Mary Mahoney's story
Pag...@hotmail.com
This July will be the first anniversary of the brutal Starbucks triple
murder. Not exactly your happy anniversary. But even as a year has passed the
case is still shrouded with the mist of conspiracy. The widespread appeal of
the murder has much to do with the revelation that Mary Mahoney, the 24 year
old manager,was a former White House intern.
Conspiracy Theorists are history buffs evolved for more suspicious times. But
with a helpless police force, and the questionable motive of an unknown
suspect, one wonders. What is interesting about this case is the police's
only hope of finding a suspect was killed. Why in the world of politics would
this be unusual? When we read in the papers everyday that another person
connected to the eclectic batch of Clinton scandals has met a suspicious end?
Why?, because this source was also assisting a drug case.
The Clinton adminstration is laced with drug-users, dealers, and those who
seek to (allegedly) profit from the illegal endeavors. (The latter is the
only claim that cannot be proved) But this sounds ridiculous to the common
uneducated American citizen.
You don't need to hack into the CIA to find out that Roger Clinton, his
half-brother, was convicted of dealing cocaine. Or that Dan Lasater was
convicted as well then pardoned by Clinton. The DEA has records of persons
whom have flown with Lasater to Latin America, one of such people is Patsy
Thomasson who is now director of White House Adminstration.
According to former FBI agent Gary Aldrich in his book Unlimited Access drug
use was, and as far as we know still is, common around the staff and interns.
While assigned to the White House Mr. Aldrich duties included checking the
backround of Clinton's staff. He reports in his book that many of the staff
were heavy drug users prior to their move to Washington, some even used
during the campaign.
Even more appalling is which drugs were used. It is considered fairly normal
for a person to have smoked marijuana once or twice during college. And is
considered by most to be an excusable lapse in judgement during a rebellious
age. But much of the Clinton staff, according to Aldrich used cocaine and
heavier drugs through out college into their entrance into the White House.
Although it has yet to be proven that any of the staff has used while
empolyed at the White House. One must assume that decades of this sort of
illegal conduct don't just go away quietly and unaided.
In fact Craig Livingstone (director of White House security) said when
addressing the
new interns, "And I know what some of you guys are going to do, but don't get
caught.....go easy on 'that kind of thing'". While the statement itself proves
nothing,
Aldrich states that he is certain Livingstone was referring to drug usage.
Clinton's campaign funds aren't a glorious white either (but we have all heard
of recent
campaign scandals so this is nothing new). But there have been creditable
accusation
made, that by some force have been ignored. To top that these accusations that
have
been made connect some of the major scandals of our time. Notably, Mena and
Iran-Contra.
Mena took place in Arkansas during the time Clinton was governor, interestly
enough
it was immediately after Clinton was re-elected that the country's most wanted
drug
runners were moving into Mena. And what does this prove? ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING!!! (except maybe that Clinton has the worst luck in political history)
but it
is one of the many odd situations that connect Clinton to the drug trade.
Here's a brief run down of some of the Clinton campaign donors and their
connection to the drug trade. Simon Diaz the President of the Dominican
Federation, which according to NYPD is a front for Dominican crime cartels.
Diaz himself is under investigation by the DEA. Then we have Jack Stephens
the staunch Republicanwho paid off an 100,000 campaign debt for Clinton.
Stephens was figured by Gene Tatum (one of the pilots who transported cocaine
labled as medical supplies) as the primary figure in laundring drug money.
That's funny isn't it? a Republican paying off a Democrat's debts. Gee maybe
we all can get along.
Maybe not, according to Terry Reed (a CIA contractor) Bill Clinton took 10%
of the money that was laundered. And one must assume that paying off
Clinton's debt was not just a show of goodwill on Jack Stephens part, because
he's not the only Republican to do so. Jim McDougal saw Charles Peacock, a
wealthy Republican, hand over checks to Betsey Wright (Clinton's campaign
offical) during a campaign fundraising event
But now the big question, if the empolyees of Starbucks were murdered by
someone in the Clinton adminstration, why? Despite the Drudge Report I doubt
it was because of sexual harassment claims. According to Newsday the
Georgetown Starbucks was frequented by many high profile government officals,
Madeleine Albright, and former House Speaker Tom Foley amoung others.
Believe it or not Starbucks is a name mentioned a lot during the Clinton
scandals. It
was at a Starbucks that Monica Lewinsky confessed to Linda Tripp. It was after
getting a cup off coffee from a Starbucks that Lewinsky 'bonded' with Ken
Starr's
investigators. When George Stephanopoulos was asked if he knew Lewinsky he
replied that he "used to see Lewinsky at his local Starbucks"
One thing that has yet to be confirmed is this all the same Starbucks? Let's
speculate for a moment, we'll say that perhaps the White House has been using
Clinton's busy zipper to coverup the mounting evidence of the adminstration's
drug-play. If this is so it is safe to assume that a great amount of this was
planned in the Starbucks in question. Walls have ears and apparently so do
empolyees, it is more than possible that Mahoney was about come foward about
the true motives behind Sexgate. Rather than a sexual harassment claim.
What I'm saying here people is, why would the White House murder someone who
was about to come foward with more tales of sex in the White House when they
have
Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and many more already making claims? What is one
more victim to add to the pile of witnesses? Certainly the key factor is not
that she
was a witness, but what she was a witness of.
The big question is, Why swap scandals? Well let's think, with
scandal-kill-Clinton-fevor going on about the same time Paula Jones stuck her
head
out of the sand, and the fact that as soon as Monica became a big player the
common
american mind forgot about Filegate, and Travelgate, and Whitewater, and Vince
Foster, and.... now after Sexgate's tidal wave has passed through Clinton's
poles are
at new highs.
Ever president has a scandal, it is in the nature of the press to build idols
and rip them down, but when a man has 6 seperate scandals then it's time to
stop using the "ohhh poor Bill Clinton victim of the media" excuse and get
back to reality. The truth of the matter is exactly what history has taught
us, the range of tyranny is dependent on the economy.
Addition: After posting this report I found this interesting disclaimer on the
bottom of a
Conspiracy Nation article (the article was something connecting the recent
shooting at
Capital Hill to Clinton's subpeona):
"
---------<< Notes >>------------
{1} Bill Clinton himself is not necessarily involved directly in
either "terrorist incident", OKC bombings or Capitol shootings.
It may be that since certain very wealthy people have a lot of
their money invested in the "packaged product," William Jefferson
Clinton, that these wealthy investors do not want to see their
investment, Bill Clinton, plunge in value. These wealthy
investors could be the actual "puppetmasters" pulling the strings
on past murders of potential witnesses (such as Mary Caitrin
Mahoney, murdered at a Starbucks coffee shop in July, 1997) and
on "random" "terrorist incidents."
--
see this site:
http://hail.icestorm.com/alleyb/index.html
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum