Rosemary Jenks testimony before the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee US House of Representatives April 30, 1997, Clinton Gore Citizenship USA CUSA program granted citizenship to likely Democrat voters, 71557 FBI criminal records, Why was this scrubbed on December 9, 2004?

Rosemary Jenks testimony before the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee US House of Representatives April 30, 1997, Clinton Gore Citizenship USA CUSA program granted citizenship to likely Democrat voters, 71557 FBI criminal records, Why was this scrubbed on December 9, 2004?

“In October 1996, in one of the first public accounts of this matter, former Center Senior Fellow Rosemary Jenks testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration about many of the abuses surrounding the Citizenship USA program. Ms. Jenks concluded that due to pressure from the White House, and in particular the Vice President’s office, the Immigration and Naturalization Service disregarded many of the requirements of the naturalization process that ensure that only qualified immigrants with no significant criminal history may become citizens. She subsequently testified before the House immigration subcommittee on the same matter, in April 1997. Her remarks before that committee may be found at http://www.house.gov/judiciary/666.htm.”…David Schippers October 2000

“Why did the US House of Representatives website scrub the April 30, 1997 testimony of Rosemary Jenks on December 9, 2004?”…Citizen Wells

“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration.”…Hillary Clinton, WABC 2003

Statement of

Rosemary Jenks,

Senior Fellow,

Center for Immigration Studies,

Washington, DC

Before the

Immigration and Claims Subcommittee

of the

Committee on the Judiciary

of the

United States House of Representatives

April 30, 1997

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Rosemary Jenks, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit, non-advocacy research institution. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss an issue that is central to our national identity, the bond that holds us united as one people: United States citizenship. United States citizenship is the most valuable and the most cherished privilege our nation can bestow upon an individual. It is a privilege that is sought by millions around the world. It carries with it the right to travel freely, to hold certain public offices and to petition for the immigration of family members. Most importantly, however, it carries with it the right, and the responsibility, to take part in shaping and securing the future of this country by voting for elected officials at all levels of government.

The requirements for naturalization are set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Among other things, applicants are required to submit an application form, the N-400, a copy of their alien registration card, the “green card,” fingerprints, photographs and a fee of $95 to the INS. In general, they must prove that they are at least 18 years of age; that they have resided in the United States as lawful permanent residents for a minimum of five years (unless they marry a U.S. citizen, in which case it is three years); that they are able to read, write, speak and understand English; that they have at least a minimal knowledge of U.S. history and government; that they are of good moral character; and that they do not have a serious criminal record. Upon receiving the N-400 and the accompanying paper work, INS enters the information into an INS database and forwards the fingerprints to the FBI for a criminal record check. As of November 29, 1996, INS policy is to wait for a definitive response from the FBI regarding the criminal record check before scheduling an interview with the applicant. During the interview, INS examiners (or District Adjudications Officers, DAOs) review the information on the N-400 and test the applicant’s knowledge of English, history and civics, unless he or she presents a certificate from one of the non-government testing entities. If all the requirements are met, the application is approved and the applicant is scheduled for a swearing in ceremony. Otherwise, the application is either denied or continued, depending on the nature of the problem.

Citizenship USA

At the start of FY 1994, when Commissioner Meissner took office, some 270,000 N-400 applications were pending (not including any that had been received, but not been entered into the computer). The number of N-400 applications received in FY 1994 (543,353) surpassed FY 1993 receipts (521,866) by only 21,487. At the beginning of FY 1995, however, the backlog of applications had grown to more than 314,000 and INS expected a surge in new applications because of a combination of factors, including the 2.7 million beneficiaries of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) amnesty becoming eligible based on the five-years residence requirement, the passage of Proposition 187 in California in November 1994, and legislative proposals to bar noncitizens from certain means-tested welfare benefits.

To prepare for this expected surge, an INS working group conducted a survey in June 1994 of ways to streamline the naturalization process. Then, in April of 1995, Commissioner Meissner contracted a management consulting firm, PRC, to work with INS staff to overhaul the naturalization process. PRC and the INS staff conducted a four-week review of the process and produced a “radical redesign” of naturalization. The final report, issued in May 1995, is called Results in 30 Days: Re-Engineering the Naturalization Process. Among other things, it recommends that INS develop strong partnerships with “Service Providers”–community-based organizations (CBOs) and voluntary agencies (VOLAGS)–which would involve “total sharing of information, joint decision making, and aggressive coloration aimed at best meeting the needs of the applicant.” It recommends the introduction of high-tech, fully automated and integrated systems to facilitate data entry and criminal background checks, in addition to automatically triggering “pre-qualified ‘invitations’ to immigrants as they become legally eligible for citizenship.” It adds that “long-standing interpretations of eligibility laws and regulations will be reviewed to…[focus] upon meeting the demands of today’s eligible customers.” Finally, it concludes that processing time from submission “to approval will be reduced to ‘same day service’ for 80% of the applicants.”

In June, 1995, Commissioner Meissner submitted a request that the naturalization program be designated as a “Reinvention Lab” under the auspices of Vice President Gore’s National Performance Review (NPR). Her request letter and subsequent INS documentation make clear that the PRC report was to provide the basis for the “re-engineering” of the naturalization process.

In the meantime, N-400 applications were on the rise and examiners were being overwhelmed. District Offices lacked the equipment they needed to process N-400s efficiently. Many offices did not have access to the Naturalization Automated Case System (NACS) database, and those that did were experiencing problems with it.

Commissioner Meissner unveiled the “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) initiative on August 31, 1995. The stated objective of CUSA, at least initially, was “to become current” on N-400 applications, meaning that applications would be processed from start to citizenship within six months, by the end of FY 1996. INS designated five “CUSA cities,” including Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Miami and Chicago, which had the largest numbers of pending cases when the program started. Resources, including personnel, equipment and building space, were to be funneled into these five cities, which would serve as the “Reinvention Labs.”

The naturalization initiative was approved as an NPR Reinvention Lab on September 5, 1995. On September 11, Commissioner Meissner forwarded to all field offices the executive summary of the PRC report with a memo explaining its origin and asking for comments. She wrote that “wherever possible, we will use validated re-engineering techniques as outlined in the PRC report to attack the caseload.” She added that the report offers “a basic road map for change.”

In January 1996, INS implemented a “Direct Mail” initiative in all the CUSA cities except San Francisco. Under this system, N-400s are mailed directly to one of the four INS Service Centers (Vermont Service Center (VSC), Nebraska Service Center (NSC), Texas Service Center (TSC) and California Service Center (CSC)) instead of being submitted to District Offices. The Service Centers are supposed to enter the application data into NACS and pull the fingerprint cards and submit them daily to the FBI.

The implementation of the Direct Mail initiative resulted in almost immediate chaos. Neither Service Center staff nor District Offices fully understood the new procedures. INS offices around the country were being overwhelmed by the increase in N-400 applications–the largest group of aliens amnestied in 1986 had met the five-year residence requirement by December 1995. CUSA offices, in addition to being inundated with backlogged and new cases, were attempting to adopt the new “re-engineered” and streamlined adjudication process, thus compounding the confusion. Non-CUSA offices had been forced to detail some portion of their resources, mainly personnel, to the CUSA offices, so they, too, were falling behind. The number of N-400 applications pending on October 1, 1995 surpassed 800,000, and new applications were being received in record numbers.

On May 1, 1996, INS Associate Commissioner for Examinations Louis Crocetti announced in a memo to all field offices that the “new ideas and innovative procedures” that were tested at CUSA sites with “remarkable results,” were to be expanded Servicewide to all offices. As the nationwide expansion of these “Streamlining Initiatives” was predicated on the “remarkable results” of the pilots in the CUSA cities, a brief look at those results is warranted.

Adjudication Speed–The five CUSA cities managed to accelerate naturalization processing times from more than one year in many cases to six months. This allowed the INS to meet its goal of adjudicating more than one million naturalization applications in FY 1996, but only at great cost to the integrity of the system.

FBI Fingerprint Checks–A February 1994 report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Justice Department identified three major problems with the INS policy on fingerprint checks: 1) the INS had no way to verify that the fingerprints submitted by an applicant actually belonged to that applicant since the INS was no longer taking the fingerprints itself; 2) some applications were wrongly approved because the FBI had not completed the criminal history check before the interview was scheduled or because the FBI “hit” had not been properly filed; and 3) INS often did not resubmit new fingerprint cards when the FBI rejected the original set as illegible. OIG found that 5.4 percent of aliens submitting applications for benefits had an arrest record. The top reasons for arrest were immigration violations/deportation proceedings (32%), assault/battery/rape (19%), theft/robbery/burglary (18%) and drug possession/distribution (10%). A December 1994 General Accounting Office (GAO) report identified the same problems with the INS fingerprint policy.

The “streamlined” naturalization process did not address any of these problems, but instead, exacerbated them. The INS still had no way to verify that the fingerprints an applicant submitted actually belonged to the applicant. In May 1995, the INS published a proposed rule to require that all applicants have their fingerprints taken by an INS-certified “designated fingerprint service” (DFS). Personnel at these DFSs would be properly trained to take fingerprints and fill out the necessary paperwork, and they would be required to ask for identification showing that the person named on the fingerprint card was the same person being fingerprinted. The final rule, however, was not published until June 1996, and final implementation was delayed from November 1, 1996 to March 1, 1997 to insure that INS had certified an adequate number of DFSs.

Fingerprint cards were supposed to be mailed by the Service Centers to the FBI on a daily basis to insure that the FBI had adequate time to run the criminal history check. In March 1996, however, the FBI did a sampling of receipts from 20 INS offices. Over 60 percent of the fingerprint cards received from Los Angeles had been at the Los Angeles office for more than 30 days before they were submitted. For the New York City office, 90 percent had been at the office for more than 30 days. At the same time the INS was dramatically increasing the workload of the FBI, it was, in practice, cutting the FBI’s response time.

The preliminary results of the INS internal review of naturalization applications approved during CUSA, as presented to the Subcommittee by Assistant Attorney General for Administration Stephen Colgate clearly show that the problems were severe. Of the 1,049,872 immigrants granted U.S. citizenship under CUSA:

71, 557 were found to have FBI criminal records, including INS administrative actions (e.g., deportation proceedings or other immigration violations), and misdemeanor and felony arrests and convictions;

Of these 71,557, 10,800 had at least one felony arrest, 25,500 had at least one misdemeanor arrest, but no felonies, and 34,700 had only administrative actions initiated against them;

113,126 had only name checks because their fingerprint cards were returned to the INS by the FBI because they were illegible;

66,398 did not have FBI criminal record checks because their fingerprint cards were never submitted to the FBI by the INS; and

2,573 were still being processed by the FBI.

As of late February 1997, 168 of these new citizens had been found to be “presumptively, statutorily ineligible” for naturalization based on their criminal record, and in another 2,800 cases, it could not be determined based on available information whether they were eligible or not.

It is important to note that none of the numbers given above indicates the degree to which applicants for naturalization lied on their applications, thereby committing perjury, which should make them ineligible for naturalization. They also do not indicate the number of applicants who may have submitted someone else’s fingerprints to avoid having their criminal record revealed. Finally, for the 180,000 applicants whose fingerprints were illegible or never submitted, the INS has no way to go back and check because it is not legally allowed to require citizens to resubmit their fingerprints. Thus, unless these new citizens volunteer to have their fingerprints taken, we will never know if they were actually eligible or not.

Personnel–Temporary workers comprised most of the additional personnel for CUSA. Some 900 temporary adjudicators and clerical workers were hired by INS to accomplish the goal of naturalizing over a million people in FY 1996. As of June 1996, the Inspector General was investigating the training standards for these temporary workers, along with those workers who were detailed from other agencies or offices. In August 1996, the INS conducted an evaluation of the CUSA training program and found two major deficiencies in the program: 1) personnel were poorly trained in doing the computer checks that, among other things, tell whether an applicant is in deportation proceedings or has had other administration actions taken against him or her; and 2) training in the procedures to deny an application were inadequate at best.

These results point to a larger problem that has since been confirmed by INS employees and by the recent KPMG Peat Marwick review of the implementation of the November 29, 1996 naturalization policy changes. A training program that teaches personnel good customer relations, but not how to do computer checks or deny applications sends an implicit message that it is more important to keep the applicant happy and approve the application than it is to maintain the integrity of the process and demand compliance with the regulations. This is precisely the message that many INS adjudicators received, not only from their training, but also from their supervisors. A number of INS employees testified, under oath, last fall that adjudicators feel pressured by their supervisors to “approve, approve, approve;” that good moral character standards are being ignored; that representatives of Community Based Organizations (CBOs) complain to supervisors about adjudicators who continue or deny applications, and that sometimes those adjudicators are removed from their duties; that adjudicators who go on outreach interviews have to provide copies of their tally sheets (showing approvals, denials and continueds) to the CBO representatives; that adjudicators have been told by their supervisors that they are not IRS agents and so shouldn’t concern themselves with possible tax fraud, even though it is inconsistent with the good moral character requirement.

Volunteer workers were also utilized by many INS offices. These volunteers included members of CBOs, family members of INS employees, and, in at least one case, legal permanent residents. These volunteers performed clerical duties, including filing, mailed naturalization certificates, and collected Alien Registration Cards and distributed naturalization certificates at citizenship ceremonies, among other things. According to INS employees, this practice continued even after INS Headquarters Counsel notified Regional Directors that it is a violation of Federal law for a government agency to use volunteers to perform duties that are normally performed by agency personnel, as it constitutes an unauthorized augmentation of the agency appropriation.

Testing Fraud

In addition to internal INS problems with the naturalization process, there is well-documented evidence of widespread fraud in the testing of naturalization applicants by outside (i.e., non-government) testing entities (OTEs). In 1991, the INS established criteria under which OTEs, including for-profit businesses, could be authorized to administer standardized tests to determine a naturalization applicant’s ability to read and write in English, along with his or her knowledge of history and civics. The INS criteria do not require that administrators of the tests be U.S. citizens or have criminal history checks in order to be approved.

The tests are comprised mainly of multiple choice questions, but applicants also have to write two simple sentences that are dictated to them. Five OTEs currently are authorized to administer these tests: Educational Testing Service (ETS), Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS), Southeast College, Marich Associates and American College Testing (ACT). (There was a sixth OTE, Naturalization Assistance Services (NAS), until earlier this year when its authorization was terminated after repeated instances of fraud.) These OTEs in turn may license community based organizations (CBOs) and other affiliates to administer the tests on their behalf. However, neither INS, nor the individual OTEs, are able to monitor all the affiliates to ensure that requirements relating to the security of the tests or the integrity of the testing are met.

Reports of testing fraud at affiliates of the OTEs, which first surfaced in 1992, began to increase dramatically in late 1994. INS examiners came across increasing numbers of naturalization applicants who, despite having an OTE test certificate, were unable to communicate in or understand English. Some affiliates were charging as much as $850 to prepare and test immigrants. Examples of documented fraud during the administration of the tests include test proctors pointing to the correct answers on the answer sheet, tests being given in the applicants’ native language instead of English, and the sentences being written on a blackboard so applicants simply have to copy them. Some affiliates guaranteed that, as long as applicants could sign their names in English, they would pass the test. Affiliates were using print media–often ethnic newspapers–radio and television ads to advertise their services. Some ads included false promises and/or blatant lies, but there were no regulations governing the ads’ contents.

In April 1996, INS Headquarters sent instructions to the field offices on procedures to follow to report and initiate investigations of complaints of testing fraud. In May 1996, after it was notified of an investigation into testing fraud by the television show “20/20,” INS Headquarters sent a memo to field offices with guidelines on conducting unannounced on-site inspections of testing sites. The guidelines required each District Office to visit one site per quarter.

During the past couple of months, I have been contacted by the directors of two separate testing affiliates operating in separate regions of the country. Both told me that fraud in the outside testing entities continues, with unauthorized groups administering tests and issuing counterfeit certificates, applicants cheating on the tests, tests being given in the applicants’ native language, and in one case, the director of an authorized affiliate simply filling out the answer forms for the applicants. They also told me about designated fingerprint services (DFSs) selling clean fingerprints to applicants, accepting inadequate identification, such as letters from family members or friends attesting to the person’s identity, and accepting blatantly false identification.

Like the criteria for OTEs, those for DFSs do not require that the person taking the fingerprints be a U.S. citizen or have a criminal record check done. While many of the DFSs are police departments, others raise questions about the judgement of the INS in the selection process. Some of the more interesting DFSs are: Harbor Liquors in Baltimore; Biscayne Haircutters in Miami; and Express Courier Service in Passaic, NJ. Hermandad Mexicana Nacional in Ontario, CA and Pookies Post and Parcel in Pasadena, CA had applications pending at the end of February 1997.

INS Responds

The National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice Subcommittee of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee held the first hearing on the Citizenship USA program on September 24, 1996, after it had subpoenaed and sorted through thousands of pages of INS documents, memos and e-mails detailing most of the problems described herein. Despite the evidence, CUSA Project Director David Rosenberg testified at that hearing that, as a result of CUSA, the INS had “successfully reduced processing times for citizenship applications nationwide to traditional levels while maintaining the integrity of the citizenship process. We have initiated major improvements to naturalization procedures and operations.”

