Monthly Archives: August 2016

Hillary Clinton’s Health Is Superb (Aside From Seizures, Lesions, Adrenaline Pens) scrubbed by Huffington Post AKA Big Brother thought police, Citizen Wells warned you in 2008

Hillary Clinton’s Health Is Superb (Aside From Seizures, Lesions, Adrenaline Pens) scrubbed by Huffington Post AKA Big Brother thought police, Citizen Wells warned you in 2008

“The Obama Campaign paid The Huffington Post $ 55,354 in 2008 according to the FEC.”…Citizen Wells

“The function of the press is very high. It is almost Holy.
It ought to serve as a forum for the people, through which
the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or
suppress the news is a breach of trust.”…. Louis D. Brandeis

“”You’re a traitor!” yelled the boy. “You’re a thought criminal!”“…George Orwell, “1984”

 

 

Citizen Wells began warning you in early 2008.

The handwriting was on the wall.

Big Brother and the Thought Police were active protecting and promoting Obama then.

Hillary Clinton now.

The Huffington Post scrubbed this article.

It can be viewed on the Wayback Machine or from David Seaman’s cache .

THE BLOG

Hillary Clinton’s Health Is Superb (Aside From Seizures, Lesions, Adrenaline Pens)

08/28/2016 01:36 pm ET | Updated 8 hours ago

Hillary Clinton: Stronger Together. How strong? Well, the great woman’s health is excellent, superb even. Her heart and mind one hundred thousand times stronger than the strongest beams of steel that built our great American cities more than a century ago. Her soul a shining exemplar of selflessness, service, and humility, her footing sound… wait, are we talking about the same person here?!

The same Hillary Clinton who recently became the latest unintentional star of YouTube, with a truly endless upload stream of videos purporting to show Hillary Clinton wildly seizing up when several reporters begin questioning her at once? Yes, the same Hillary Clinton who became the star of this Paul Joseph Watson video, attracting 3,554,177 views since it was uploaded on August 4th:

I realize some readers might be wondering after watching Paul Watson’s video… how is she strong, or healthy, after seeing all that?

Look guys, I need to keep my job and platform. A lot of people read the Huffington Post and AOL properties. We all know what happens when you speak a little too much truth about the Establishment-beloved Clintons.

Just ask longtime broadcaster Dr. Drew Pinsky. “CNN has canceled Drew Pinsky’s HLN show, Dr. Drew On Call, just eight days after Pinsky made comments on a radio show questioning the health of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Pinsky’s show, which is six years old, will air for the last time Sept. 22,” The Daily Beast reported.

But what do you think? Is Hillary Clinton strong and wise and healthy? If so, why does Paul Watson and the team at Infowars want to hurt her feelings? They should know better over there: Americans are allowed to vote for anyone they want this election season, and support anyone they want, so long as that person is Strong Hillary Clinton.

Stronger Together. Together, Stronger. Or something.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160828193647/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-seaman/hillary-clintons-health-i_b_11752226.html

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3ALwXcO-agP6sJ%3Awww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fdavid-seaman%2Fhillary-clintons-health-i_b_11752226.html%20&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Speaking of wayback.

Remember the video of Obama speaking to a crowd and saying why don’t you read the Huffington Post?

Remember Citizen Wells reporting that the Obama Campaign spent enormous sums of money paying the Huffington Post?

 

Advertisements

David Schippers report to House Judiciary Committee also scrubbed after Hillary Senate report, Not about sex or private conduct it is about multiple obstructions of justice perjury false and misleading statements witness tamperings and abuses of power all committed or orchestrated by the President of the United States

David Schippers report to House Judiciary Committee also scrubbed after Hillary Senate report, Not about sex or private conduct it is about multiple obstructions of justice perjury false and misleading statements witness tamperings and abuses of power all committed or orchestrated by the President of the United States

“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

 

 

I have uncovered and resurrected another document associated with David Schippers, majority chief investigative counsel for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and like the Rosemary Jenks testimony, was scrubbed from the House Judiciary website just after the Senator Hillary Clinton report on Passage of The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, dated December 8, 2004.

The following are some of the more interesting remarks by Mr. Schippers along with a link to the entire report.

From the David Schippers report to the House Judiciary Committee.

“Unfortunately, because of the extremely strict time limits placed upon us, a number of very promising leads had to be abandoned. We just ran out of time. In addition, many other allegations of possible serious wrongdoing cannot be presented publicly at this time by virtue of circumstances totally beyond our control.

For example, we uncovered more incidents involving probable direct and deliberate obstruction of justice, witness tampering, perjury and abuse of power. We were, however, informed both by the Department of Justice and by the Office of the Independent Counsel that to bring forth publicly that evidence at this time would seriously compromise pending criminal investigations that are nearing completion. We have bowed to their suggestion.”

“When I appeared in this Committee Room a little over two months ago, it was merely to analyze the Referral and report. Today, after our investigation, I have come to a point that I prayed I would never reach. It is my sorrowful duty now to accuse President William Jefferson Clinton of obstruction of justice, false and deliberately misleading statements under oath, witness tampering, abuse of power, and false statements to and obstruction of the Congress of the United States in the course of this very impeachment inquiry. Whether these charges are high crimes and misdemeanors and whether the President should be impeached is not for me to say or even to give an opinion. That is your job. I am merely going to set forth the evidence and testimony before you so that you can judge.

As I stated earlier, this is not about sex or private conduct, it is about multiple obstructions of justice, perjury, false and misleading statements, witness tamperings and abuses of power, all committed or orchestrated by the President of the United States.

Before we get into the President’s lies and obstruction, it is important to place the events in the proper context. We have acknowledged all along that if this were only about sex, you would not now be engaged in this debate. But the manner in which the Lewinsky relationship arose and continued is important. It is illustrative of the character of the President and the decisions he made.”

“December 28, 1997 is a crucial date, because the evidence shows that the President made false and misleading statements to the federal court, the federal grand jury and the Congress of the United States about the events on that date. (Chart J) It also is critical evidence that he obstructed justice.

The President testified that it was “possible” that he invited Ms. Lewinsky to the White House for this visit. He admitted that he “probably” gave Ms. Lewinsky the most gifts he had ever given her on that date, and that he had given her gifts on other occasions. (Chart D) Among the many gifts the President gave Ms. Lewinsky on December 28 was a bear that he said was a symbol of strength. Yet only two-and-a-half short weeks later, the President forgot that he had given any gifts to Monica.

 

[DEPOSITION TAPE #1]

Now, as an attorney, he knew that the law will not tolerate someone who says “I don’t recall” when that answer is unreasonable under the circumstances. He also knew that, under those circumstances, his answer in the deposition could not be believed. When asked in the grand jury why he was unable to remember, though he had given Ms. Lewinsky so many gifts only two-and-a-half weeks before the deposition, the President put forth a lame and obviously contrived explanation.”

“Just how important was Monica Lewinsky’s false Affidavit to the President’s deposition? It enabled Mr. Clinton, through his attorneys, to assert at his January 17, 1998 deposition ” . . . there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form with President Clinton . . . .””

