Category Archives: Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton

9/11 15th anniversary September 11, 2016, Clinton administration most responsible, Citizen Wells proof, Bill Clinton multiple opportunities to capture Bin Ladin, INS weakened by Clinton political agenda, Government and country immersed in scandals and prosecutions

9/11 15th anniversary September 11, 2016, Clinton administration most responsible, Citizen Wells proof, Bill Clinton multiple opportunities to capture Bin Ladin, INS weakened by Clinton political agenda, Government and country immersed in scandals and prosecutions

“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.”…David Schippers report to House Judiciary Committee

“August 1998: covert operations limited to a ‘capture operation,’ not kill
As will be shown, Clinton vacillated over signing a memo that would authorize the killing of bin Laden. He first authorized only a capture, then agreed to allow bin Laden’s killing, only to weaken the language later. CIA officials were under the impression they did not have permission to kill the al-Qaeda leader.”…Washington Post February 16, 2016

“I could have killed’ Osama bin Laden in 1998”…Bill Clinton

 

 

After reading the below, if you do not believe that the Clinton Administration is the most responsible for 9/11, you are some combination of the following:

1. Dim witted.
2. Hard core end justifies the means liberal.
3. Anti American.

Part 1

Clinton had multiple opportunities to capture Bin Ladin.

From NewsMax November 1, 2001 via Citizen News.

“CIA Sources: Clinton Administration ‘Didn’t Want’ Bin Laden Arrested”

“A U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, this week called the Clinton administration’s decision to pass up a chance to arrest Osama bin Laden in 1996 a “disgrace,” saying “somebody didn’t want this to happen.”

A second intelligence official, also speaking anonymously, corroborated the charge that there was a deliberate effort to let bin Laden escape from the Sudan to Afghanistan, saying “somebody let this slip up.”

The intelligence officials, both of whom were involved in secret negotiations between Washington and Khartoum to take bin Laden into custody, offered the damning accounts to New York’s Village Voice.

The Voice’s first source said the chance to arrest bin Laden should have been a no-brainer, despite FBI claims that it lacked the evidence to convict him in an American court. “We kidnap minor drug czars and bring them back in burlap bags,” he told the paper.

The State Department may have blocked the wily terrorist’s arrest to placate a part of the Saudi Arabian government that supported him, he speculated.

The second official lamented that the U.S. lost a treasure trove of intelligence on the elusive al-Qaeda chief when it let him slip away. “It was not a matter of arresting bin Laden but of access to information,” he told the Voice.

“We could have dismantled his operations and put a cage on top … That’s the story, and that’s what could have prevented September 11. I knew it would come back to haunt us.”

Sudan’s former defense minister, major general Elfatih Erwa, agreed, telling the paper that he tried to warn the Clinton administration that letting bin Laden escape from the Sudan to Afghanistan was a major blunder.

“We knew that if he went to Afghanistan no one could control him (but) the U.S. didn’t care,” Erwa said. “They forgot about human intelligence after the Cold War. The feeling of supremacy led them astray. Many think that. Now they’re harvesting the thorns.”

CIA Sources Clinton Administration didn’t want’ Bin Laden arrested, Newsmax November 1, 2001, Two US intelligence officials, Deliberate effort to let bin Laden escape from the Sudan to Afghanistan

From the LA Times August 1, 2014.

“Bill Clinton: ‘I could have killed’ Osama bin Laden in 1998”

“A day before Sept. 11, 2001, former President Bill Clinton told an audience that he could have had Osama bin Laden killed, but chose not to, because an attack could have endangered innocent women and children in Afghanistan.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-bill-clinton-osama-bin-laden-20140801-story.html

Citizen Wells comments:

  1. What was Bill Clinton and his staff busy doing in 1998? If you don’t know the answer you had better start reading this site.
  2. This sounds like damage control because Clinton had many opportunities. See below.

From the Washington Post February 16, 2016.

“Bill Clinton and the missed opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden”

“1. May 1998: Tarnak Farms raid plan rejected

The CIA planned hard on an effort to capture bin Laden and to bring him to the United States for a trial. But at the last minute the CIA senior management lost its nerve and apparently never brought the plan to Clinton for a decision.”

“2. August, 1998: A campaign for continued air strikes is shelved after al-Qaeda attacks two U.S. embassies in Africa

After the embassy attacks, Clinton ordered air strikes against al-Qaeda targets, which were deemed ineffectual. Officials discussed but do not reach agreement on a campaign of follow-on air strikes.”

“3. August 1998: covert operations limited to a ‘capture operation,’ not kill

As will be shown, Clinton vacillated over signing a memo that would authorize the killing of bin Laden. He first authorized only a capture, then agreed to allow bin Laden’s killing, only to weaken the language later. CIA officials were under the impression they did not have permission to kill the al-Qaeda leader.”

“4. December 1998: Missile strike against Kandahar is rejected; memo to ‘kill’ bin Laden misunderstood

Officials had intelligence on bin Laden’s whereabouts, but decided not to allow a missile strike because of fears of civilian casualties. Later intelligence indicates bin Laden had already left that location.”

“5. Early 1999: Decision not to deploy the AC-130 gunship option

From the 9/11 Commission report:

After the decision — in which fear of collateral damage was an important factor — not to use cruise missiles against Kandahar in December 1998, Shelton and officers in the Pentagon developed plans for using an AC-130 gunship instead of cruise missile strikes. Designed specifically for the special forces, the version of the AC-130 known as “Spooky” can fly in fast or from high altitude, undetected by radar; guided to its zone by extraordinarily complex electronics, it is capable of rapidly firing precision-guided 25, 40, and 105 mm projectiles. Because this system could target more precisely than a salvo of cruise missiles, it had a much lower risk of causing collateral damage. After giving [White House official Richard] Clarke a briefing and being encouraged to proceed, Shelton formally directed Zinni and General Peter Schoomaker, who headed the Special Operations Command, to develop plans for an AC-130 mission against Bin Laden’s headquarters and infrastructure in Afghanistan. The Joint Staff prepared a decision paper for deployment of the Special Operations aircraft.”