The Senate Immigration Subcommittee held a hearing on naturalization practices on October 9, 1996, in which the former Executive Associate Commissioner for Programs, Alexander Aleinikoff, testified that, as a result of CUSA, the INS had “reduced processing times for citizenship applications nationwide to traditional levels while maintaining the integrity of the citizenship process, and [had] initiated major improvements to naturalization procedures and operations.”

On October 18, 1996, in an official INS response to Senator Alan Simpson regarding testimony I presented at the October 9 Senate hearing, Commissioner Meissner wrote that, under CUSA, the INS had “made numerous improvements to the [naturalization] process, and [had] addressed this workload with efficiency and integrity.”

Sometime between late October and late November 1996, INS officials realized that the problems with the naturalization process could no longer be ignored. On November 29, 1996, Commissioner Meissner sent a memo to the field offices detailing new “Naturalization Quality Procedures.” The memo outlined seven “key enhancements” to the naturalization process, including: 1) standardization of work process; 2) fingerprint check integrity; 3) enhanced supervisory review; 4) instructions regarding the use of temporary files; 5) implementation of a quality assurance program; 6) guidance regarding revocation procedures; and 7) requirements for increased monitoring of OTEs. The new procedures were effective upon receipt.

In a joint hearing before this Subcommittee and the National Security Subcommittee on March 5, 1997, Commissioner Meissner testified that the new procedures “have eliminated the possibility of naturalization cases being completed without verification of an FBI fingerprint check.” She concluded by saying, “It is very important that Congress and the American people understand the validity of these corrections we have made to the naturalization process….We made mistakes in Citizenship USA…We have corrected those mistakes and have put into place a series of new measures to prevent them in the future.”

The recently-released KPMG Peat Marwick review of the implementation of these new measures brings into question the ability, and the willingness, of INS management to seriously address the problems with the naturalization procedures. The fact that three of the 23 offices surveyed did not even have the correct copy of the new procedures clearly points to a severe lack of communication between INS Headquarters and field offices. It is interesting to note here that, once a draft of the review was given to the INS, Commissioner Meissner called all the District Directors to Washington for a briefing and sent 200 naturalization personnel to a training course. Perhaps if those actions had been taken when the new policies were first implemented, the review would have found better results. Such actions also may have helped to communicate the sense of urgency the reviewers found lacking at the field level.

Despite the fact that field offices had been issued guidelines on monitoring outside testing entities in May 1996, as well as the “enhanced” monitoring procedures in the November 29 memo, the KPMG Peat Marwick review team was “frequently informed that INS Headquarters [not the field offices] was responsible for monitoring all outside testing agencies.”

That three of the service processing centers, along with three field offices, had the wrong FBI address is patently absurd. Most worrisome is the report’s conclusion that “the INS continues to have the most significant control problems with the fingerprint process and the identification of statutorily-barred applicants.”

Recommendations for Improvement

Congress and the American people were assured repeatedly by the INS over the last year that there were no major problems with the naturalization process under Citizenship USA. Then, we were assured that, if there were any problems, they had been fixed. Now, we know that these assurances were unfounded. The Justice Department is correct that the process needs a major overhaul from top to bottom. However, we must be somewhat cautious in our expectations of the re-engineering of the process by Coopers and Lybrand; after all, previous re-engineering efforts got us where we are today.

It is important to recognize that many of the problems with the naturalization process have existed for many years. It is equally important to recognize that any attempt to speed up the adjudication of applications without first addressing the underlying problems will only exacerbate them, as happened under the Citizenship USA program.

The INS was well aware at least as far back as 1993 that naturalization applications would rise dramatically in 1995 simply because the 2.7 million amnestied aliens would become eligible. And yet, all of a sudden in 1995, there was a frantic rush to hire new employees and accelerate an outdated system that had already reached its limits. Had the millions of dollars now being spent on re-engineering, reviewing and auditing the naturalization process been invested in computer equipment, electronic fingerprint scanners and personnel training, we likely would not be having this discussion.

The Coopers and Lybrand review of the process is expected to take 18 months to two years to complete. The naturalization process cannot wait that long. The INS expects 1.8 million new applications this year, and they must not be adjudicated under the conditions described in the KPMG Peat Marwick review. There are a number of areas that need immediate improvement:

In order to process these applications, the INS desperately needs an updated and integrated computer system, just as any business needs to process orders. Scanners, which now have accuracy rates of 90 percent or better, could be used to minimize the data entry workload. Eventually, the INS needs to integrate some of its numerous data bases to facilitate status checks and ensure that immigrants being deported by one branch of the INS are not naturalized by another. Paper files must become a thing of the past. One of the biggest problems throughout the INS is its inability to locate paper files on a timely basis.

The INS also needs to prioritize its electronic fingerprint pilot program. Police departments around the country use electronic fingerprint scanners to identify criminals in a matter of minutes, rather than waiting anywhere from two to six months as the INS does. Electronic scanners could reduce naturalization processing time to a matter of days.

Most importantly, the INS needs to train its personnel adequately. Each adjudicator must know how to use the computer system to check an applicant’s status, to ensure the applicant is not in deportation proceedings, and to update the applicant’s file. Adjudicators must be trained not only in customer relations, but also in the procedures used to deny an application. They should have a clear understanding of what they should be looking for during the interview. Standardized interview guidelines would be helpful. Finally, every adjudicator must understand that the integrity of the naturalization process is always more important than expediency. INS Headquarters should strongly discourage supervisors from rating employees based on the number of applications they process, instead of the way in which they process the applications. A short delay in the process is a much smaller problem for the INS than the granting of citizenship to a child molester.

Crimes that constitute a lack of good moral character, including perjury, should be standardized, rather than being left to the discretion of individual adjudicators.

Both Congress and the INS must recognize that the INS will always have less control over the integrity of those parts of the process that it farms out to other organizations, such as testing and fingerprinting.

– If the INS is going to continue to use OTEs for language, history and civics testing, it must require: 1) that all administrators of the tests be U.S. citizens and undergo criminal background checks; 2) that the OTEs register all testers and insist that they wear photo identification badges while administering tests; and 3) proof from the OTEs that every affiliate has passed at least one undercover inspection each year.

– If the INS is going to continue to use DFSs to take fingerprints, it should certify only law enforcement agencies. INS adjudicators can use the interview to check an applicants knowledge of English, but there is no secondary check if an applicant submits someone else’s fingerprints to avoid having a criminal record uncovered. This is too integral a part of the naturalization process to leave it to those who may have a vested interest, financial or otherwise, in allowing fraud.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.”

https://www.scribd.com/document/322152630/Rosemary-Jenks-testimony-before-the-Immigration-and-Claims-Subcommittee-of-the-Committee-on-the-Judiciary-of-the-U-S-House-of-Representatives-April-3

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/wp-admin/

 

 

Hillary Clinton, “The devil’s in that woman”, Part 2, Hillary role in Vince Foster death, FBI agents claim Hillary ‘triggered’ suicide of President Bill Clinton’s counsel Vince Foster when she attacked and humiliated him in front of White House staff one week before his death

Hillary Clinton, “The devil’s in that woman”, Part 2, Hillary role in Vince Foster death, FBI agents claim Hillary ‘triggered’ suicide of President Bill Clinton’s counsel Vince Foster when she attacked and humiliated him in front of White House staff one week before his death

“The only question that remains today is whether or not Hillary Clinton gets away with another cover-up, like she did in the Vince Foster case, and runs for President in 2016, or will she finally be held accountable, and Americans learn the truth about the Benghazi terrorist attack?”…Canada Free Press December 18, 2012

“I think that it was Hillary all the way. I think that she’s the mean-spirited one. She’s the ideologue, she’s the flaming left-wing socialist liberal. She’s a bad person with a criminal mind.”…Jerry Falwell

“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion

 

 

Yesterday we learned that FBI files linking Hillary Clinton to the ‘suicide’ of White House counsel Vince Foster have vanished from the National Archives.

From the Daily Mail August 23, 2016.

“EXCLUSIVE: Missing: FBI files linking Hillary Clinton to the ‘suicide’ of White House counsel Vince Foster have vanished from the National Archives
Documents describing Hillary Clinton’s role in the death of White House counsel Vince Foster have vanished, Daily Mail Online has learned after an extensive investigation”

“FBI agents’ reports of interviews documenting that Hillary Clinton’s stinging humiliation of her friend and mentor Vince Foster in front of White House aides triggered his suicide a week later are missing from where they should be filed at the National Archives, Daily Mail Online has learned exclusively.

On two separate occasions, this author visited the National Archives and Records Service in College Park, Md., to review the reports generated by FBI agents assigned to investigate the 1993 death of Bill Clinton’s deputy White House counsel.