“Do you think for one moment, after watching that tape, that the President was not paying attention? They were talking about Monica Lewinsky, at the time the most dangerous person in the President’s life. If the false Affidavit worked and Ms. Jones’ lawyers were not permitted to question him about her, he was home free. Can anyone rationally argue, then, that the President wasn’t vitally interested in what Mr. Bennett was saying? Nonetheless, when he was asked in the grand jury whether Mr. Bennett’s statement was false, he still was unable to tell the truth — even before a federal grand jury. He answered with the now famous sentence, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

That single declaration reveals more about the character of the President than perhaps anything else in this record. It points out his attitude and his conscious indifference and complete disregard for the concept of the truth. He picks out a single word and weaves from it a deceitful answer. “Is” doesn’t mean “was” or “will be”, so I can answer no. He also invents convoluted definitions of words or phrases in his own crafty mind. Of course, he will never seek to clarify a question, because that may trap him into a straight answer.

Can you imagine dealing with such a person in any important matter? You would never know his secret mental reservations or the unspoken redefinition of words. Even if you thought you had solved the enigma, it wouldn’t matter – – he would just change the meaning to suit his purpose.

But the President reinforced Monica’s lie. Mr. Bennett read to him the paragraph in Ms. Lewinsky’s Affidavit where she denied a sexual relationship with the President.”

“GRAND JURY TESTIMONY

On August 17, the last act of the tragedy took place. After six scorned invitations, the President of the United States appeared before a grand jury of his fellow citizens and took an oath to tell the truth. We all know what happened. The President equivocated and engaged in legalistic fencing, but he also lied. During the course of this presentation, I have discussed several of those lies specifically. Actually, the entire performance, and it was a performance, was calculated to mislead and deceive the grand jury and eventually the American people. The tone was set at the very beginning. Judge Starr testified that in a grand jury a witness can tell the truth, lie or assert his privileges against self incrimination. (Chart Y) President Clinton was given a fourth choice. The President was permitted to read a statement. Here it is. (Chart Z)

That statement itself is false in many particulars.

President Clinton claims that he engaged in wrong conduct with Ms. Lewinsky “on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in 1997.” Notice he didn’t mention 1995. There was a reason. On the three “occasions” in 1995, Monica was a twenty-one year old intern. As for being alone on “certain occasions,” the President was alone with Monica more than twenty times at least. (Chart A) The President also told the jurors that he “also had occasional telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky that included sexual banter.” Occasional sounds like once every four months or so, doesn’t it? Actually, the two had at least fifty-five phone conversations, many in the middle of the night and in seventeen of these calls, Monica and the President of the United States engaged in phone sex. (Chart B) I am not going into any details, but if what happened on these phone calls is banter, then Buckingham Palace is a house.

Here we are again with the President carefully crafting his statements to give the appearance of being candid, when actually his intent was the opposite. In addition, throughout the testimony whenever the President was asked a specific question that could not be answered directly without either admitting the truth or giving an easily provable false answer, he said, “I rely on my statement.” Nineteen times he relied on this false and misleading statement; nineteen times, then, he repeated those lies.”

“ABUSE OF POWER

As soon as Paula Jones filed her lawsuit, President Clinton, rather than confront the charges, tried to get it dismissed. To do so he used the power and dignity of the Office of President in an attempt to deny Ms. Jones her day in Court. He argued that, as President, he is immune from a lawsuit during his tenure in office. That is, that the President as president, is immune from the civil law of the land. As I recall a similar position was taken by King John just before the gathering at Runnymede when Magna Carta was signed. More interesting is the rationale given by the President for that immunity:

The broad public and constitutional interests that would be placed at risk by litigating such claims against an incumbent President far outweigh the asserted private interest of a plaintiff who seeks civil damages for an alleged past injury.

There you have it. Sorry, Ms. Jones, because William Jefferson Clinton occupies the Office of President, your lawsuit against him, not as President, but personally must be set aside. The President’s lawyers are referring to the most basic civil rights of an American citizen to due process of law and to the equal protection of the laws; those same rights that President Clinton had taken an oath to preserve and protect. Or is it that some people are more equal than others? Here is a clear example of the President abusing the power and majesty of his office to obtain a purely personal advantage over Ms. Jones and avoid having to pay damages. The case was, in fact, stalled for several years until the Supreme Court ruled. If there is one statement that might qualify as the motto of this Presidency, it is that contained in one of the briefs filed on behalf of Mr. Clinton: “In a very real and significant way, the objectives of William J. Clinton, the person, and his Administration are one and the same.”

The President was just getting started: He employed the power and prestige of his office and of his cabinet officers to mislead and to lie to the American people about the Jones case and the Monica Lewinsky matter. But more: throughout the grand jury investigation and various other investigations, the President has tried to extend the relatively narrow bounds of presidential privilege to unlimited, if not bizarre lengths.”

“C. Sidney Blumenthal

Later in the day on January 21, 1998, the President called Sydney Blumenthal to his office. It is interesting to note how the President’s lies become more elaborate and pronounced when he has time to concoct his newest line of defense. Remember that when the President spoke to Mr. Bowles and Mr. Podesta, he simply denied the story. But, by the time he spoke to Mr. Blumenthal, the President has added three new angles to his defense strategy: (1) he now portrays Monica Lewinsky as the aggressor; (2) he launches an attack on her reputation by portraying her as a “stalker”; and (3) he presents himself as the innocent victim being attacked by the forces of evil.”

“The media have reported that sources describe Lewinsky as “infatuated” with the president, “star struck” and even “a stalker.”

Listen to this on January 31:

One White House aide called reporters to offer information about Monica Lewinsky’s past, her weight problems and what the aide said was her nickname – “The Stalker.”

Junior staff members, speaking on the condition that they not be identified, said she was known as a flirt, wore her skirts too short, and was “A little bit weird.”

Little by little, ever since allegations of an affair between U.S. President Bill Clinton and Lewinsky surfaced 10 days ago, White House sources have waged a behind-the-scenes campaign to portray her as an untrustworthy climber obsessed with the President.

Just hours after the story broke, one White House source made unsolicited calls offering that Lewinsky was the “troubled” product of divorced parents and may have been following the footsteps of her mother, who wrote a tell-all book about the private lives of three famous opera singers.

One story had Lewinsky following former Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos to Starbucks. After observing what kind of coffee he ordered, she showed up the next day at his secretary’s desk with a cup of the same coffee to “surprise him.”

Sound familiar? It ought to because that is the exact tactic used to destroy Paula Jones. The difference is that these evil rumors were emanating from the White House, the Bastion of the free world. And to protect one man from being forced to answer for his deportment in the highest office in the land.”

“Stripped to its basic elements, the President’s submission merely states:

That the President lied. That it was okay to lie to the people, because it was nobody’s business but his own; that his conduct is not a “high crime or misdemeanor”; that he would never be convicted of perjury or obstruction in a court of law; that the Jones suit was bogus, therefore, his testimony did not matter (do you settle bogus suits for $700,000 after you have won?); Judge Starr was a prosecutor most foul; Judge Starr purposely failed to include relevant exculpatory evidence; and finally, impeachment is such a big step that this Committee should not put the country through it. By the way, who put the country through this? The President, by his actions.”