“Though Berger and Clarke continued to indicate interest in this option, the AC-130s were never deployed.”

“6. February-March 1999: A decision not to strike bin Laden’s desert camp

Another potential target — bin Laden’s desert camp — slips by because of diplomatic considerations.

From the 9/11 Commission report:”

“No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Laden had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot. According to CIA and Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Laden or close by. … The lead CIA official in the field, Gary Schroen, felt that the intelligence reporting in this case was very reliable; the Bin Laden unit chief, “Mike,” agreed. Schroen believes today that this was a lost opportunity to kill Bin Laden before 9/11.”

“7. February 1999: The decision to again amend the covert action authorization, canceling the ‘kill’ authorization of December and reinstating the ‘capture’ language

From the 9/11 Commission report:

In February 1999, another draft Memorandum of Notification went to President Clinton. It asked him to allow the CIA to give exactly the same guidance to the Northern Alliance as had just been given to the tribals: they could kill Bin Laden if a successful capture operation was not feasible. On this occasion, however, President Clinton crossed out key language he had approved in December and inserted more ambiguous language. No one we interviewed could shed light on why the President did this. President Clinton told the Commission that he had no recollection of why he rewrote the language.

Later in 1999, when legal authority was needed for enlisting still other collaborators and for covering a wider set of contingencies, the lawyers returned to the language used in August 1998, which authorized force only in the context of a capture operation. Given the closely held character of the document approved in December 1998, and the subsequent return to the earlier language, it is possible to understand how the former White House officials and the CIA officials might disagree as to whether the CIA was ever authorized by the President to kill Bin Laden.”

“8. May 1999: The decision not to do the missile strike on Kandahar

Another opportunity presents itself, and top officials again do not pull the trigger, to the intense frustration of lower-level officials.

It was in Kandahar that perhaps the last, and most likely the best, opportunity arose for targeting Bin Laden with cruise missiles before 9/11. In May 1999, CIA assets in Afghanistan reported on Bin Laden’s location in and around Kandahar over the course of five days and nights. The reporting was very detailed and came from several sources.

If this intelligence was not “actionable,” working-level officials said at the time and today, it was hard for them to imagine how any intelligence on Bin Laden in Afghanistan would meet the standard. Communications were good, and the cruise missiles were ready. “This was in our strike zone,” a senior military officer said. “It was a fat pitch, a home run.” He expected the missiles to fly. When the decision came back that they should stand down, not shoot, the officer said, “we all just slumped.” He told us he knew of no one at the Pentagon or the CIA who thought it was a bad gamble. Bin Laden “should have been a dead man” that night, he said.”

“9. November-December 2000: The decision not to strike against bin Laden after the al-Qaeda attack on the USS Cole

As the nation is gripped by the post-election struggle between Bush and Al Gore, Clinton administration officials hesitate about retaliating against bin Laden for the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. Bin Laden was fully prepared for retaliation, but it never came. Eventually, a response gets lost in the transition from the Clinton to Bush administration.”

“[No attack was launched and one angry official] rhetorically asked of Defense officials: “Does al-Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?””

Read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/16/bill-clinton-and-the-missed-opportunities-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/

Part 2

INS effectiveness weakened due to political agenda demands of Clinton Administration.

 

David Schippers was the majority chief investigative counsel for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. He was also a lifetime Democrat and voted for Clinton twice.

From Schippers and his 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.”

“Farbrother and the NPR won the assignment of getting the INS to process more than a million applicants by the end of the summer. As early as March 1996, GAO documents reveal, he was reporting his efforts, recommendations, and results to Vice President Gore. Farbrother reported how he had told the INS and the Justice Department to waive “stupid rules,” and he told Gore that unless reforms were implemented, the backlog wouldn’t be “processed in time.”

As Farbrother noted in a March 22 e-mail to Gore, he had told INS Deputy Commissioner Chris Sale and Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick “to delegate broad authority to the managers in” New York, Chicago, Miami, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. But the INS and the Justice Department were not immediately complying with his demands, he said. Keeping the pressure on, Farbrother sent Sale a fax reiterating how important this delegation was in order “to get the results the Vice President wants.” In the fax he also commented, “I need you or Doris [Meissner] to sign something like the attached,” referring to a memo giving those INS district directors “full authority to waive, suspend, or deviate from DOJ and INS nonstatutory policies, regulations, and procedures provided you operate within the confines of the law.”

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.””

Read more:

http://cis.org/BookReview-InsideStoryClintonImpeachment

Clearly the priority of the INS,  Immigration and Naturalization Service, was to naturalize as many immigrants as possible befoer the next election.

Next we will examine the immigration status of the 9/11 hijackers.

From FAIR, Federation for American Immigration Reform.

“Identity and Immigration Status of 9/11 Terrorists

“According to authorities, all of the hijackers who committed the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were foreigners. All of them entered the country legally on a temporary visa, mostly tourist visas with entry permits for six months. Although four of them attended flight school in the United States, only one is known to have entered on an appropriate visa for such study, and one entered on an F-1 student visa. Besides the four pilots, all but one of the terrorists entered the United States only once and had been in the country for only three to five months before the attacks.

The four pilots had been in the United States for extended periods, although none was a legal permanent resident. Some had received more than one temporary visa, most of which were currently valid on September 11, but at least three of them had fallen out of status and were, therefore, in the United States illegally.”