The FBI found that a week before Vince Foster’s suicide, Hillary held a meeting at the White House with Foster and other top aides during which she berated the lawyer

On the first visit, archivist David Paynter provided the box of records that he said contained the FBI reports of interviews conducted by FBI agents on Foster’s death.

On a second visit, archivist James Mathis provided what he said were those same documents.

While the box contained dozens of FBI reports concerning Foster’s death – including interviews with the medical examiner, U.S. Park Police officers, and White House aides about the contents of Foster’s office –  the reports on Hillary Clinton’s role in his death were absent.

After filing a Freedom of Information request with the National Archives, Martha Murphy, the archives’ public liaison, reported that she directed a senior archivist to conduct a more thorough review of the relevant FBI files, including those that had not been previously made public in response to FOIA requests.

‘He examined all eight boxes but found no interviews by any investigator that detail either a meeting between Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster or the effects of a meeting between Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster on Vince Foster’s state of mind,’ Murphy reported in an email.

‘We did not limit ourselves to interviews by the two individuals [FBI agents] you mention.’

While Murphy said the archives searched for ‘the records that would be responsive to your request’ and concluded that they could not be found, when asked for comment, John Valceanu, the archives’ director of communications and marketing, said, ‘We do not agree with your conclusion that the records you requested are missing from the National Archives simply because we were unable to locate any responsive records in response to your request.’

While confirming that the records could not be located, Valceanu held out the possibility that the FBI interviews were not filed where they should have been and were somewhere else in the more than 3,000 boxes of records amounting to 7.5 million pages generated by the Starr investigation.

This is not the first time documents related to the Clintons have apparently vanished from the National Archive.”

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3753013/Missing-FBI-files-linking-Hillary-Clinton-suicide-White-House-counsel-Vince-Foster-vanished-National-Archives.html#ixzz4ICd3gdRI

From the Daily Mail June 3,  2016.

“EXCLUSIVE: Hillary ‘triggered’ suicide of President Bill Clinton’s counsel Vince Foster when she attacked and humiliated him in front of White House staff one week before his death, FBI agents claim”

“In interviewing Clinton White House aides and Foster’s friends and family, the FBI found that a week before Foster’s death, Hillary held a meeting at the White House with Foster and other top aides to discuss her proposed health care legislation.

Hillary violently disagreed with a legal objection Foster raised at the meeting and ridiculed him in front of his peers, former FBI agent Coy Copeland and former FBI supervisory agent Jim Clemente told me.

Copeland was Starr’s senior investigator and read the reports of other agents working for Starr.

During the White House meeting, Hillary continued to humiliate Foster mercilessly, both former FBI agents say.

‘Hillary put him down really, really bad in a pretty good-size meeting,’ Copeland says. ‘She told him he didn’t get the picture, and he would always be a little hick town lawyer who was obviously not ready for the big time.’

Indeed, Hillary went so far as to blame Foster for all the Clintons’ problems and accuse him of failing them, according to Clemente, who was also assigned by the FBI to the Starr investigation and who probed the circumstances surrounding Foster’s suicide.

‘Foster was profoundly depressed, but Hillary lambasting him was the final straw because she publicly embarrassed him in front of others,’ says Clemente, speaking about the investigation for the first time.

‘Hillary blamed him for failed nominations, claimed he had not vetted them properly, and said in front of his White House colleagues, “You’re not protecting us” and “You have failed us,” Clemente says. ‘That was the final blow.’

After the meeting, Foster’s behavior changed dramatically, the FBI agents found. Those who knew him said his voice sounded strained, he became withdrawn and preoccupied, and his sense of humor vanished. At times, Foster teared up.

He talked of feeling trapped. On Tuesday, July 13, 1993, while having dinner with his wife Lisa, Foster broke down and began to cry. He said he was considering resigning. That weekend, Foster and his wife drove to the Eastern Shore of Maryland, where they saw their friends, Michael Cardoza and Webster Hubbell, and their wives.

‘They played tennis, they swam, and they said he sat in a lawn chair, just kind of sat there in the lawn chair,’ Copeland says. ‘They said that just was not Vince. He loved to play tennis, and he was always sociable, but he just sat over in the corner by himself and stared off into space, reading a book.

Two days later, Foster left the White House parking lot at 1.10 p.m. The precise time when he shot himself could not be pinpointed. After Park Police found his body, they notified the U.S. Secret Service at 8.30 p.m.

Based on what ‘dozens’ of others who had contact with Foster after that meeting told the agents, while Foster was already depressed, ‘the put-down that she gave him in that big meeting just pushed him over the edge,’ Copeland says. ‘It was the final straw that broke the camel’s back.’

No one can explain a suicide in rational terms. But the FBI investigation concluded that it was Hillary’s vilification of Foster in front of other White House aides, coming on top of his depression, that triggered his suicide about a week later, Copeland and Clemente both say.”

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3620742/Hillary-triggered-suicide-President-Bill-Clinton-s-counsel-Vince-Foster-attacked-humiliated-White-House-staff-one-week-death-FBI-agents-claim.html

Here is more information on Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster from older sources.

From NewsMax November 17, 1998 via Citizen News.

— Hubbell’s relationship with the Clintons goes back to the 1970s. In fact, Webster Hubbell’s father-in-law, Seth Ward (another mystery figure in the Whitewater saga) was one of the members of the Little Rock Airport Commission that hired Hillary as its lawyer in 1978 after dumping another attorney.

— In 1983, Hubbell, Hillary, and her purported lover Vince Foster joined in an investment scheme that named each other (rather than their spouses) as beneficiaries, according to Clinton biographer Roger Morris.

— In the mid-1980s Hubbell helped to draft the legislation that allowed the later notorious Arkansas Development Finance Authority to take over most of the best state bond business. The bonds, involving hundreds of millions of dollars, were personally approved by Clinton and his cronies with the details handled by the brokerage firm of subsequently jailed drug distributor and Roger Clinton drug debt underwriter Dan Lasater. AFDA became a political piggy bank for Clinton’s friends or, as we say these days, his golf buddies.

— According to Morris, Hubbell, Hillary, and Foster “staged a veritable coup to wrest control of the Rose Law firm in 1988.”

Hillary Clinton Webster Hubbell criminal ties, Newsmax “Hubbell knows where the bodies are buried”, November 17, 1998, Hillary and Hubbell Rose Law Firm, Webster Hubbell convictions and collaborations with Hillary

From Citizen News.

“L. D. Brown started his career in law enforcement as a guard at the notorious Tucker prison in Arkansas. In the Arkansas State Police he was assigned to the security detail of then-Governor Bill Clinton. Brown developed a close friendship with Clinton that would last for years. Clinton helped Brown gain admission to the Central Intelligence Agency where he witnessed cocaine smuggling that led to his breakup with Clinton. After leaving the C.I.A. and the Arkansas State Police, Brown earned a Ph.D. degree and now operates a consulting firm in Little Rock, Arkansas. A father of four and married in his fourteenth year to wife Becky, Brown is a fellow of the American Political Science Association and a member of the British Political Science Association.”

“On Nov. 10, 1997, Brown gave a deposition at the DoubleTree Hotel in Little Rock. The text of the deposition, published in full by The Washington Post on March 13, 1998, was released by Paula Jones’s lawyers, as part of their response to the Clinton legal team’s motion for summary judgement.”

“Now that Hillary Clinton, from all indications, has her eyes set on running for president in 2016The National Enquirer undertook a special investigation and succeeded in tracking down a testimony that L.D. Brown had made under oath during a government investigation into the mysterious 1993 suicide of the Clintons’ White House lawyer, Vince Foster. In his testimony, Brown said that Bill and Hillary Clinton are wild “swingers” – a bombshell disclosure 
that can ruin her chances of winning the White House in 2016.

Recall that it was the Enquirer — when other media refused to — that alone pursued and broke the scandalous story of then-Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards’ adultery and “love child” with political groupie Rielle Hunter. (See “John Edwards, a cad to the end“)”

“Bob Hartlein reports for The National Enquirer, Nov. 14, 2014, that in his sworn testimony, Officer L.D. Brown said he had eyewitnessed the wife-swapping of Bill, Hillary, and their respective lovers.

Brown told independent counsel Kenneth Starr that he was guarding then-Arkansas Governor Clinton and his wife at a Little Rock restaurant while they dined in a private dining room with two other couples.

What happened was “a diagonal swap,” bolstered by booze. Officer Brown watched in astonishment as Hillary and Vince kissed and fondled each other, while Vince’s wife looked on. Bill sat just a few feet away, kissing and hugging the wife of the third couple, whom Brown described as a “beautiful, gleaming Kewpie doll with brains.”

When the couples left the restaurant, Brown said Hillary and Foster were “drunk, kissing passionately,” and Foster had “his hand on Hillary’s rear and is just squeezing it all to hell.”