“Paula Jones is an American citizen, just a single citizen who felt that she had suffered a legal wrong.

More important, that legal wrong was based upon the Constitution of the United States. She claimed essentially that she was subjected to sexual harassment, which, in turn, constitutes discrimination on the basis of gender. The case was not brought against just any citizen, but against the President of the United States, who was under a legal and moral obligation to preserve and protect Ms. Jones’ rights. It is relatively simple to mouth high minded platitudes and to prosecute vigorously rights violations by someone else. It is, however, a test of courage, honor and integrity to enforce those rights against yourself. The President failed that test. As a citizen, Ms. Jones enjoyed an absolute constitutional right to petition the Judicial Branch of government to redress that wrong by filing a lawsuit in the United States District Court, which she did. At this point she became entitled to a trial by jury if she chose, due process of law and the equal protection of the laws no matter who the defendant was in her suit. Due process contemplates the right to a full and fair trail, which, in turn, means the right to call and question witnesses, to cross examine adverse witnesses and to have her case decided by an unbiased and fully informed jury. What did she actually get? None of the above.

On May 27, 1997, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a nine to zero decision that, “like every other citizen,” Paula Jones “has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims.” In accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision, United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled on December 11, 1997, that Ms. Jones was entitled to information regarding state or federal employees with whom the President had sexual relations from May, 1986 to the present. Judge Wright had determined that the information was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Six days after this ruling, the President filed an answer to Ms. Jones’ Amended Complaint. The President’s Answer stated: “President Clinton denies that he engaged in any improper conduct with respect to plaintiff or any other woman.”

Ms. Jones’ right to call and depose witnesses was thwarted by perjurious and misleading affidavits and motions; her right to elicit testimony from adverse witnesses was compromised by perjury and false and misleading statements under oath, and, as a result, had a jury tried the case, it would have been deprived of critical information.

That result is bad enough in itself, but it reaches constitutional proportions when denial of the civil rights is directed by the President of the United States who twice took an oath to preserve, protect and defend those rights. But we now know what the “sanctity of an oath” means to the President.

Moreover, the President is the spokesman for the government and the people of the United States concerning both domestic and foreign matters. His honesty and integrity, therefore, directly influence the credibility of this country. When, as here, that spokesman is guilty of a continuing pattern of lies, misleading statements and deceits over a long period of time, the believability of any of his pronouncements is seriously called into question. Indeed, how can anyone in or out of our country any longer believe anything he says? And what does that do to confidence in the honor and integrity of the United States?

Just a few brief quotations:

“The President must be permitted to respond to allegations . . . not only to defend his own personal integrity, but the integrity of the Office of the Presidency itself.”

That is because:

“The President, for all practical purposes . . . affords the only means through which we can act as a Nation.”

Finally,

“A President needs to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence in order to carry out his duties effectively. In particular, a President must inspire confidence in his integrity, compassion, competency and capacity to take charge in any conceivable situation. Indeed, it is scarcely possible to govern well in the absence of such confidence.”

I am not quoting from some law book or from an esoteric treatise on government. Those quotations are taken directly from pleadings and briefs filed in the Jones case on behalf of William Jefferson Clinton.

Make no mistake, the conduct of the President is inextricably bound to the welfare of the people of the United States. Not only does it affect economic and national defense, but even more directly, it affects the moral and law abiding fibre of the commonwealth, without which no nation can survive. When, as here, that conduct involves a pattern of abuses of power, of perjury, of deceit, of obstruction of justice and of the Congress and of other illegal activities; the resulting damage to the honor and respect due to the United States is, of necessity, devastating.

Again: there is no such thing as non-serious lying under oath. Every time a witness lies, that witness chips a stone from the foundation of our entire legal system. Likewise, every act of obstruction of justice, of witness tampering or of perjury adversely affects the judicial branch of government like a pebble tossed into a lake. You may not notice the effect at once, but you can be certain that the tranquility of that lake has been disturbed. And if enough pebbles are thrown into the water, the lake itself may disappear. So too with the truth seeking process of the courts. Every unanswered and unpunished assault upon it has its lasting effect and given enough of them, the system itself will implode.

That is why those two women who testified before you had been indicted, convicted and punished severely for false statements under oath in civil cases. And that is why only a few days ago a federal grand jury in Chicago indicted four former college football players because they gave false testimony under oath to a grand jury. Nobody suggested that they should not be charged because their motives may have been to protect their careers and family. And nobody has suggested that the perjury was non-serious because it involved only lies about sports; betting on college football games.

Apart from all else, the President’s illegal actions constitute an attack upon and utter disregard for the truth, and for the rule of law. Much worse, they manifest an arrogant disdain not only for the rights of his fellow citizens, but also for the functions and the integrity of the other two co-equal branches of our constitutional system. One of the witnesses that appeared earlier likened the government of the United States to a three legged stool. The analysis is apt; because the entire structure of our country rests upon three equal supports; the Legislative, the Judicial and the Executive. Remove one of those supports, and the State will totter. Remove two and the structure will either collapse altogether or will rest upon a single branch of government. Another name for that is tyranny.

The President mounted a direct assault upon the truth seeking process which is the very essence and foundation of the Judicial Branch. Not content with that, though, Mr. Clinton renewed his lies, half truths and obstruction to this Congress when he filed his answers to simple requests to admit or deny. In so doing, he also demonstrated his lack of respect for the constitutional functions of the Legislative Branch.

Actions do not lose their public character merely because they may not directly affect the domestic and foreign functioning of the Executive Branch. Their significance must be examined for their effect on the functioning of the entire system of government. Viewed in that manner, the President’s actions were both public and extremely destructive.”

Full report:

David Schippers Report House Judiciary Committee, Majority chief investigative counsel for impeachment, Probable direct and deliberate obstruction of justice witness tampering perjury and abuse of power leads abandoned due to strict time limits

The above are excerpts from the full report which is the tip of the iceberg.

As Mr. Schippers stated:

“For example, we uncovered more incidents involving probable direct and deliberate obstruction of justice, witness tampering, perjury and abuse of power. We were, however, informed both by the Department of Justice and by the Office of the Independent Counsel that to bring forth publicly that evidence at this time would seriously compromise pending criminal investigations that are nearing completion. We have bowed to their suggestion.”

Mr. Schippers uncovered Clinton abuse of INS naturalization of immigrants.

“My staff and I agreed that we needed to focus on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which appeared to be running out of control. By the time we came to the subject, investigations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and congressional committees had already indicated that the White House used the INS to further its political agenda. A blatant politicization of the agency took place during the 1996 presidential campaign when the White House pressured the INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program to grant citizenship to thousands of aliens that the White House counted as likely Democratic voters. To ensure maximum impact, the INS concentrated on aliens in key states — California, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Texas — that hold a combined 181 electoral votes, just 89 short of the total needed to win the election.”

https://citizenwells.com/2016/08/27/hillary-clinton-2003-2004-immigration-i-am-adamantly-against-illegal-immigrants-acting-conservative-to-run-for-president-or-damage-control-for-clinton-administration-policies-senator-clinton-s/

Rapegate and Juanita Broaddrick rape and coverup.