The Pentagon Plane (AA Flight 77, Dulles to Los Angeles)

  1. Hani Hasan Hanjour (26) — Saudi Arabian — pilot
    • First came to U.S. in Oct. 1991 to study English in Tucson, Arizona.
    • Had been in U.S. in April 1996, when he lived in Oakland, Cal. where he studied English, and later received flight training in Scottsdale, Arizona. He left in Nov. 1996 and returned again in Nov. 1997 while he obtained a FAA commercial pilot certificate. He left again in April 1999.
    • Obtained student visa (F-1) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in Sept. 2000 after an initial refusal. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, Hanjour failed to reveal in his visa application that he had previously traveled to the United States.
    • Returned Dec. 2000 to study English at Holy Names College (Oakland CA) but never showed up at the school. In illegal status because he did not enroll, and his entry permit had expired at the time of the attack.
    • Lived in San Diego, Phoenix and Mesa, Ariz. (with Nawaf al-Hamzi), and later in Northern Virginia.
    • Had a Virginia driver’s license.
  2. Khalid al-Mihdhar (or Almidhar) — Saudi Arabian
    • Obtained U.S. tourist visa in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in April 1999.
    • In Malaysia in Jan. 2000. Followed by Malaysian agents tipped off by CIA (see Wash. Post 2/3/02).
    • Arrived at Los Angeles Jan. 15, 2000 with Nawaf al-Hamzi on B-2 tourist visa from Malaysia.
    • Lived in San Diego, where he took flight training in May 2000 with Nawaf al-Hamzi.
    • Left U.S. in June 2000 and obtained new B-1 visa in Saudi Arabia. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, his application falsely indicated he had not previously traveled to the United States and contained “suspicious indicators.” It also revealed that he had more than one passport.
    • Returned July 4, 2001, lived in New York.
    • Put on the Watch List for terrorists in August 2001 after entering U.S. last time.
    • In legal nonimmigrant status at the time of the attack.
    • Had a Virginia driver’s license.
  3. Nawaf al-Hamzi (or Alhamzi) — Saudi Arabian (brother of Salem)
    • Obtained U.S. tourist visa in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in April 1999. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, his application contained “suspicious indicators.”
    • In Malaysia in Jan. 2000. Followed by Malaysian agents tipped off by CIA (see Wash. Post 2/3/02).
    • Arrived at Los Angeles Jan. 15, 2000 with al-Midhar from Malaysia.
    • Lived in San Diego, where he took flight training in May 2000 with al-Midhar, in Dec. 2000 moved to Mesa Arizona (with Hani Hanjour), and later to Fort Lee, N.J., Wayne, N.J. and Northern Virginia.
    • Applied to INS July 12, 2000 for extension of permitted stay in U.S. (apparently granted for additional six months).
    • Put on the Watch List for terrorists in August 2001. (with al-Mihdhar)
    • Had been in illegal visa overstay status for nine months at the time of the attack.
    • Had California, Florida and Virgina driver’s licenses.
  4. Salem al-Hamzi (or Alhamzi)- Saudi Arabian (brother of Nawaf)
    • Obtained U.S. tourist visa in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in April 1999.
    • Arrived U.S. June 2001.
    • Lived in Fort Lee, N.J., Wayne, N.J.
    • In legal nonimmigrant status at the time of the attack.
    • Had a Virginia driver’s license.
  5. Majed Moqed — Saudi Arabian
    • Identity in doubt.
    • Entered on tourist visa obtained in Saudi Arabia after May 2001.
    • In legal nonimmigrant status at the time of the attack.
    • Had a Virginia driver’s license.

The WTC North Tower Plane (AA Flight 11, Boston to Los Angeles)

  1. Mohamed Atta — Egyptian (43) — pilot
    • Born in Egypt in 1968.
    • Graduated from Cairo Univ. with degree in Architectural Engineering in 1990.
    • Obtained visitor visa in Berlin Germany, May 2000.
    • Entered U.S. at Newark on June 3, 2000 on tourist visa and given entry permit until December 2, 2000.
    • Applied in Sept. 2000 to INS for change in status to trainee.
    • Attended Huffman Aviation school in Venice Florida with al-Shehhi.
    • Arrested in Florida for driving without license, and failed to show up for court date — bench warrant issued.
    • Subsequently obtained Florida driver’s license.
    • Obtained FAA pilot’s certificate.
    • According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, had overstayed his entry permit as of Dec. 4, 2000.
    • Flew to Madrid Jan. 2001.
    • United Arab Emirate (UAE) authorities state Atta detained in January 2001 on basis of his name appearing on terrorist alert list, but was not held in absence of U.S. charges. UAE states that U.S. authorities were warned Atta intended to return to U.S.
    • Returned to U.S. on January 10, 2001 at Miami and was sent to secondary inspection because he acknowledged being in flight training but did not have required trainee visa. Interagency Border Information System (IBIS) database checked. Admitted by INS based on pending application for change to trainee status.
    • Moved to Georgia in Jan. 2001 for additional flight training with al-Shehhi.
    • Left U.S. and returned from Madrid on July 19, 2001 and given permission to stay until November 2, 2001.
    • Also lived in Hollywood and Coral Springs, Fla.
    • Received change of status approval by INS in September a year after the attacks.
  2. Satam al-Suqami (25) — Saudi Arabian
    • Obtained business visa in Saudi Arabia (but was residing in United Arab Emirates).
    • Entered U.S. in May 2001. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, asked for and was admitted for 20 days and was in overstay status at the time of the attacks. The Commission staff also said his passport was doctored (presumably with pages removed to hide his travel to countries where he obtained terrorist training).
    • Was the only terrorist who did not have a U.S. ID to board the plane and used his passport.
    • Was in overstay status at the time of the attack.
  3. Waleed al-Shehri (or Alshehri) (21) — Saudi Arabian (brother of Wail)
    • Obtained tourist visa in Saudi Arabia.
    • Entered U.S. in May 2000.
    • Licensed pilot.
    • Lived in Hollywood, Orlando and Daytona Beach (all in Florida).
    • In illegal nonimmigrant status (visa overstay) at time of the attack.
    • Had a Florida driver’s license.
  4. Wail (or Wael) al-Shehri (or Alshehri) (25) — Saudi Arabian (brother of Waleed)
    • Obtained tourist visa in Saudi Arabia.
    • Lived in Hollywood, Fla. and Newton, Mass.
    • Had a Florida ID card.
  5. Abdulaziz al-Omari (or Alomari) — Saudi Arabian
    • Obtained tourist visa in Saudi Arabia in June 2001.
    • According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, his passport was doctored (presumably with pages removed to hide his travel to countries where he obtained terrorist training).
    • In legal nonimmigrant status at the time of the attack.
    • Lived in Hollywood, Fla.
    • Had a Florida and Virginia driver’s licenses.

