And The Magnitsky Act: A Second Look.

ill the heavily suppressed, momentous film by director Andrei Nekrasov win the Academy Award and Oscar for Best Documentary?

Americans will be especially interested in watching Mr. Nekrasov’s journey of profoundly disturbing discovery, as he makes his historical record of events surrounding hedge fund billionaire William (Bill) Browder, his accountant (or “lawyer”, according to Mr. Browder) Sergei Magnitsky, multi-million dollar tax schemes, Russia-U.S. relations, international law – and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who mentioned Mr. Browder by name during the recent press conference with U.S. President Donald Trump in Helsinki, Finland.

See what Western politicians, media companies and journalists are not talking about in “The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes”. One might expect this posting of the film on YouTube to become suppressed and taken down in short order, so after viewing please download the documentary if possible, and/or share widely.

It is reasonable to assert that passage of the Magnitsky Act in the U.S. Congress was the birth of what has become described and recognized as the “New Cold War” between the United States and Russian Federation. The legislation is one of the major factors responsible for Russia-U.S. relations deteriorating to their lowest and most dangerous level in decades.

If what director Andrei Nekrasov conveys in his extraordinarily important, virtually censored/blacked-out film is accurate, – and it seems impossible to refute his astonishing discoveries – repeal of the Magnitsky Act becomes a moral and ethical necessity. The legislation’s repeal becomes inevitable as the law had as its genesis, foundation or basis an enormously elaborate and contrived set of criminal lies.

While director Andrei Nekrasov’s work might not win him the Oscar for best full-length documentary, men and women who watch the film might feel he is certainly deserving of the Academy Award in the non-fiction category. Talk of awards aside, one might need to search long and hard for a documentary film which matches the power, urgency, timeliness and importance of “The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes”.

***

(The film “The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes” is also available for viewing at Bitchute.com, – noted here for people interested in viewing should it become “disappeared” from the YouTube platform.)

***

(Edit: July 31, 2018) Our 1st posting of “The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes” was taken down by YouTube. Thankfully, another concerned citizen posted the film on their channel …

(Edit: August 1, 2018) The film was once again taken down by YouTube, this time removed much faster, so our recommendation for people wishing to view the film is to go to Bitchute.com.

Clearly, the people at YouTube don’t want the explosive truth about the fraud Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act disseminated widely.

***

Here is a link to view “The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes” published on Bitchute.com. Please disseminate/share widely:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/y8FL1e6Bqos5/