Brown also said both Bill and Hillary had admitted to him that they had an “openmarriage.” Bill referred to the wife-swapping, saying: “We need to be happy, satisfied. Some people are satisfied in different ways!””

L.D. Brown Witness in the Clinton Investigation, Bill and Hillary Clinton are wild swingers, Wife swapping, Vince Foster affair, Hillary lies on marriage not supported by her actions

From NewsMax December 16, 1998 via Citizen News.

“With his Dec. 14 deposition of key White House witness Linda Tripp, Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman obtained the most important testimony to date about the collection of over 1000 confidential FBI files by White House aides D. Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca in 1993 and 1994.

Tripp’s bombshell revelations included an account of Livingstone’s firsthand admission that he was brought to the White House at the First Lady’s direction. “He told me Mrs. Clinton hired him,” Tripp recalled, dating Livingstone’s comment to “shortly after my arrival in the counsel’s office.” Tripp was a Bush administration holdover who worked in the Clinton White House from its onset.

Tripp’s sworn testimony also implicated Mrs. Clinton in potential Filegate illegality. The Judicial Watch witness recounted a conversation between Associate White House Counsel William Kennedy and Clinton damage controller Marsha Scott, where Scott briefed Kennedy on plans to upload information from the illegally obtained FBI files into the White House computer database. By Tripp’s account, the Scott-Kennedy conversation revealed that Mrs. Clinton herself inititated the plan.
In his November depositon to Judicial Watch, Kennedy admitted that he kept stacks of FBI files piled on his White House office desk. In a Tuesday interview with FOX News’ Hannity & Colmes, Judicial Watch Chairman Klayman said that Tripp told him one of the FBI files she saw in Kennedy’s office was labeled “Clinger”. Pennsylvania Rep. William Clinger chaired the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, which conducted extensive hearings into both the Filegate and Travelgate scandals in 1995 and 1996.

In 1994, Clinger also conducted his own independent review of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster’s death. Though neither Klayman nor Tripp noted the date when Tripp saw the Clinger file on Kennedy’s desk, the chronology of Tripp and Kennedy’s White House work history suggests that it was the Foster matter, and not later investigations into the other two scandals, which would have prompted White House interest in William Clinger’s FBI file.

According to Klayman, White House Counsel Office secretary Betsy Pond confirmed to Tripp that the files she saw came from the FBI.

During her deposition, Tripp also recalled a visit to Vincent Foster’s office shortly after a gathering there, which included key Travelgate figures Harry Thomason, David Watkins, and Catherine Cornelius. Tripp said Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, Maggie Williams, was also present. In a memo written months after the Travelgate erupted, Watkins noted that if he and Foster had failed to implement Mrs. Clinton’s order to fire the Travel Office staff, there would be “hell to pay.””

Linda Tripp Blows Lid Off Filegate Cover-Up Tells of Lewinsky’s “Death List” Warning, NewsMax December 16, 1998, Deposition of key White House witness Linda Tripp, Sworn testimony implicated Mrs. Clinton in potential Filegate illegality, Trip saw FBI files at White House

From NewsMax November 4, 1999 via Citizen News.

“A new documentary film on the Waco massacre ties late Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to the April 19, 1993, conflagration that took the lives of more than 50 adults and two dozen children.”

“It’s long been known that Hubbell was the Justice Department’s point man on Waco. But the roles played by Foster and Mrs. Clinton have been overlooked until now.

For evidence of a Foster connection, McNulty sources Dennis Sculimbrene, a retired FBI agent formerly assigned to conduct background checks at the Clinton White House.

His partner, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich, left the bureau in 1996 after it sought to delay the publication of Aldrich’s bombshell White House tell-all Unlimited Access.

Both Aldrich and Sculimbrene worked closely with the White House counsel’s office and dealt with Foster frequently.

In the film, Sculimbrene says on camera:

“[Foster] had a lot of things on his plate, the firing of the travel office being one of them. But nobody was killed in that. What I really think was on his mind was Waco. To this day, I don’t understand what he meant by ‘the FBI lied.’”

Three months after Waco, Foster was found shot to death in a Virginia park. Investigators have ruled his death a suicide.

In a note officials say Foster wrote 10 days earlier, the fomer Rose firm lawyer complained, “The FBI lied to the AG [attorney general].” Though handwriting experts disagree on the authenticity of that note, those who believe Foster wrote it suggest it shows that he suspected Attorney General Janet Reno had been tricked into approving the deadly Waco raid.

FBI lab whistleblower Fredric Whitehurst, narrator ofWaco: A New Revelation, explains:

“In this FBI-302 report, Mrs. Foster indicates that her husband was troubled by the deaths of the children at Waco and believed that everything was his fault.””

““One of the interesting things that happens in an investigation is that you get anonymous phone calls. And we in fact received anonymous phone calls from Justice Department managers and attorneys who believe that pressure was placed on Janet Reno by Webb Hubbell, and pressure that came from the first lady of the United States.”

At a post-screening press conference, Bell explained that phone logs suggest Hillary, Foster and Hubbell worked on Waco together:

“Those phone logs were Webb Hubbell’s phone logs. There were calls from the first lady and Vince Foster to Webb Hubbell’s office” during the Waco crisis.

Bell said Mrs. Clinton grew more and more impatient as the Waco standoff came to dominate the headlines during the early months of the Clinton administration. It was she, Bell’s source claims, who pressured a reluctant Janet Reno to act.

As zero hour approached, Reno is said to have begged one top aide, “Give me a reason not to do this.””

New documentary links First Lady and Foster to Waco, Hillary Clinton pressured reluctant Janet Reno to act, Phone logs suggest Hillary Foster and Hubbell worked on Waco together, Newsmax November 4, 1999

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

FBI files linking Hillary Clinton to the ‘suicide’ of Vince Foster have vanished from the National Archives, Documents describing Hillary Clinton’s role in the death of White House counsel Vince Foster, First Lady ridiculed him mercilessly in front of his peers

FBI files linking Hillary Clinton to the ‘suicide’ of Vince Foster have vanished from the National Archives, Documents describing Hillary Clinton’s role in the death of White House counsel Vince Foster, First Lady ridiculed him mercilessly in front of his peers

“the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.”…Bob Herbert, NY Times February 26, 2001

“I think that it was Hillary all the way. I think that she’s the mean-spirited one. She’s the ideologue, she’s the flaming left-wing socialist liberal. She’s a bad person with a criminal mind.”…Jerry Falwell

“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion

 

 

From the Daily Mail August 23, 2016.

“EXCLUSIVE: Missing: FBI files linking Hillary Clinton to the ‘suicide’ of White House counsel Vince Foster have vanished from the National Archives
Documents describing Hillary Clinton’s role in the death of White House counsel Vince Foster have vanished, Daily Mail Online has learned after an extensive investigation”

“FBI agents’ reports of interviews documenting that Hillary Clinton’s stinging humiliation of her friend and mentor Vince Foster in front of White House aides triggered his suicide a week later are missing from where they should be filed at the National Archives, Daily Mail Online has learned exclusively.

On two separate occasions, this author visited the National Archives and Records Service in College Park, Md., to review the reports generated by FBI agents assigned to investigate the 1993 death of Bill Clinton’s deputy White House counsel.

The FBI found that a week before Vince Foster's suicide, Hillary held a meeting at the White House with Foster and other top aides during which she berated the lawyer

The FBI found that a week before Vince Foster’s suicide, Hillary held a meeting at the White House with Foster and other top aides during which she berated the lawyer

On the first visit, archivist David Paynter provided the box of records that he said contained the FBI reports of interviews conducted by FBI agents on Foster’s death.

On a second visit, archivist James Mathis provided what he said were those same documents.

While the box contained dozens of FBI reports concerning Foster’s death – including interviews with the medical examiner, U.S. Park Police officers, and White House aides about the contents of Foster’s office –  the reports on Hillary Clinton’s role in his death were absent.

After filing a Freedom of Information request with the National Archives, Martha Murphy, the archives’ public liaison, reported that she directed a senior archivist to conduct a more thorough review of the relevant FBI files, including those that had not been previously made public in response to FOIA requests.

‘He examined all eight boxes but found no interviews by any investigator that detail either a meeting between Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster or the effects of a meeting between Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster on Vince Foster’s state of mind,’ Murphy reported in an email.

‘We did not limit ourselves to interviews by the two individuals [FBI agents] you mention.’

While Murphy said the archives searched for ‘the records that would be responsive to your request’ and concluded that they could not be found, when asked for comment, John Valceanu, the archives’ director of communications and marketing, said, ‘We do not agree with your conclusion that the records you requested are missing from the National Archives simply because we were unable to locate any responsive records in response to your request.’

While confirming that the records could not be located, Valceanu held out the possibility that the FBI interviews were not filed where they should have been and were somewhere else in the more than 3,000 boxes of records amounting to 7.5 million pages generated by the Starr investigation.

This is not the first time documents related to the Clintons have apparently vanished from the National Archive.”

“For unknown reasons, Starr elected to conceal the FBI’s findings in his final report.

But in interviews for my book The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents, the FBI agents revealed the truth about Foster’s death on July 20, 1993 when he shot himself at Fort Marcy Park along the Potomac River.

In interviewing Clinton White House aides and Foster’s friends and family, the FBI found that a week before Foster’s death, Hillary held a meeting at the White House with Foster and other top aides to discuss her proposed health care legislation.

Hillary angrily disagreed with a legal objection Foster raised at the meeting and ridiculed him in front of his peers, former FBI agent Coy Copeland and former FBI supervisory agent Jim Clemente told me. Copeland was Starr’s senior investigator and read the reports of other agents working for Starr.

During the White House meeting, Hillary continued to humiliate Foster mercilessly, according to both former FBI agents, who spoke about the investigation for the first time.

‘Hillary put him down really, really bad in a pretty good-size meeting,’ Copeland says. ‘She told him he didn’t get the picture, and he would always be a little hick town lawyer who was obviously not ready for the big time.’

Indeed, Hillary went so far as to blame Foster for all the Clintons’ problems and to accuse him of failing them, according to Clemente, who was also assigned by the FBI to the Starr investigation and who probed the circumstances surrounding Foster’s suicide.

‘Foster was profoundly depressed, but Hillary lambasting him was the final straw because she publicly embarrassed him in front of others,’ says Clemente.”

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3753013/Missing-FBI-files-linking-Hillary-Clinton-suicide-White-House-counsel-Vince-Foster-vanished-National-Archives.html#ixzz4ICd3gdRI

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Hillary Clinton, “The devil’s in that woman”, Part 1, Hillary role in Clintons war on women, Broaddrick NBC interview: Hillary Clinton tried to silence her, NBC producer No no. We can’t go there, Broaddrick to Hillary: You are cold calculating and self-serving

Hillary Clinton, “The devil’s in that woman”, Part 1, Hillary role in Clintons war on women, Broaddrick NBC interview:  Hillary Clinton tried to silence her, NBC producer  No no. We can’t go there, Broaddrick to Hillary:  You are cold calculating and self-serving

“She enabled his behavior. It’s as simple as that. She looks the other way,” Willey told radio host Aaron Klein on Sunday. “She might throw a tantrum, but she enabled it to happen again and again and again and again. And then she chooses to go after the women that he hooks up with, to ruin them again and again and again and again. And that’s how it works.”…Kathleen Willey

“What did you mean, Hillary? Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to continue to keep quiet? We both know the answer to that question. Yes, I can answer Brit Hume’s question. You are the same Hillary that you were twenty years ago. You are cold, calculating and self-serving. You cannot tolerate the thought that you will soon be without the power you have wielded for the last eight years. Your effort to stay in power will be at the expense of the state of New York. I only hope the voters of New York will wake up in time and realize that Hillary Clinton is not an honorable or an honest person.”…Juanita Broaddrick letter

“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion

 

Many people who were adults during the Clinton Administration and probably most millennials do not understand how evil and corrupt Bill and Hillary Clinton are.

Many believe that Bill Clinton got into trouble and was prosecuted for fooling around in office with Monica Lewinsky.

These people must be informed that the immoral and illegal activities of Bill and Hillary Clinton have gone on for decades.

Bill Clinton impeachment timeline from CBS News.

“Oct. 8, 1998 – By a vote of 258-176 (with 31 Democrats voting yes) the House approves an open-ended impeachment inquiry of the president.”

“Nov. 13, 1998 – President Clinton settles the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, agreeing to pay Jones $850,000 while admitting nothing. The independent counsel sends Congress information relating to former White House aide Kathleen Willey’s allegations that the president made unwanted sexual advances.”

“Dec. 9, 1998 – House Judiciary Committee unveils articles of impeachment against President Clinton. Two articles allege that he lied in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and in his testimony before Starr’s grand jury. The others allege that he abused the powers of his office and obstructed justice in the Monica Lewinsky affair.”

“Dec. 11, 1998 – House Judiciary Committee approves the first three articles of impeachment.”

“Dec. 12, 1998 – While in Jerusalem on a Middle East peace mission, President Clinton says he will not resign from office and again denies lying under oath. The House Judiciary Committee approves the fourth and final article of impeachment and dismisses censure as an option for punishment.”

“Dec. 19, 1998 – House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment against the president.”

“Jan. 7, 1999 – The Senate trial of President Clinton opens.”

“Jan. 27, 1999 – The Senate rejects a motion to dismiss the two impeachment counts against the President.”

“Feb. 12, 1999 – Senate acquits president on impeachment charges. A total of 67 votes were necessary to convict. Voting was 55 against and 45 in favor of the perjury charge. Obstruction of justice charge failed 50-50.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-clinton-timeline/

Bill Clinton was impeached but not removed from office.

Lots of evidence was presented. I urge you to become more familiar with it.

However, much evidence was not. Especially how Bill and Hillary treated Bill’s sexual victims.

From Breitbart January 20, 2016.

“EXCLUSIVE–Juanita Broaddrick: NBC Removed Bombshell Charge That Hillary Tried to Silence Rape Victim

When Juanita Broaddrickoriginally broke her silence by speaking to NBC’s Dateline in 1999, Bill Clinton’s rape accuser says she told the network’s reporter, Lisa Myers, on camera that she believed Hillary Clinton tried to silence her.
Broaddrick recalled that during the pre-taped interview, she began to tell Myers about a personal meeting with Hillary Clinton three weeks after the alleged rape in 1978, in which, Broaddrick believes, the future First Lady strongly implied the alleged rape victim had to stay silent about her traumatic experience.

Now Broaddrick reveals to Breitbart News that an NBC staffer present for the 1999 filming rushed in front of the camera, interrupted the prerecorded session, and declared that the allegations against Hillary Clinton could not be included in the interview.

She charges that NBC went so far as to re-film that portion of the interview, with Myers asking the same question anew and Broaddrick sidestepping the Hillary meeting in the new response.

“We were sitting on my couch,” Broaddrick recalled of the interview. “All the cameras were behind me. She asked some question about whether I was intimidated or threatened by anyone, and I started right in with the meeting with Hillary while we were filming the interview.

“And almost as soon as I started to explain, one of the staffers, I believe he was a producer, came rushing in and said, ‘No, no. We can’t go there.’”

Broaddrick said Myers re-asked the question for the camera and the following exchange, which made the final cut, took place:

Lisa Myers: Did Bill Clinton or anyone near him ever threaten you, try to intimidate you, do anything to keep you silent?

Juanita Broaddrick: No.

Myers: This has been strictly your choice.

Broaddrick: Yes.

Broaddrick, inexperienced in media relations, explained to Breitbart News why she gave an altered answer the second time around.

“I didn’t do interviews before and I’m not a lawyer. I thought from the sound of what the NBC staffer was saying that there was some legal reason why we couldn’t talk about Hillary and that we just couldn’t go there for legal reasons.”

NBC News did not provide Breitbart News with a statement about Broaddrick’s accusations despite being given five business days to do so.”

“Hillary meeting

Speaking publicly for the first time in nearly a decade, Broaddrick in November told this reporter that Hillary approached her at a fundraising event three weeks after the alleged rape and implied Broaddrick should stay quiet about the incident.

Broaddrick says she was still in a state of shock and denial about what she says transpired between her and Bill Clinton weeks earlier. She said she attended a private Clinton fundraiser at the home of a local dentist, where she had an encounter with the Clintons and was directly approached by Hillary.

Broaddrick said a friend of hers who had driven the Clintons to the fundraiser from a local airport informed her that “the whole conversation was about you coming from the airport. Mostly from Mrs. Clinton.”

She recalled: “And so then about that time, I see them coming through the kitchen area. And some people there are pointing to me. He goes in one direction and she comes directly to me. Then panic sort of starting to set in with me. And I thought, ‘Oh my God, what do I do now?’”

Broaddrick said that Hillary approached her “and said, ‘It’s so nice to meet you’ and all of the niceties she was trying to say at the time.

“She said, ‘I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate the things you do for him.’ And I just stood there, Aaron. I was sort of, you might say, shell-shocked.

“And she said, ‘Do you understand? Everything you do.’

“She tried to take hold of my hand and I left. I told the girls I can’t take this. I’m leaving. So I immediately left.”

Broaddrick said, “What really went through my mind at that time is ‘She knows. She knew. She’s covering it up and she expects me to do the very same thing.’””

“In the interview with this reporter, Broaddrick recounted the aftermath of the incident, when her friend Rogers came back to the room after Broaddrick failed to show up at the convention.