The WTC South Tower Plane (UA Flight 175, Boston to Los Angeles)

  1. Marwan al-Shehhi (or Alshehhi) — United Arab Emirates — pilot
    • Studied electrical engineering at Tech. Univ. in Hamburg.
    • In January 2000, obtained 10-year, multiple entry tourist visa in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
    • Entered the U.S. in May 2000, applied September for change of status to student.
    • Attended flight school in Florida, obtained FAA pilot’s certificate.
    • Took at least 3 trips out of U.S. and back. (Overstayed entry permit as of Nov. 2000, left U.S. in Dec. 2000, returned Jan. 2001.)
    • Attended flight school in Georgia with Atta in Jan. 2001. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, was sent to secondary inspection, but was admitted.)
    • Flew to Egypt April 8, 2001, returned from Morocco May 2, 2001.
    • In legal nonimmigrant status at the time of the attack.
    • Lived in New York City area, Georgia and moved to Hollywood, Fla. in July with Atta and trained at Huffman Aviation in Venice.
    • Had a Florida driver’s license.
  2. Fayez Ahmed Rashid Ahmed al-Qadi Banihammad (aka Fayez Ahmed) — United Arab Emirates
    • Obtained tourist visa in United Arab Emirates.
    • Entered U.S. in June.
    • Lived in Delray Beach, Fla.
  3. Ahmed al-Ghamdi (or Alghamdi) — Saudi Arabian
    • Obtained tourist visa in Saudi Arabia.
    • Entered U.S. in May.
    • In illegal visa overstay status at the time of the attack.
    • Lived in Delray Beach, Fla.
    • Had a Florida ID card.
    • Had a Virginia driver’s license.
  4. Hamza Saleh al-Ghamdi (or Alghamdi) (20) — Saudi Arabian
    • Obtained visa in Saudi Arabia.
    • Lived in Delray Beach, Fla.
    • Had a Florida driver’s license.
  5. Mohand al-Shehri (or Alshehri) — Saudi Arabian
    • Identity in doubt.
    • Obtained tourist visa in Saudi Arabia.
    • Admitted to U.S. in May.
    • Lived in Delray Beach, Fla.

The Pennsylvania Plane (UA Flight 93, Newark to San Francisco)

  1. Ziad Samir Jarrah — Lebanese — pilot
    • Born in Lebanon in 1975.
    • Studied aircraft construction and maintenance at Hamburg tech. univ. 1996-00.
    • Obtained five-year, multiple-entry tourist visa in Germany.
    • Entered U.S. in June 27, 2000 at Atlanta.
    • Trained as a pilot in Venice, Florida and Virginia Gardens, Florida but never obtained student trainee visa.  Received FAA pilot’s certificate.
    • Took at least 5 trips out of U.S. and back (flew to Germany July 25 and returned August 5, 2001).
    • Lived in Delray Beach, Fla.
    • In legal nonimmigrant status at the time of the attack.
    • Had a Florida driver’s license.
  2. Saeed al-Ghamdi (or Alghamdi) — Saudi Arabian
    • Identity in doubt.
    • Obtained tourist visa in Saudi Arabia. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, application falsely stated he had not previously applied for a U.S. visa.
    • Entered U.S. in June 2001. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, he was sent to secondary inspection, because he had a one-way ticket and $500, but was admitted.
    • Lived in Delray Beach, Fla.
    • Had a Florida ID card.
  3. Ahmed Ibrahim A. al-Haznawi (or Alhaznawi) (21) — Saudi Arabian
    • Obtained tourist visa in Saudi Arabia.
    • Entered the U.S. in June 2001. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, his passport may have had “suspicious indicators.”
    • In legal nonimmigrant status at the time of the attack.
    • Lived in Delray Beach, Fla.
    • Had a Florida driver’s license.
  4. Ahmed Abdullah al-Nami (or Alnami) (23) — Saudi Arabian
    • Obtained tourist visa in Saudi Arabia.
    • Entered the U.S. in May 2001. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, his passport may have had “suspicious indicators.”
    • In legal nonimmigrant status at the time of the attack.
    • Lived in Delray Beach, Fla.
    • Had a Florida ID card.

Other Conspiritors:

  • Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (Coordinator) — Indicted in 1996 in N. Y. for his role in an earlier terrorist plot. Had a Saudi Arabian passport (although not a Saudi national) — obtained a U.S. visa in July 2001.
  • Ramzi Bin-al-shibh — Yemeni (potential pilot) — denied visa four times.
  • Zakariya Essabar — Moroccan — potential pilot/hijacker — denied visa.
  • Saeed “Jihad” al Gamdi — Potential hijacker — denied visa.
  • Ali Abdul Aziz Ali — Pakistani — financial facilitator — denied visa.
  • Mohamed al Kahtani — potential hijacker — denied visa.

http://www.fairus.org/issue/identity-and-immigration-status-of-9-11-terrorists

Part 3

Bill Clinton, his staff and other government resources were distracted by his sexual escapades, coverups and legal wrangling.