“Are there other victims like Juanita Broaddrick in Bill Clinton’s past? The husband-and-wife team of Rick and Beverly Lambert say the answer to that question is yes.

Seasoned private investigators with a knack for success, the Lamberts were tapped by Paula Jones’ lawyers in September 1997 for the Jane Doe search. For six months, they traveled between Arkansas and D.C. looking for women whose account could bolster Jones’ allegation.

What they found horrified and nauseated the handful of congressmen familiar with their work product, which was turned over to the House Judiciary Committee after being subpoenaed by the Office of Independent Counsel. Arguably, President Clinton would never have been impeached had several House members not switched their votes after reviewing evidence in the Lamberts’ Jane Doe files.”

The Jane Doe Case Files — Part 1, Paula Jones’ Investigators Reveal their Secrets, Other victims like Juanita Broaddrick, House Judiciary Committee congressmen horrified and nauseated, 209 witnesses contacted, NewsMax February 24, 1999

Each of us can make a difference.

Myself, each of you can spread the word and help keep David Schippers’ words alive.

From David Schippers report:

“What I say here will be forgotten in a few days; but what you do here will be incised in the history of the United States for all time to come. Unborn generations – assuming those generations are still free and are still permitted to read true history – will learn of these proceedings and will most certainly judge this Committee’s actions. What will be their verdict? Will it be that you rose above party and faction, and reestablished Justice, Decency, Honor and Truth as the standard by which even the highest office in the land must be evaluated? Or will it be that you announced that there is no abiding standard and that public officials are answerable only to politics, polls and propaganda. God forbid that that will be your legacy.”

Why would the House Judiciary website scrub a document of such historical significance after Senator Clinton’s report on December 8, 2004?

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton 2003 – 2004 Immigration, I am adamantly against illegal immigrants, Acting conservative to run for president?, Or damage control for Clinton Administration policies?, Senator Clinton statement on act passage December 8 then Rosemary Jenks House testimony scrubbed December 9, Citizen Wells exclusive

Hillary Clinton 2003 – 2004 Immigration, I am adamantly against illegal immigrants, Acting conservative to run for president?, Or damage control for Clinton Administration policies?, Senator Clinton statement on act passage December 8 then Rosemary Jenks House testimony scrubbed December 9, Citizen Wells exclusive

“I think the most compelling thing about Hillary is that she will stop at nothing to achieve her end and that she views the public as plebeians easily seduced into believing her point of view.”…Linda Tripp

“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

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

 

 

When I discovered the damning testimony of Rosemary Jenks was scrubbed from the House Judiciary website on December 9, 2004, I smelled a rat.

A big Clinton rat.

After poking around on the internet for a while I finally found it.

One day apart.

The “Rosetta Stone” of investigative journalism.

In a WABC interview in 2003 Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying:

“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.”

“Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we’re going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let’s have a system that keeps track of them,”

“People have to stop employing illegal immigrants,”
“I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.”

The Washington Times reports December 13, 2004.

“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is staking out a position on illegal immigration that is more conservative than President Bush, a strategy that supporters and detractors alike see as a way for the New York Democrat to shake the “liberal” label and appeal to traditionally Republican states.

Mrs. Clinton — who is tagged as a liberal because of her plan for nationalized health care and various remarks during her husband’s presidency — is taking an increasingly vocal and hard-line stance on an issue that ranks among the highest concerns for voters, particularly Republicans.”

“In an interview last month on Fox News, Mrs. Clinton said she does not “think that we have protected our borders or our ports or provided our first responders with the resources they need, so we can do more and we can do better.””

““I think she’s realizing how much this issue has grown since 9/11,” he said. “If you talked about it before then, you were just a flat-out racist. Now it’s this huge issue.”

Moving to the right of even some Republicans, the former first lady told WABC she favors “at least a visa ID, some kind of entry-and-exit ID. And … perhaps, although I’m not a big fan of it, we might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens.”

Jennifer Duffy with the Cook Political Report said a conservative stance on immigration would be wise in the event Mrs. Clinton runs for president in 2008.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/13/20041213-124920-6151r/

On December 8, 2004 Senator Hillary Clinton placed the following on her official website:

“Senator Clinton on the Passage of The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004

Today is an historic day. We are coming to the end of a process that began immediately after the September 11 attacks and is ending with an historic reorganization of the intelligence community. Today’s vote, coming after months of testimony before the 9/11 commission, weeks of hearings on Capitol Hill and tough negotiations in Congress, represents a signal accomplishment in reforming our government to protect our homeland and fighting the War on Terror.

Today’s accomplishment, The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, would not have been possible without the courage, dedication and hard work of the families of the victims of September 11th. It was the persistence and resilience of these brave family members who lost their loved ones on September 11th that led to the creation of the 9/11 Commission. And it was their continued resolve that helped to keep the heat on Congress to insure that those recommendations were put into law. While not every recommendation of the 9/11 Commission is included in this bill, the bill makes historic changes in the way our government will collect and analyze intelligence so that we hopefully never again have to live through a day like September 11th.

In the aftermath of September 11th, and as the 9/11 Commission report so aptly demonstrates, it is clear that our intelligence system isn’t working the way that it should. The Commission report, following on the work of prior commissions that have studied the issue, details how we have 15 different intelligence agencies who are not sharing information, not communicating with one another and missing important linkages. This legislation, through the creation of a Director of National Intelligence (DNI), breaks down the artificial barriers in the intelligence community and insures that there is a high level official, answerable to the President, who is working to insure that our intelligence agencies are sharing information and communicating with one another.

This legislation gives the DNI budget authority over the intelligence community which will allow him or her to exercise proper control over the coordination among agencies. In Washington, budget authority means real authority and strengthening the DNI is a major accomplishment of this bill. He or she will also be responsible for budget execution and have the authority to reprogram funds and transfer personnel. These powers will allow the DNI to establish objectives and priorities for the intelligence community and manage and direct tasking of collection, analysis, production, and dissemination of national intelligence.

This legislation also establishes a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, as the 9/11 Commission recommended. The creation of this Board is intended to ensure that at the same time we enhance our nation’s intelligence and homeland defense capabilities, we also remain vigilant in protecting the civil liberties of Americans. Our civil liberties define us as Americans. As the 9/11 Commission said, “Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.” The conference report being considered today essentially charges the Board with primary executive branch responsibility for ensuring that privacy and civil liberty concerns will be appropriately considered in the implementation of provisions designed to protect us against terrorism. While the legislation that initially passed the Senate explicitly provided the Board with subpoena powers, the conference report that we are voting on today does not. That omission is unfortunate, and I will work with my colleagues in Congress to address this issue and provide such powers in the future, so that the Board will have the tools it will need to help us maintain the proper balance between our nation’s security and our liberties.

The legislation calls for dramatic improvements in the security of our nation’s transportation infrastructure, including aviation security, air cargo security, and port security. Through this legislation, the security of the Northern Border will also be improved, a goal I have worked toward since 2001. Among many key provisions, the legislation calls for an increase of at least 10,000 border patrol agents from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010, many of whom will be dedicated specifically to our Northern Border. There will also be an increase of at least 4,000 full-time immigration and customs enforcement officers in the next 5 years.

While I look forward to a productive debate on immigration issues in the next Congress, I am pleased that there are a number of key immigration reform provisions in this legislation, including those addressing the process of obtaining U.S. visas.

I am also pleased that the legislation addresses the root causes of terrorism in a proactive manner. This is an issue that I have spent a good deal of time on in the past year because I believe so strongly that we are all more secure when children and adults around the world are taught math and science instead of hate. The bill we are voting on today includes authorization for an International Youth Opportunity Fund, which will provide resources to build schools in Muslim countries. The legislation also acknowledges that the U.S. has a vested interest in committing to a long-term, sustainable investment in education around the globe. Some of this language is modeled on legislation that I introduced in September, The Education for All Act of 2004, and I believe it takes us a small step towards eliminating madrassas and replacing them with schools that provide a real education to all children.

But we are being shortsighted if we limit our educational investments to countries with predominantly Muslim populations, and if we focus solely on expanding the number of U.S.-run schools in these areas, as the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act does. Instead, the U.S. should work with the global community to create strong incentives for developing countries to build universal, public education systems of their own. Only then will our investments have the maximum impact because only then will they result in systemic change.

We do not know where the next Afghanistan will spring up. But we do know that extremism will flourish where educational systems fail.

The 9/11 Commission, and the commissions before it, including the Homeland Security Independent Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations, chaired by former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart (“Hart-Rudman Commission”) and The Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by former Governor James Gilmore III (“Gilmore Commission”), called for dramatic improvements in the sharing of intelligence information. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I worked with a number of my colleagues in the Senate on a bi-partisan basis in focusing on the need for greater sharing of terrorist-related information between and among federal, state, and local government agencies. The sharing of critical intelligence information is vitally important if we are to win the war against terrorism. We need to ensure that our front line solders in the war against terrorism here at home — our local communities and our first responders — are as informed as possible about any possible threat so that they can do the best job possible to protect all Americans. I am pleased that this legislation mandates major improvements in this regard.

Contained in Title VII of the Act are provisions from the “9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004,” legislation introduced by Senators McCain and Lieberman and for which I am proud to have been an original cosponsor. Among its provisions are those that address homeland security preparedness, including a call for a unified incident command system and significantly enhancing interoperable communications between and among first responders and all levels of government. Title VII also speaks to the need for allocation of additional spectrum for first responder needs and to assess strategies that may be used to meet public safety telecommunication needs, an issue that I have focused on intensely as co-chair of the E-911 Caucus.

I am extremely disappointed, however, that this legislation does not specifically mandate an improvement in how the federal government allocates critical homeland security funds to states and local communities around the country. As many of my colleagues know, I have repeatedly called upon the Administration and my colleagues to implement threat-based homeland security funding to ensure that the homeland security resources go to the states and areas where they are needed most. I have introduced legislation in this regard and even developed a specific homeland security formula for Administration officials to consider.

But threat-based funding is not only important to me and to the New Yorkers whom I represent; it was also a primary recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Specifically, in its report, the Commission stated: “We understand the contention that every state and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response. But federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should supplement state and local resources based on the risks or vulnerability that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel.”

The 9/11 Commission also recommended that an advisory committee be established to advise the Secretary on any additional factors the Secretary should consider, such as benchmarks for evaluating community homeland security needs. As to these benchmarks, the Commission stated that “the benchmarks will be imperfect and subjective, they will continually evolve. But hard choices must be made. Those who would allocate money on a different basis should then defend their view of the national interest.” In short, the Commission made unequivocally clear that the current method of allocating the majority of federal homeland security resources, i.e., on a per capita basis alone, must be changed.

Not only did the 9/11 Commission recommend that such changes be made in how federal homeland security funds are allocated, but commissions before it, such as the Rudman Commission, have strongly recommended it as well. Indeed, the Rudman Commission stated more than a year and a half ago that “Congress should establish a system for allocating scarce resources based less on dividing the spoils and more on addressing identified threats and vulnerabilities. . . . To do this, the federal government should consider such factors as population, population density, vulnerability assessment, and presence of critical infrastructure within each state.”

Both the Senate and House-passed intelligence reform bills that were reconciled in this conference report contained language that sought to effectuate this important recommendation but, unfortunately, such language was not included in the conference report. As the 9/11 Commission, Rudman Commission, many other homeland security experts, and I have repeatedly asserted, there are few issues more important to our nation’s homeland defense than homeland security preparedness and the proper allocation of the resources to achieve that preparedness. Therefore, I will continue to work as hard as I can with my colleagues on a bi-partisan basis to make the 9/11 Commission’s call for threat and risk-based funding a reality.

At the end of the day, this legislation has the capacity to improve our security and make us safer. I would especially like to note the dogged persistence of Senators Collins and Lieberman, who were unflinching in their work on this important bill. However, passage of this legislation is just the beginning. We have now given our government the tools to make a difference. But as with anything in our system, success depends on the independence and accountability of those appointed to carry out these reforms. It is critical that the American people, and we in Congress, insist upon accountability from those whom we are asking to implement these reforms. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate in that effort.

Once again, thank you to the 9-11 families, the 9-11 Commission and all those who have worked to make this legislation a reality. Now, the hard work of implementing these reforms begins.

https://web.archive.org/web/20051128080436/http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233911&&

Obviously Hillary Clinton was posturing herself for the 2008 election.

Appearing to care about the immigration problem and national security.

There is even a bigger reason for her to do so.

The record of the Clinton Administration abusing the INS and rapid naturalization of immigrants to secure additional Democrat voters for the 1996 election.

This was exposed by David Schippers in his role as chief counsel to the United States House of Representatives managers for the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, in his subsequent book “Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment” and subsequent articles.

From David Schippers October 2000.

“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 www.house.gov/judiciary/666.htm.

In his new bookSellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment, David P. Schippers, former Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, details his investigation of these same issues. He concludes that were he and his investigators afforded more time, it is likely the abuses of the Citizenship USA program would have been included in the list of impeachable offenses against President Clinton. Below is an excerpt from Schippers’ book, published last month by Regnery.

My staff and I agreed that we needed to focus on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which appeared to be running out of control. By the time we came to the subject, investigations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and congressional committees had already indicated that the White House used the INS to further its political agenda. A blatant politicization of the agency took place during the 1996 presidential campaign when the White House pressured the INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program to grant citizenship to thousands of aliens that the White House counted as likely Democratic voters. To ensure maximum impact, the INS concentrated on aliens in key states — California, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Texas — that hold a combined 181 electoral votes, just 89 short of the total needed to win the election.

The program was placed under the direction of Vice President Al Gore. We received from the GAO a few e-mails indicating Vice President Gore’s role in the plan (which are included in Appendix A at the back of the book). He was responsible for keeping the pressure on, to make sure the aliens were pushed through by September 1, the last day to register for the presidential election.

In our investigation we uncovered a case study evidencing what is pejoratively known in political science circles as “Chicago Politics.”

Back in the early years of the twentieth century, “Hinky Dink” Kenna and “Bathouse” John Coughlin were recognized as the very models of the unsavory Chicago politician. The two once fixed an aldermanic election in Chicago’s First Ward. To do so, they imported thousands of ward heelers, friends, associates, and city workers and had them registered to vote from every building in the ward — from homes (of which there were few) to taverns and cribs (of which there were many). On Election Day the recent arrivals stopped at Hinky Dink’s tavern, picked up fifty cents, ate a free lunch, and went out to vote their consciences. Guess who won that election?

Essentially, the same tactics were used during President Clinton’s reelection in 1996. Only this time the Democrats weren’t handing out sandwiches. Instead, through CUSA, they were circumventing normal procedures for naturalizing aliens — procedures that check backgrounds and weed out criminals — and consequently they were handing out citizenship papers to questionable characters.”

Read more:

http://cis.org/BookReview-InsideStoryClintonImpeachment

Ironically and/or fitting, the link to the Rosemary Jenks House Judiciary testimony above contained the following: “666”.

I clicked on the link and it had been scrubbed.

I next went to the Wayback Machine and after trying different dates for copies, I discovered that the testimony was there for December 9, 2004 but not December 10, 2004.

Isn’t that interesting.

The House Judiciary website.

On December 8, one day before Hillary writes of the passage of  “The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004” and the strengthening of national security and the borders and the next day, House testimony about how the Clinton Administration abused the INS and the system to expedite and procure more Democrat voters for the 1996 election disappears.

Coincidence?

Mathematically highly improbable.

From Rosemary Jenks’ testimony:

“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.”

Read more:

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

From David Schippers and his book:

“Had we been given sufficient time to develop evidence and witnesses, the CUSA matter might have been included in the abuse of power impeachment article.

The 1996 arrest records are still available, and I am sure the FBI is still willing to update all of them. In the meantime, thousands of criminals are now citizens of the United States because it was assumed they would vote for Bill Clinton and Al Gore.”

So, who scrubbed the Rosemary Jenks testimony from the House Judiciary website?

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

David P. Schippers key to downfall of Hillary Clinton, From exposing rapegate to improper immigrant processing, Hillary “evil incarnate”, “White House used the INS to further its political agenda”, Schippers Democrat voted for Bill twice

David P. Schippers key to downfall of Hillary Clinton, From exposing rapegate to improper immigrant processing, Hillary “evil incarnate”, “White House used the INS to further its political agenda”, Schippers Democrat voted for Bill twice

“My staff and I agreed that we needed to focus on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which appeared to be running out of control. By the time we came to the subject, investigations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and congressional committees had already indicated that the White House used the INS to further its political agenda. A blatant politicization of the agency took place during the 1996 presidential campaign when the White House pressured the INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program to grant citizenship to thousands of aliens that the White House counted as likely Democratic voters. To ensure maximum impact, the INS concentrated on aliens in key states — California, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Texas — that hold a combined 181 electoral votes, just 89 short of the total needed to win the election.”…David Schippers, “Sellout”

On Hillary Clinton: “evil incarnate.”…David Schippers

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

 

 

The more I drill down into the role of David Schippers, former Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during the Bill Clinton Impeachment investigation, the more I am convinced that his findings and statements about the Clintons will be the downfall of Hillary in her attempt to take the White House.

David P. Schippers is a good man, a lifelong Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice. No right wing conspirator, who criticizes members of both parties.

From the Washington Post April 1, 1998.

“When David P. Schippers took his 10 children to the nation’s capital in 1976, he made sure they made it to the Jefferson Memorial. The founding father remains a hero of his, because he entered the political arena out of a sense of duty.

“He’s a man who never wanted to be in politics,” Schippers said yesterday. “He felt he owed it to the country to get involved in politics.”

At 68, Schippers is entering the nation’s political fray for the first time as the House Judiciary Committee’s chief investigator. The post itself is controversial: Democrats suspect that Schippers’s hire, which Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) announced late last week, marks the opening salvo in an impeachment crusade. Republicans say the Chicago lawyer will oversee the review of the Justice Department in connection with the agency’s first authorization in nearly two decades, but acknowledge privately that Schippers could also analyze any documents forwarded by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr.

Like Jefferson, Schippers insists he is coming to the Hill reluctantly.

“I don’t seek this, I didn’t seek this, and it’s something that has to be done,” he said in his first interview since he was appointed.”

“The Cook County Democrat, who once ran, unsuccessfully, for Illinois Supreme Court, might seem like an unusual pick for Hyde, a Republican. They became friends when the two of them served on a panel investigating judicial corruption in Illinois. Schippers has no Hill or constitutional-law expertise, and established his reputation in the mid-1960s as chief of the Justice Department’s task force examining organized crime in Chicago.

That prosecutor/investigator experience apparently was key for Schippers, who will receive a $130,000 salary. “We’re all concerned about what papers are dropped on us by the independent counsel,” explained one GOP source. “He knows what’s relevant.”

A Chicago native, Schippers took on foes like alleged mob boss Sam Giancana after wading through a deluge of FBI forms. After assigning investigators to each respective vice, the strike force amassed a wealth of knowledge about the mob. “It was only after we had collected all this information, without knowing it, we were building a pyramid which got to the top,” he said, adding he always focused on “what is evidence — you don’t indict unless you’re willing to go to trial the next day.”

U.S. Court of Appeals Judge William Bauer, who has witnessed Schippers’s work from both the trial and the appellate bench, said his effectiveness as an advocate stems from his ability to determine what matters most. “He knows the wheat from the chaff,” Bauer said.

That kind of discretion could apply equally well to both Schippers’s immediate task — conducting a thorough review of an agency employing more than 100,000 people — and any potential referral from Starr.

No matter what his task, Schippers vowed, he can remain above political pressures. His other role model besides Jefferson is his grandfather, an Irishman who made a fortune in the sewer business until he turned down a monopoly on government contracts in exchange for a kickback to the political establishment. He lost his business and ended up working at a paint store.

“He died of lead poisoning,” he said. “But he wouldn’t give in.””

Read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/schippers040198.htm

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Clinton immigration abuse, Blatant politicization of INS during 1996 presidential campaign, White House pressured INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program, Grant citizenship to thousands of aliens counted as likely Democratic voters, David Schippers Bill Clinton impeachment investigation

Clinton immigration abuse, Blatant politicization of INS during 1996 presidential campaign, White House pressured INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program, Grant citizenship to thousands of aliens counted as likely Democratic voters, David Schippers Bill Clinton impeachment investigation

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

On Hillary Clinton: “evil incarnate.”…David Schippers

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

 

 

Most Americans know little about The President Bill Clinton Impeachment.

Most Americans, if they know anything, believe that Clinton was impeached for fooling around with Monica Lewinsky in the White House.

Wrong!

Clinton was being investigated for a variety of indiscretions.

And this was no right wing conspiracy.

From Citizen Wells August 25, 2016.

“David Philip Schippers served as chief counsel to the United States House of Representatives managers for the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in the U.S. Senate from Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 1999.”

“From 1963 to 1967, Schippers served as a member and later the chief of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Department of Justice at Chicago.”

“Unlike his counterpart, Abbe Lowell, who is serving as the chief investigative counsel for the Democrats, Schippers is no Washington insider. He also isn’t a screaming partisan. Indeed, though a lifelong Democrat, he was hired in the spring by a Republican, Rep. Henry Hyde of Chicago, the panel’s chairman. The two men have been friends for 30 years. Hyde asked him to review Justice Department operations but to be ready to shift gears if Starr sent an impeachment report.”

https://citizenwells.com/2016/08/25/david-schippers-exposed-criminal-activity-of-bill-and-hillary-clinton-no-right-wing-conspiracy-schippers-life-long-democrat-chief-investigative-counsel-for-the-us-house-of-representatives/

From David Schippers book, “Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment”.

“My staff and I agreed that we needed to focus on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which appeared to be running out of control. By the time we came to the subject, investigations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and congressional committees had already indicated that the White House used the INS to further its political agenda. A blatant politicization of the agency took place during the 1996 presidential campaign when the White House pressured the INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program to grant citizenship to thousands of aliens that the White House counted as likely Democratic voters. To ensure maximum impact, the INS concentrated on aliens in key states — California, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Texas — that hold a combined 181 electoral votes, just 89 short of the total needed to win the election.

The program was placed under the direction of Vice President Al Gore. We received from the GAO a few e-mails indicating Vice President Gore’s role in the plan (which are included in Appendix A at the back of the book). He was responsible for keeping the pressure on, to make sure the aliens were pushed through by September 1, the last day to register for the presidential election.

In our investigation we uncovered a case study evidencing what is pejoratively known in political science circles as “Chicago Politics.”

Back in the early years of the twentieth century, “Hinky Dink” Kenna and “Bathouse” John Coughlin were recognized as the very models of the unsavory Chicago politician. The two once fixed an aldermanic election in Chicago’s First Ward. To do so, they imported thousands of ward heelers, friends, associates, and city workers and had them registered to vote from every building in the ward — from homes (of which there were few) to taverns and cribs (of which there were many). On Election Day the recent arrivals stopped at Hinky Dink’s tavern, picked up fifty cents, ate a free lunch, and went out to vote their consciences. Guess who won that election?

Essentially, the same tactics were used during President Clinton’s reelection in 1996. Only this time the Democrats weren’t handing out sandwiches. Instead, through CUSA, they were circumventing normal procedures for naturalizing aliens — procedures that check backgrounds and weed out criminals — and consequently they were handing out citizenship papers to questionable characters.”

“The White House wanted any applicant for citizenship to be naturalized in time to register for the November election, so the pressure on the INS was constant. On March 21 Elaine Kamarck in the Vice President’s office sent an e-mail to Farbrother saying: “THE PRESIDENT IS SICK OF THIS AND WANTS ACTION. IF NOTHING MOVES TODAY WE’LL HAVE TO TAKE SOME PRETTY DRASTIC MEASURES.” Farbrother responded, “I favor drastic measures.” If he couldn’t get what he wanted from the INS, he wrote, he would “call for heavy artillery.””

“Federal regulations require that, for an alien to obtain citizenship, his application for naturalization (citizenship) must be accompanied by a complete set of the alien’s fingerprints. The fingerprint cards are then sent to the FBI to determine if the applicant has a criminal or arrest record. The law provides that an application may be denied if the alien has a serious criminal record or if he falsely denies ever having been arrested, even if he was never convicted.

In the INS district offices, the alien applicant for naturalization cannot be scheduled for a personal interview until at least 60 days after the application is submitted. This delay is specifically intended to allow sufficient time for an FBI fingerprint check. If the check reveals an arrest record identification, the arrest report is inserted in the alien’s file prior to the interview. An arrest record does not automatically result in a denial of citizenship, but it alerts an examiner to spend additional time questioning the applicant and to request that he furnish further information.

If there is no criminal arrest record in the file prior to the interview, the examiner will assume that none exists. For that reason, the INS has always considered the FBI fingerprint check to be the only practical way of preventing violent felons, dope peddlers, and the like from obtaining citizenship. Any breakdown in the collecting, checking, and reporting of the fingerprints can cause a breakdown of the entire process.

In our investigation we developed sources inside the INS with specific knowledge of the facts who revealed that FBI arrest records that were being sent to the Chicago INS office simply were not being inserted into the aliens’ files. As a result, aliens with criminal records were being granted citizenship.

Our sources also disclosed that, just prior to the 1996 voter registration deadline, a box was discovered in the Chicago INS office containing nearly five thousand FBI arrest reports — reports that had arrived in time but had been ignored.

Later, when the office discovered that those reports had never been processed, the INS initially tried to blame the FBI, claiming that the Bureau had not provided the arrest records within the 60-day window. But the FBI had done its job in a timely manner. Then the INS tried to convince the public that the foul-up really hadn’t harmed the process much. The agency cited statistics showing that the rejection rate of 17 percent was just about what it had always been, so no harm, no foul. But the INS neglected to take into account the thousands of aliens with criminal arrest records who were not rejected, even though they would have been under the normal procedures. If the traditional process had been followed, the rejection rate in the summer of 1996 would have easily exceeded 30 percent and perhaps have been even higher.

The White House, the INS, and the Justice Department publicly denied any political motive in the CUSA program to expedite the citizenship procedure. What the United States got is undeniable:
More than 75,000 new citizens who had arrest records when they applied;

An additional 115,000 citizens whose fingerprints were unclassifiable for various technical reasons and were never resubmitted; and

Another 61,000 people who were given citizenship with no fingerprints submitted at all.
Those numbers were developed by the accounting firm of KPMG Peat Marwick as a result of an audit of the 1996 CUSA program.

What we had here was a perfect example of the Clinton-Gore administration’s overarching political philosophy: “The ends justify the means,” coupled with “win at any cost.” It was a philosophy of governance that, as our investigations into other areas proceeded, we would find repeated again and again.

When the results of the KPMG Peat Marwick audit were made public, the INS and Justice vowed to remedy the situation, root out the felons, and revoke erroneously awarded citizenship. Everyone congratulated the administration for acting so quickly — and then promptly forgot about it.”

“We received no cooperation from either the Justice Department or the INS. Instead we received nothing but complaints about not going through the proper channels, investigating old news, being partisan — if not racist — and so on. But we reasoned that if criminals were given citizenship in 1996, at least some of them had probably continued their criminal activity in the two years since. We asked the GAO — an investigative agency that works for Congress and is therefore not subject to White House or Justice Department pressures — to give us FBI arrest records related to the CUSA program. We were given unquestioned cooperation and boxes of FBI reports.

We reviewed every document in those boxes, pulling out about a hundred of the most violent or serious crimes committed by aliens prior to naturalization and documented by arrest records. I specifically excluded minor immigration crimes, tax offenses, or white-collar crimes such as driving under the influence. I asked the staff to search for drug trafficking and violent crimes such as rape and child abuse. Those are the types of crimes that are most often repeated. A child abuser tends to abuse again, and a rapist tends to rape again.

After a few days — and going through only a few of the 20 or so boxes — we had our basic 100 heinous crimes, including one criminal who was actually in jail at the time he was naturalized.

We asked the FBI if it had arrest records for crimes committed by the same aliens in this country since 1996 and sent them our one hundred profiles.

Less than a week later, the FBI sent the updated arrest records to the Justice Department. (Per an agreement between the FBI and the Justice Department, all materials requested from the Bureau must go through Justice.) But when we inquired about them, the department claimed that it hadn’t yet received the records. An hour later, however, Justice called back to say that the “misplaced” reports had been located.

Of those 100 arrest records updated by the Bureau, some 20 percent showed arrests for serious crimes after the subject was given citizenship. Based on these random results, we asked for updates on every arrest record in our 20 boxes. Our plan was to update every report, using only FBI numbers and with the FBI redacting all identifying information to address the issue of privacy concerns. If, as we anticipated, anywhere near 20 percent came back with subsequent crimes, we would then confront the Justice Department, demand the identity and address of these known criminals, and point out that they had been given citizenship illegally and were still engaged in criminal activity. Unfortunately, before we could go further, the referral from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr arrived. Had we been given sufficient time to develop evidence and witnesses, the CUSA matter might have been included in the abuse of power impeachment article.

The 1996 arrest records are still available, and I am sure the FBI is still willing to update all of them. In the meantime, thousands of criminals are now citizens of the United States because it was assumed they would vote for Bill Clinton and Al Gore.”

Read more:

http://cis.org/BookReview-InsideStoryClintonImpeachment

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

David Schippers exposed criminal activity of Bill and Hillary Clinton, No right wing conspiracy, Schippers life long Democrat, Chief investigative counsel for the US House of Representatives’ Committee on the Judiciary, Former chief of Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of US Dept. of Justice

David Schippers exposed criminal activity of Bill and Hillary Clinton, No right wing conspiracy, Schippers life long Democrat, Chief investigative counsel for the US House of Representatives’ Committee on the Judiciary, Former chief of Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of US Dept. of Justice

“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.”…NewsMax August 22, 2000

“My staff and I agreed that we needed to focus on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which appeared to be running out of control. By the time we came to the subject, investigations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and congressional committees had already indicated that the White House used the INS to further its political agenda. A blatant politicization of the agency took place during the 1996 presidential campaign when the White House pressured the INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program to grant citizenship to thousands of aliens that the White House counted as likely Democratic voters. To ensure maximum impact, the INS concentrated on aliens in key states — California, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Texas — that hold a combined 181 electoral votes, just 89 short of the total needed to win the election.”…David Schippers

“The amount of criminality I discovered, astounded me.”…David Schippers

 

 

Before I present any more information about the criminal and devious activity of Hillary Clinton before, during and after her tenure at the White House, I want to make one thing perfectly clear.

In what I am about to present soon, there is no “right wing conspiracy” involved or any new psycho babble term that Hillary’s unsecured email buddy Sydney Blumenthal might come up with.

David Schippers was chief investigative counsel for the United States House of Representatives’ Committee on the Judiciary and was charged with reviewing and reporting on the Referral of the Office of Independent Counsel concerning possible impeachment offenses committed by President Clinton.

David Schippers’ background.

From Ashland University.

“David Philip Schippers served as chief counsel to the United States House of Representatives managers for the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in the U.S. Senate from Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 1999.

Schippers served as chief investigative counsel for the United States House of Representatives’ Committee on the Judiciary during 1998. From April to September he handled the investigative issues and investigations relating to the committee’s oversight investigation of the U.S. Department of Justice and all of its sub-agencies. From September to December 1998, he was charged with reviewing and reporting on the Referral of the Office of Independent Counsel concerning possible impeachment offenses committed by President Clinton. He was then responsible for conducting the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives and reporting the results to the Committee on the Judiciary.

An attorney in private practice since 1967, Schippers is the senior partner in the Chicago law firm of Schippers & Bailey. The firm specializes in trust law, labor law, trials and appeals in the state and federal courts of Illinois and throughout the country.

From 1963 to 1967, Schippers served as a member and later the chief of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Department of Justice at Chicago. He prepared and tried many major criminal cases in the federal courts and was also involved in a great number of major grand jury investigations. He previously served in the U.S. Attorney’s Office as an assistant United States attorney, trying major criminal cases on behalf of the government and preparing and arguing appeals on behalf of the government.

Schippers earned both his undergraduate and J.D. degree from Loyola University in Chicago. He has served as a teacher of trial advocacy and advanced trial advocacy to senior law students at the Loyola University School of Law. He has also taught trial advocacy at the Williamette University School of Law in Salem, Oregon, and at the United States Air Force Air University in Montgomery, Alabama.

Schippers served as one of five members of the Illinois State Police Merit Board from 1987 to 1993. He is the recipient of the Loyola University Law Alumni Medal of Excellence, the Loyola University Alumni Association citation for distinguished service to the legal profession and the Award of Appreciation from the Federal Criminal Investigators Association.”

David Schippers

From USA Today.

 

“Unlike his counterpart, Abbe Lowell, who is serving as the chief investigative counsel for the Democrats, Schippers is no Washington insider. He also isn’t a screaming partisan. Indeed, though a lifelong Democrat, he was hired in the spring by a Republican, Rep. Henry Hyde of Chicago, the panel’s chairman. The two men have been friends for 30 years. Hyde asked him to review Justice Department operations but to be ready to shift gears if Starr sent an impeachment report.

Now 68, with his salt-and-pepper beard and stocky build, Schippers looks more like the grandfather he is than the hard-charging lawyer who has jailed mobsters, befriended cops and defended some highly unpopular clients. Friends say his easygoing manner masks a toughness and a focus that will enable him to make the right calls in the House inquiry. “Dave is not an SOB,” says James “Bags” Bailey, his partner in a small Chicago law firm. “He will try to be fair with everybody, and if Dave doesn’t think he can really prove his case, I don’t think it will go.” Bailey adds: “He is best on his feet, and he loves to do legal research and write.” “He will call it straight. I’ve never seen him equivocate,” adds Dennis Czurylo, a longtime friend and former criminal investigator for the Internal Revenue Service.

Another friend, Anton Valukas, a former U.S. attorney in Chicago, says Schippers will approach his task in a workmanlike manner. The Judiciary Committee can “count on Schippers to seek out the facts and present them in a fair and nonpartisan manner,” he says. What does Schippers have to say about the president’s conduct and whether it’s impeachable? Not much, at least at this early stage.

A devout Irish Catholic with 10 children and 25 grandchildren, Schippers grew up on Chicago’s northwest side. Family members worked in the Democratic Party. He took a job with the telephone company, worked his way through night school and got a law degree from Chicago’s Loyola University.

Prosecuting was Schippers’ love. He joined the Justice Department in the early 1960s, when Robert Kennedy was attorney general. Kennedy tapped him to head the organized crime strike force in Chicago. It was a heady time. The “Outfit,” as Schippers likes to call the mob, was making headlines every day. Schippers went head-to-head with the infamous crime boss, Sam “Momo” Giancana, and ended up outfoxing the old mobster. He employed what was then an unusual tactic, obtaining court-authorized blanket immunity from prosecution for Giancana. That meant the mobster had to testify before a grand jury. He refused, and a judge jailed him for a year.”

Read more:

http://laborers.org/USA_Schippers.html

 

 

 

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/