“I was in a state of shock afterwards,” an emotional Broaddrick said, clearly still impacted by the event. “And I know my nurse came back to the room to check on me because she hadn’t heard from me… She came up and it was devastating to her and to me to find me in the condition that I was in.

“We really did not know what to do. We sat and talked and she got ice for my mouth… It was four times the size that it should be. And she got ice for me and we decided then I just wanted to go home. I just wanted to get out of there, which we did.”

The detail about Clinton allegedly biting her lip is instructive. One woman who would later say she had a consensual affair with Clinton, former Miss America pageant winner Elizabeth Ward Gracen, also revealed that Clinton bit her lip when a tryst became rough.”

Read more:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/01/20/exclusive-juanita-broaddrick-nbc-removed-bombshell-charge-that-hillary-tried-to-silence-rape/

Juanita Broaddrick NBC interview:

https://www.scribd.com/document/321618010/Juanita-Broaddrick-transcript-NBC-Dateline-report-conducted-January-20-1999-Bill-Clinton-rape

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

Ryan Lochte should be stripped of his medals, Actions at gas station during interviews and lame apology do not represent America and Olympic spirit, Lochte should also be prosecuted, Washington Post is correct

Ryan Lochte should be stripped of his medals, Actions at gas station during interviews and lame apology do not represent America and Olympic spirit, Lochte should also be prosecuted, Washington Post is correct

“If you are not guided by God, you will be guided by something or someone else.”…Eric Liddell

“It is not by muscle, speed, or physical dexterity that great things are achieved, but by reflection, force of character, and judgment.”…Marcus Tullius Cicero

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Ryan Lochte is a disgrace to America, the world and the Olympics.

His apparent participation in drunken revelry may can be overlooked.

However, his actions at the Brazilian gas station, repeated lies during interviews, escape from Brazil leaving his teammates to be interrogated by the law and finally his lame apologies, cannot be.

Ryan Lochte should be stripped of his medals and prosecuted.

I am not inclined to agree with the Washington Post often, especially with their biased election coverage, but I do on this occasion.

From the Washington Post August 19, 2016.

“Let’s say you’re a guest in someone’s home. You and your friends are invited to a dinner at which the hosts, though cash-strapped, do their level best to put out a nice spread and show you hospitality. You over-serve yourself on their liquor, stagger around drunk and tear a picture off the wall, then unzip your fly and urinate in their bushes. The morning after, the best you can muster to your hosts is some vague, mumbled regret for being a “distraction” from the party.

Really?

Here’s a new slogan for the U.S. Olympic Committee: “Leading the medal chart but dead last in apologies.” Ryan Lochte still doesn’t get it. His so-called apology was a lame, crisis-crafted statement that showed zero sincerity and no awareness of his affront to Brazil and, if anything, only added to the insult by continuing to suggest he’s somehow this country’s victim.

“I want to apologize for my behavior last weekend — for not being more careful and candid in how I described the events of that early morning,” he parsed, via Instagram.”

“Wielgus said: “The last five days have been difficult for our USA Swimming and United States Olympic families. . . . We do not condone the lapse in judgment and conduct that led us to this point. That this is drawing attention away from Team USA’s incredible accomplishments in the water and by other athletes across the Olympic Games is upsetting.”

None of them gets it. None of them gets why, at last count, around 1.8 million Brazilian people had gone on Rio2016’s Twitter account to register their outrage against Lochte and his junior swim club pals.

“It’s clear the Brazilian population felt humiliated,” Rio 2016 spokesman Mario Andrada said.”

“Lochte made a convenient self-promotional vehicle out of a city tortured by crime and poverty. There were nearly 11,000  street robberies here in June. The unemployment rate is 11 percent and expected to rise to 12 percent by next year. The Brazilian minimum wage amounts to $228 a month. It should not need to be stated that the gas station was someone’s business, someone’s wherewithal.

Lochte created a needless problem for a strung-out police force with pay issues, short supplies and the overwhelming task of trying to secure Rio during a Summer Olympics. They had to chase his bogusness for four days.”

“The reason they all thought they could get away with it? It was just a little Brazilian gas station. Who could possibly care about that? Who would ever notice?

“They thought this would be forgotten,” said Sergio Riera, the lawyer who got Bentz and Conger released. “They did not think it would have a more serious consequence.”

Here is what is missing from Lochte’s apology. Any sign of manners. Any sign of humility. Any sign of real regret. Any sense of where he had spent the past two weeks. And that is truly sorry.”

Read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/ryan-lochtes-apology-is-clear-he-doesnt-realize-what-he-has-done-wrong/2016/08/19/182e2348-6614-11e6-8b27-bb8ba39497a2_story.html?wpisrc=nl_az_most

No Christians voting for Hillary Clinton, Get behind Me Satan, Jimmy Carter endorses Hillary.. brain cancer to blame?, Bob Herbert NY Times Democrat Party pact with devil, Jerry Falwell Hillary bad person with a criminal mind

No Christians voting for Hillary Clinton, Get behind Me Satan, Jimmy Carter endorses Hillary.. brain cancer to blame?, Bob Herbert NY Times Democrat Party pact with devil, Jerry Falwell Hillary bad person with a criminal mind

“the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.”…Bob Herbert, NY Times February 26, 2001

“I think that it was Hillary all the way. I think that she’s the mean-spirited one. She’s the ideologue, she’s the flaming left-wing socialist liberal. She’s a bad person with a criminal mind.”…Jerry Falwell

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”…Ephesians 6:12

 

How can I state: “No Christians voting for Hillary Clinton”?

It is simple, just as the teachings of Jesus and Christianity are simple.

There are many people who profess to be Christians who support Hillary and will vote for her.

They are fooling themselves and others.

You cannot support Hillary Clinton and be a Christian!

She is an evil sociopath.

Her concern is for herself and her agenda.

Her focus is on capturing the White House.

She has never let anything get in the way of that goal.

Including, but not limited to ignoring Bill Clinton’s long time and repetitive infidelities and assisting in keeping them secret at any cost.

Jimmy Carter claims to be a Christian. Yet he has supported the amoral Democrat party for years.

He is now endorsing Hillary Clinton, even though he has criticized the Clintons for years.

From CNBC July 26, 2016.

“This “will be a very important election, one that will define for a generation who we are as a nation and as a people,” the 39th president said in a video address at the Democratic National Convention. “At a moment when it’s become more important than ever to lift people up, … we see a Republican candidate who seems to violate some of the most important moral and ethical principles on which our nation was founded.”

“We can, and must, do better,” he said.”

“”We Americans have a clear choice before us. I feel proud that the two Democratic candidates, who competed through a long primary season, … comported themselves with dignity, talked about issues that matter, and presented a vision for our nation,” Carter said. “I thank Senator Sanders for energizing and bringing so many young people into the electoral process. To all of you young Americans, I say: Stay engaged, stay involved and be sure to vote this November.”

The 91-year-old Carter revealed last August that he had cancer and that it had spread to his brain. However, the drug pembrolizumab helped keep it from spreading further. In fact, the drug was so effective that researchers stopped a study on the drug, saying it worked so well they wanted to offer it to everyone in their trial.”

Read more:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/26/jimmy-carter-this-election-will-define-the-us-for-a-generation.html

Is Jimmy Carter a Christian?

Does he have senility or brain damage?

From NewsMax February 21, 2001 via Citizen News.

“President Carter Sees Quid Pro Quo in Rich Pardon

Former president Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that he believes there was a connection between Bill Clinton’s pardon of fugitive billionaire Marc Rich and the financial contributions Rich made.

“I don’t think there is any doubt that some of the factors in his pardon were attributable to his large gifts,” Carter said during a speech at Georgia Southwestern State University.

“In my opinion, that was disgraceful,” he added.

The former president did not say whether the gifts in question were those Rich lavished on numerous charities over the years – or money Rich may have funneled to the Democratic Party, Mrs. Clinton’s Senate campaign and the Clinton Library fund using his ex-wife Denise as a conduit.”

President Carter Sees Quid Pro Quo in Rich Pardon, Clinton pardon of Marc Rich, Newsmax February 21, 2001, Denise Rich funneled money to Democratic Party Mrs. Clinton’s Senate campaign and the Clinton Library fund

From NewsMax February 26, 2001 via Citizen News.

“New York Times Left-Winger: Shun Corrupt Clinton

Bob Herbert, identified today by Fox News Channel as the most liberal columnist at the New York Times, is belatedly joining in on the anti-Clinton bandwagon. But his vehemence is making up for his tardiness.

Herbert writes today that the Democratic Party made “the equivalent of a pact with the devil” in supporting Clinton and “in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.”

“Now, with the stench of yet another scandal polluting the political atmosphere, some of Mr. Clinton’s closest associates and supporters are acknowledging what his enemies have argued for years – the man is so thoroughly corrupt it’s frightening.”