From just July 1998, before the Impeachment.

“July 1998

July 1, 1998: Linda Tripp makes her second appearance before the grand jury, during which the Lewinsky tapes may have been played.

July 7, 1998: Linda Tripp returns for her third day of testimony before the grand jury, as the Maryland state’s attorney opens investigations into Tripp’s taping of her conversations with Monica Lewinsky. The investigation is aimed at deciding whether Tripp had broken Maryland state laws that require both parties in a conversation to consent to be taped.

July 7, 1998: The U.S. Court of Appeals rules that Secret Service agents must testify before the grand jury, upholding Judge Norma Holloway Johnson’s earlier decision.

July 9, 1998: Monica Lewinsky announces she is prepared to cooperate in the Maryland investigation into the legality of Linda Tripp’s tapes of phone conversations as Tripp appears before the grand jury for the fourth time.

July 14, 1998: Ken Starr subpoenas Larry Cockell, head of the president’s security detail. The Justice Department, backed by the Secret Service, requests a full panel appeal of the Secret Service testimony decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals.

July 17, 1998: Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist denies an extension of the temporary stay on Secret Service testimony. The subpoenaed Secret Service agents appeared before the grand jury, although only three of them testify. Larry Cockell, who is not one of the agents to testify, spends the afternoon waiting.

July 21, 1998: The U.S. Court of Appeals holds a hearing on alleged leaks of grand jury information to the media by Ken Starr’s office. The hearings center on Judge Norma Holloway Johnson’s secret sanctions against Starr and his subsequent appeal. The sanctions would require Starr to turn over documents and other evidence related to the alleged leaks.

July 25, 1998: Word emerges that Independent Counsel Ken Starr has served President Clinton with a subpoena that calls for his testimony before the Lewinsky grand jury next week. Negotiations are underway on the scope, timing and format of Clinton’s testimony.

July 27, 1998: The U.S. Court of Appeals rules that attorney-client privilege does not protect presidential confidant Bruce Lindsey from answering all questions put to him before the Lewinsky grand jury.

July 28, 1998: In a dramatic breakthrough, lawyers for Lewinsky and Starr work out a full immunity agreement covering both Lewinsky and her parents, Marcia Lewis and Dr. Bernard Lewinsky.

July 29, 1998: President Bill Clinton agrees to testify voluntarily and Starr’s office withdraws the subpoena. Clinton’s testimony is set for August 17 at the White House.

July 30, 1998: Sources say that as part of her immunity agreement, Lewinsky has handed over to prosecutors a dark blue dress that she alleges may contain physical evidence of a sexual relationship with President Bill Clinton. The dress is turned over to the FBI lab for testing.”

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/clintontimeline.htm

Once again, this was only one month.

The tip of the iceberg.

Bill Clinton, his staff and the government was consumed by this!

They were distracted from their duties.

The nation and the world suffered for Bill Clinton’s self absorption.

This is not an opinion.

It is fact!

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

Dolly Kyle Browning Bill Clinton mistress and rape victims reveal more than sexual exploits, obstruction of justice, perjury, false and misleading statements, witness tampering, abuse of power and Cocaine addiction

Dolly Kyle Browning Bill Clinton mistress and rape victims reveal more than sexual exploits,  obstruction of justice, perjury, false and misleading statements, witness tampering, abuse of power and Cocaine addiction

“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.”…David Schippers report to House Judiciary Committee

“The good news is, you’re credible. The bad news is, you’re very, very credible.”…Lisa Myers, NBC Dateline to Juanita Broaddrick

“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

 

 

Who is Dolly Kyle Browning?

From the Dolly Kyle Browning Declaration March 6, 1998.

“My name is Dolly Kyle Browning. I am over twenty-one years of age and I am fully competent to make this declaration.

1. I have known William Jefferson Clinton since I was eleven years old. I call him “Billy.” We attended high school together. During the period from the mid-1970’s until January 1992, we had a relationship that included sexual relations. The frequency of our contact with each other, and the frequency of our sexual encounters, varied over that time period, but we did have sexual relations many times during that time period.

2. Our relationship ended abruptly in January of 1992 when Billy would not return my telephone call. I told his secretary, Linda, that a tabloid had the story about me and Billy. I asked her to have him call me and he refused. Instead he had my brother, who was, at that time, working in the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign, call me from Billy’s New Hampshire apartment or office. My brother said that Billy was afraid to talk to me because everyone thought that I might record the conversation as Gennifer Flowers had done. He said “we” think you should deny the story. He finally said: “if you cooperate with the media we will destroy you.”

3. The next time I spoke with Billy was at our high school reunion in 1994. At that reunion he and I had a conversation that lasted approximately 45 minutes. At the reunion, but prior to our conversation, I had avoided contact with Billy. He approached me sometime around midnight. He greeted me, saying “how are you?” I responded: “You are such an ass-hole, I can’t believe you’d even bother to ask!” When I said “ass-hole” a Secret Service Agent reached to grab me. Billy physically blocked the agent’s arm and said “it’s alright” or words to that effect. He said “we have to talk.” During this conversation, we sat in two chairs in front of a large column in the ballroom where our reunion dance was being held. There were several hundred other people in the ballroom. Dance music was playing almost continuously during our conversation. During our conversation our faces were close together. We were speaking in a volume that was only just loud enough to hear each other over the background noise. The only people within at least six feet of us during our conversation were two male Secret Service agents. At one point a Caucasian woman whom I do not know interrupted us and told Billy that the party was over, they were closing the bar and that he needed to say good bye to some people. Billy said to tell them to keep the bar open. She asked: “who is going to pay for that?” He replied: “we will.” The entire exchange with this unknown woman lasted less than one minute. She then left our presence. The Secret Service agents were standing one on each side of us so that we, Billy, the agents and I, were effectively in a row with an agent at either end. There was one agent approximately one foot from me and a second agent approximately one foot from Billy.

4. Our conversation began with my confronting him for not returning my call in early 1992. This lead to a discussion of many things, including his affair with Gennifer Flowers. I reminded him that he had threatened to destroy me and he said he was sorry. We discussed many other things. At the end of the conversation he asked me to come to Washington. He said “You can live on the hill. I can help you find a job.”

5. I have reviewed the notes attached to this declaration as Exhibit A. I can state unequivocally that those notes are not an accurate account of the conversation or of the entire evening. The notes attributed to Marsha Scott are false. She did not stand by Billy Clinton during my conversation with him. Neither she nor anyone other than possibly the two male Secret Service Agents were in a position to hear our conversation. At no time during the conversation did I say that any statement I had made to him or about our relationship was false.

6. The letters attached hereto and labeled as my deposition Exhibits 1-12 are true copies of some of the letters I received from Billy over the years.

7. My sister, Dorcy Kyle Corbin, is an attorney in North Little Rock, Arkansas. After I was subpoenaed in the Paula Jones v. William Jefferson Clinton case, I called Dorcy. She immediately called Bruce Lindsey. He returned her call to an air pager from South America, where he was at the time. Shortly thereafter, she received and forwarded to me the items attached hereto as Exhibit B.

8. In the fall of 1994, through the intermediaries of Dorcy Kyle Corbin and Bruce Lindsey, Billy and I reached a “deal.” The “deal” was that I agreed not to tell the true story about our relationship if he would not tell any lies about me. I agreed not to use, in public, the “A words” which were defined as “adultery” and “affair.” I was allowed to say that we had a thirty-three year relationship that, from time to time, included sex. If I needed to contact Billy, I would call Dorcy and she would call Bruce Lindsey. I used this method of communication several times over the years.”

Declaration of Dolly Kyle Browning March 6, 1998, Paula Jones’s lawyers released, Sexual relationship with Bill Clinton from mid-1970’s until January 1992, 1994 high school reunion encounter, “I agreed not to tell the true story about our relationship”

Who is David Schippers?

“David Schippers, a long time Democrat and 2 time voter for Bill Clinton conducted an investigation for the House Judiciary Committee. So his findings were hardly part of a right wing conspiracy.

In fact, if there was any conspiracy, it included Republicans and Democrats who did not want to get their hands dirty or remove Clinton from office.

Schippers found far more felonious and/or improper activity by Bill Clinton than what was presented. He was restricted by time constraints and limited to the immediate scandals presented to him.”

Clinton Impeachment 101, 15 counts “events” presented October 5, 1998 by David Schippers Democrat to House Judiciary Committee, Possible felonies which may constitute grounds for impeachment inquiry, INS immigration naturalization investigation not included

How credible is Dolly Kyle Browning?

She has written a book: “Hillary the Other Woman.”

“Foreward
“This book Hillary the Other Woman is as timely as tomorrow’s newspaper, and its author Dolly Kyle is as fascinating as any person I have met. Moreover, the events, characters, and encounters described in these pages reveal Ms. Kyle’s firsthand knowledge obtained over many years.
My conclusion that Ms. Kyle is narrating the truth was first based upon lengthy and specific investigations conducted by the staff of the House of Representatives Judicial Committee in the course of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.  As a consequence of our findings, we intended to put forward Dolly Kyle as our chief witness at the anticipated Senate trial. Unfortunately that trial never took place thanks, in the main part, to the craven cowardice of the Republican leadership.
Based upon my knowledge of her character and integrity, I can say without qualification that Dolly Kyle’s word is as solid as gold.”
“There is no doubt in my mind that every statement in this book is absolutely true and correct.”
— David P. Schippers, Attorney and Chief Investigative Counsel for the U.S. House Judicial Committee for the Clinton Impeachment”

From Breitbart May 15, 2016.

“EXCLUSIVE – Clinton’s Alleged Ex-Lover: Hillary a ‘Terrorist,’ ‘Sex Addict’ Bill Told Me He Had 2,000 Women”

“Hillary Clinton is not only an “enabler,” she is a “terrorist” who “terrorizes” her husband’s alleged lovers and women who accuse him of sexual assault, says former Dallas lawyer Dolly Kyle, who says she had a long-running affair with Bill Clinton.
In an interview, Kyle claimed that “Billy” Clinton, as she called him, once boasted to her that he had had sex with about 2,000 women. She described Clinton as a “sex addict” who has some “sick, sick need” to “control women.”

“Aaron, Hillary is an enabler is about the nicest thing you can say about her,” stated Kyle when asked about a statement last Friday from Donald Trump, who slammed Hillary Clinton as an “unbelievably nasty, mean enabler” who “destroyed” the lives of her husband’s mistresses and alleged victims.

Continued Kyle: “The fact of the matter is Hillary is a terrorist. I invite you to look up the definition of terrorism. It is the use of violence, threats, or intimidation to achieve a political aim. … That’s what terrorism is. It changes people’s lives by changing their decisions about what they would otherwise do. And these women who might otherwise speak up are so afraid that they won’t say anything.”

Kyle alleged that there are many other Clinton lovers and purported assault victims who would likely speak out, but who instead “are cowering in fear because of the terrorism.”

Kyle was speaking in an interview set to air Sunday night on this reporter’s weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and NewsTalk 990 AM in Philadelphia.

ABC News previously summarized Kyle’s affair allegations (at the time she went by the name Dolly Kyle Browning):

Browning says she went to high school with Bill Clinton… in Hot Springs, Ark. in the 1960s. She alleged she became friends with the future president and carried on an extramarital sexual affair with him from the mid-1970s until roughly 1991.

Kyle’s family has long been intertwined with the Clinton’s, she says. Her brother was a Clinton associate who helped campaign for Bill Clinton from the 1970’s through his presidential run and even flew him to multiple events in the 1970’s, Kyle stated.