Democratic Party made “the equivalent of a pact with the devil” in supporting Clinton and “in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul”, NewsMax article February 26, 2001, Bob Herbert NY Times

From NewsMax August 22, 2000 via Citizen News.

“Schippers Book Bombshell: Clinton Acknowledged Broaddrick Rape

Bill Clinton tacitly admitted that he raped Juanita Broaddrick during a conversation with her husband in the mid-1980s, according to an account given to House impeachment investigators by Broaddrick herself, a new book claims.

David Schippers, the former Chicago mob-busting attorney selected by House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde to head the Clinton impeachment inquiry two years ago, offers the Clinton rape shocker in “Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment.”

Schippers was initially recruited by Hyde before the Lewinsky case broke, to conduct the first serious oversight investigation of the Justice Department in twenty years.

In that capacity, he uncovered other aspects of Clinton administration corruption that went far beyond the lies and obstruction in the Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones cases. But when Starr sent over an impeachment report that focused exclusively on Sexgate, the constraints of time and the timidity of the GOP leadership left Schippers little choice but to make that the focus of the House impeachment probe.

The longtime Democrat who twice voted for Clinton hired two trusted investigators he knew from his days working with Chicago law enforcement. Seeking to build a case against Clinton that went beyond his lies and obstruction in the Lewinsky case, Schippers sent Diana Woznicki and John Kocoras to Arkansas in search of other Jane Does who had been pressured to deny a sexual relationship with Clinton.

“Within a day or two,” Schippers writes, “Diana reported to me about a woman in Arkansas, Juanita Broaddrick, who alleged that Clinton had raped her years earlier.”

Schippers’ first instinct was to ignore the unconfirmed rumors. It was to him “a shocking story, but nothing in itself that would affect our case in the Senate.”

Then Woznicki dropped a bombshell on her boss.

“Oh, one more thing that I picked up. She was subpoenaed by Jones lawyers. She filed an affidavit denying everything.”

Schippers’ reaction? “Bingo! That changed the whole picture.” If Broaddrick had been pressured to lie, it would be part of a pattern of obstruction of justice that the Senate couldn’t possibly ignore.

Once Schippers discovered that Starr had investigated Broaddrick’s charges, he requested any and all information the Office of Independent Counsel had on the case. House probers learned that Broaddrick’s charges were corroborated by several witness interviewed by the OIC.

At that point, Kocoras and Woznicki were dispatched again to Arkansas. During a meeting with Broaddrick and her lawyer, the Clinton rape accuser was reluctant to acknowledge the assault. But in a telephone conversation later that day, Broaddrick unburdened herself of the secret she had carried for 20 years.

For an hour and a half, the Arkansas businesswoman described the the terrifying experience to Woznicki, who had worked with rape victims during her days on the Chicago police force. When the two investigators returned to Washington, Woznicki told Schippers, “Juanita fits the pattern of the classic rape victim.”

The broad outline of Broaddrick’s story has been known ever since the Wall Street Journal published her account on February 19, 1999, seven days after Clinton’s impeachment trial ended.

In April 1978 she accepted an invitation from then-state Attorney General Clinton to meet at her hotel’s coffee shop while she was in town on business. Clinton persuaded her that it would be better to meet in her room. Once there, he made sexual advances. When Broaddrick resisited, Clinton forced her onto the bed and bit her lip until she submitted to the rape.

But in his book, Schippers reveals a stunning new detail as he recounts Woznicki’s version of Broaddrick’s story.

“One evening, years before, in 1984 or 1985, Mr. and Mrs. Broaddrick had attended a function in Hot Springs, Arkansas. The couple didn’t realize that Clinton was the keynote speaker. When they found out, they returned to their hotel room.

“In the course of the evening, (Juanita’s husband) David went down to the bar and found himself standing next to Clinton. Clinton stuck out his hand and said, ‘You’re with Juanita, aren’t you?’

“Broaddrick squeezed Clinton’s hand as hard as he was able. He looked Clinton right in the eye and, continuing his grip, said, ‘Don’t you go near her or near her home; don’t you even so much as look at her.’

“Startled, Clinton pulled his hand away and said, ‘I didn’t know she was with you when that happened.’ ”

When “that” happened? Clinton wasn’t mystified by Mr. Broaddrick’s angry demeanor and ominous-sounding words. He accepted the warning without protest and asked for no further explanation. His sanguine reception of Broaddrick’s hostile behavior has only one explanation.

Undoubtedly, Clinton knew exactly why Broaddrick was upset about “that.”

Certainly David Broaddrick had understood. Without explicitly saying so, the future president of the United States had just acknowledged he was a rapist.

Apart from the Broaddrick case, David Schippers’ historic investigation of Bill Clinton uncovered reams of incriminating evidence. But as the no-holds-barred investigator explains in his book:

“A great deal of evidentiary material remains under seal or in the executive protection of the House Judiciary Committee. While I cannot discuss that evidence, except in general terms, I am free to reveal other evidence and testimony that my staff developed independently. …”

But even under these limitations, the old Chicago hand is able to shed light on areas of Clinton administration corruption yet to be explored by the media.

 

  • Schippers explains how his pre-impeachment probe of the Justice Department uncovered a frightening Clinton INS plan to naturalize tens of thousands of immigrants, likely Democratic voters, the White House thought, in time for the 1996 election. The 75,000 who were made citizens under the Clinton plan already had arrest records. At least one prospective Clinton voter was naturalized while he was in jail.The administration official in charge of the corrupt naturalization scheme was none other than Vice President Al Gore.*While trying to establish impeachment trial ground rules behind closed doors, Republican senators sat mute while Democrats ran the show, Schippers charges. “We make our own rules,” barked Delaware Democrat Joe Biden. Only one Senator – Democrat or Republican – seemed interested in anything more than a show trial, asking reasonable questions and listening intently to Schippers’ recommendations.

    That was Al Gore’s vice presidential running mate, Sen. Joe Lieberman.

    *The lengths to which the White House went to try and prevent Oval Office sexual assault victim Kathleen Willey from testifying have never been fully reported. In “Sellout,” Schippers details administration attempts to “lawyer-up” the key witness with one of the Washington’s top criminal defense attorneys. Fees would not be a problem, Willey was told. After she declined, the threats and intimidation began. One particularly frightening episode is revealed for the first time in Schippers’ book.

  • Schippers described how one Republican congresswoman, upon reviewing the secret files on Broaddrick and other women, “put her head in her hands and cried, ‘My God, this is his M.O.’She related an incredible story about how Clinton had once tried to set up liaisons with two women from her district by having someone posing as a Secret Service agent invite each woman to the White House for a private presidential discussion about women’s rights. The women inadvertently bumped into one another and compared notes before declining the invites.Larry Klayman’s Judicial Watch developed clear evidence of further presidential perjury in the Dolly Kyle Browning case. Schippers actually called Browning to Washington twice and had her ready to testify. But the Senate’s unwillingness to hear new evidence precluded opening up this new avenue of Clinton corruption.
  • Schippers confirms a sickening new detail about Clinton’s attack on Broaddrick, making it clear for the first time why several congressmen were nauseated – and one left in tears – after reviewing secret evidence that remains hidden from the American people to this day.”
Schippers Book Bombshell: Clinton acknowledged Broaddrick rape, Schippers pre-impeachment probe of Justice Dept uncovered Clinton INS plan to naturalize tens of thousands of immigrants, 75k made citizens under Clinton plan had arrest records, Newsmax August 22, 2000

From The Hill January 6, 2016.

“Bill Clinton rape accuser: Hillary ‘tried to silence’ me”

““I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me,” Juanita Broaddrick tweeted Wednesday.

“Hillary tried to silence me,” she wrote of Bill Clinton’s wife, who is the current Democratic presidential front-runner in the 2016 race. “I am now 73…it never goes away.””

“In a brief interview, Broaddrick, who said she retired after selling her nursing home business in 2008, said she’s decided to play a more visible role heading into 2016.

“I’ve been quiet for too long, and now with the possibility of [Hillary Clinton] being the Democratic nominee and possibly president, I feel the need to get involved,” she said.

Broaddrick said that she doesn’t describe herself as Republican or Democrat, but is supportingDonald Trump for president.

“He says the things I like to hear,” Broaddrick said.

She lauded Trump for broaching the issue of Bill Clinton’s past marital infidelities and allegations of sexual assault.

“I’m glad someone did. Everyone has been hanging back and most of the mainstream media won’t approach it but it’s something that should be talked about.””

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/264988-bill-clinton-rape-accuser-hillary-tried-to-silence-me

There is more.

Much much more.

You can find more here:

http://citizenwells.net/

 

And more here:

https://citizenwells.com/