Kyle is the author of the forthcoming book, “Hillary the Other Woman: A Political Memoir.” The book’s forward is written by David P. Schippers, an attorney who served as chief investigative counsel for the U.S. House Judicial Committee for the Clinton Impeachment.

Schippers writes that his committee conducted “lengthy and specific investigations” that found Kyle to be so credible that she was to serve as the chief witness at the anticipated Senate trial if the Senate had decided to impeach Clinton.

“Based upon my knowledge of her character and integrity, I can say without qualification that Dolly Kyle’s word is as solid as gold,” Schippers wrote.”

Read more:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/15/exclusive-clintons-alleged-ex-lover-hillary-terrorist-sex-addict-bill-told-2000-women/

From USA Politics Today May 24, 2016.

“Former Clinton Mistress Speaks Out… Reveals Hillary Is A ‘Lesbian Cocaine Addict’”

“Former Miss Arkansas Sally Miller claims that she had an affair with Bill back in 1983, while he was still government. During that time, he revealed some scandalous details about Hillary’s sex life that she did not want to go public.

According to Q Political, Miller described Hillary as a cocaine addict who preferred sex with women to intercourse with men.

“The only time Hillary gets aroused or agrees to ‘play sexy’ is after she snorts coke,” Bill allegedly told Miller. “But even then, she’s rigid and frigid. Hillary goes ape-shit crazy—I mean screams, hits, and cusses. Sex is a waste of time to Hillary. When we were dating, she talked about making-out with her girlfriends in college because she knew it turned me on.”

“Hillary seemed worldly and more sexually-experienced than me and, at the time, I liked it,” Bill reportedly concluded.

Miller claims that she was told that Hillary had an abortion without telling him, and was provided cocaine by Bill’s own brother, Rodger.”

Read more:

Former Clinton Mistress Speaks Out… Reveals Hillary Is A ‘Lesbian Cocaine Addict’ [VIDEO]

From Browning Vs Clinton, Plaintiff’s expedited motion for leave to perpetuate testimony of threatened witnesses.

“Ms. Gennifer G. Flowers

Plaintiffs seek to question Ms. Flowers about her testimony in the Jones case that Clinton instructed her not to testify truthfully in an Arkansas investigation of allegations that she obtained her state job because of an adulterous affair with Clinton. Plaintiffs also want to question her about repeated break-ins to her home, threats both she and her mother received, and the brutal beating of her neighbor who witnessed Clinton entering her apartment.

In an interview published in The Washington Post in August 1998, Ms. Flowers stated that she met Clinton in 1977 when she worked for a Little Rock television station and he was Attorney General of Arkansas. A 12-year affair followed. The Post reported that the affair became public when she was identified in a lawsuit by a state employee alleging that Clinton was using state funds for adulterous affairs. Ms. Flowers testified in the Jones case that Clinton “instructed [her] not to be honest” in the state proceeding investigating that matter. This is further confirmed in her recorded telephone conversation with Clinton in October 1991 wherein he states “[i]f they ever asked [sic] if you’d talked to me about it [the state job], you can say no.”

Additionally, in January 23, 1998, Flowers was a guest on Larry King Live just after Clinton admitted an adulterous relationship with her during his deposition in the Jones case. Flowers stated on that broadcast that she was “very scared,” because “[her] home had been ransacked, I had received threats. My mother received threats. People were getting beaten. I was afraid for my life basically.” Flowers’ testimony in the Jones case also indicates that these calls were “physically threatening.” In fact, in the threatening call that her mother received the man said “[w]ell, I think she’d [Gennifer] be better off dead.”

Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Flowers’ expected testimony is probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice by Clinton in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1503; tampering with and harassing a witness by Clinton and his agents in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1512; and threatening to retaliate against a witness by Clinton and his agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513.

Ms. Juanita Broaddrick

Ms. Broaddrick recently came forward with allegations that she was the victim of a brutal rape by Clinton in 1978. Plaintiffs seek to question her about telephone calls she stated she received from Clinton between1978 and 1979 subsequent to the rape incident, and whether the substance of those calls was in the nature of a threat to stay silent. In addition, Plaintiffs want to question Ms. Broaddrick about her statements that she was followed days before her interview with House impeachment investigators, and that her house was broken into, the tape from her answering machine stolen, her three cats set loose, and her telephone tampered with in early 1998. Plaintiffs want to know whether she felt that these incidents were also meant to threaten or intimidate her into silence. Further, Plaintiffs wish to ask her if the reason that she did not come forward earlier with her allegation of rape was because her business, Arkansas nursing homes for the elderly and mentally retarded, which are subject to state regulation for licensing and government funding, were at risk from retaliation by Clinton-appointed state regulators.

As recently reported by NBC News, Ms. Broaddrick has claimed that Clinton raped her in Little Rock in the Spring of 1978, while she attended a nursing home conference. She also told Lisa Myers that Clinton called her a half dozen times at the nursing home after the rape, and then unexpectedly appointed her to a state advisory board in 1979. She had no further face-to-face contact with him until 1991, when she attended a meeting in Little Rock with two friends. Broaddrick said she was suddenly called out of the meeting and, to her astonishment, there was Clinton standing in the hallway.

[H]e immediately began this profuse apology, saying, ‘Juanita, I’m so sorry for what I did. I’m not the man that I used to be, can you ever forgive me? What can I do to make this up to you?

When asked why she did not report the rape and signed an affidavit in the Jones case denying that anything ever happened, Broaddrick stated: “I was also afraid what would happen to me if I came forward. I was afraid that I would be destroyed like so may of the other women have been.” The Washington Times also reported that “[f]riends and others in Arkansas say she is fearful for her family’s business interests, two homes for the elderly and mentally retarded in Fort Smith and Van Buren, Ark., which are licensed by the state of Arkansas and which receive government payments.”

Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Broaddrick’s expected testimony is probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice by Clinton and his agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503; prevention of a criminal investigation by Clinton in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1510; and victim intimidation and harassment by Clinton in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512.

Ms. Linda R. Tripp

Plaintiffs seek to question Ms. Tripp about the threats she stated she received from the White House via Monica Lewinsky just prior to her testimony in the Jones case, and via Bruce Lindsey after she raised concerns with him about certain activities in the White House Counsel’s Office. Ms. Tripp was an employee in the White House Counsel’s Office before being removed by the Clinton Administration to the Pentagon.

Ms. Tripp told NBC’s Today Show’s Jamie Gangel that her fear of Clinton stems from a meeting she heard Clinton had about her in July 1997. She also said that Clinton called Lewinsky the night of July 14, 1997 to ensure that Tripp had become “a team player,” and would lie for him in the Jones case. Tripp stated that she was afraid for her livelihood, and because of threats that had been made to her life and the lives of her children. Gangel asked if she believed Clinton was threatening her life, and Tripp replied:

I believe that that was the message I was supposed to receive. Be a team player or else. . . . If you don’t lie, you are being set up for perjury and jail. And who will believe you? You will lose your job and worse. That’s what I was facing.”

Further, Ms. Tripp recently testified in a proceeding before this Court that Monica Lewinsky twice left on her office chair a list of people around Clinton who had died mysteriously. She stated under oath that both times she believed it was an attempt by Clinton to influence her testimony with regard to Kathleen Willey, and she took it as a serious threat.

Importantly, Tripp also testified about a threat she received directly from Lindsey when she told him of her concern “that enemies [of the Clinton Administration], real or perceived, were in danger of information coming out [on them] in one way or another by the [A]dministration. Tripp testified that at the end of the conversation Lindsey said to her “talk like that will get you destroyedYou will be destroyedHe said it with a smile.” Tripp stated that this scared her and she feared that “perhaps an accident would befall [her].”

Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Tripp’s expected testimony is probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice by Clinton in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503; witness tampering by Clinton and Lindsey in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512; and threatening to retaliate against a witness by Clinton and Lindsey in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513.

Ms. Monica S. Lewinsky

Plaintiffs wish to question Ms. Lewinsky about statements she made on the now infamous tapes of telephone conversations between her and Linda Tripp. On one such tape made public by The New York Times last October, Ms. Lewinsky is reported to have stated: “I would not cross those people for fear of my life.” Speaking of Clinton she also stated on the tapes that “my mother’s big fear is that he’s going to send someone out to kill me.” Plaintiffs wish to probe these and other statements with Ms. Lewinsky to ascertain the basis for her fears of retaliation. Plaintiffs also wish to question her about the “death list” left on Linda Tripp’s office chair, and her conversation with Clinton about Tripp being a “team player.” Plaintiffs also want to question Ms. Lewinsky about Clinton’s efforts to secure a job for her to ascertain whether those efforts were intended to influence her testimony in the Jones case and Independent Counsel investigation.

Ms. Lewinsky’s expected testimony is probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice, obstruction of a criminal investigation, witness tampering, and threatening to retaliate against a witness by Clinton and his agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1510,1512 and 1513.

Ms. Paula Corbin Jones

Plaintiffs seek to question Ms. Jones about her statements that she is fearful for her life, the threat she perceived from Clinton’ s lawyer and Defendant in this case, Robert S. Bennett, and her stated belief that Clinton ordered the IRS tax audit initiated against her.

On Larry King Live, Ms. Jones stated:

KING: Paula, do you think you were audited because of who you are?

JONES: Absolutely – Clinton ordered it.

KING: Sarasota, Florida – Hello.

CALLER: Yes, Paula thank you for your courage. And I’d like to ask you: Have you ever been threatened, or do you fear for your life?

JONES Yes, I mean, through this whole thing I’ve felt very scared, and want to watch where I’m going all times, never really be alone. . . . Bennett threatened me himself. . . .

KING: So you – are you actually – Linda Tripp said the other night that she – you actually feared for your health.

JONES: Absolutely. . . .

JONES: . . . I want to tell whole world . . . I don’t drive crazy, so I won’t run off the road; and I’m not suicidal, I love my life, I love my children and everything; so I’m not going kill myself. So we all got that clear on national TV that I would never do that.

On April 16, 1999, Ms. Jones again stated her fears on Hannity and Colmes:

HANNITY: You stated in the past that you at times, like Linda Tripp has stated as well, that you have feared for your life. You even went on to say that you want the whole world to know that you are not suicidal, that you love life, you love your children, you’d never kill yourself. And you wanted to say that to a national audience. Why? What did you fear?

JONES: Well, I mean, there’s been a lot of people that’s come up dead in Arkansas. And I’ve had a lot of people ask me, ‘Aren’t you scared for your life?’ And actually, I have been.

Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Jones’ expected testimony is probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice, victim/witness tampering, and victim/witness retaliation by Clinton and his agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512 and1513.

Ms. Elizabeth Ward Gracen

Plaintiffs wish to question Ms. Gracen about numerous anonymous telephone calls she stated she received where the caller warned her to keep quiet about her relationship about Clinton, the threats and ultimate occurrence of an IRS audit, her statements about being “staked out” after her initial disclosure of her sexual involvement with Clinton, and how she, her family, and friends have been threatened.

After denying any sexual involvement with Clinton for six years, Ms. Gracen told The New York Daily News in April 1998 that she had “sex with Bill Clinton.” Gracen explained that the incident took place at a Little Rock hotel room in 1983, a year after her reign as Miss America, and when Clinton was in his second term as Govenor. Gracen’s admission came in response to rumors of a sexual assault by Clinton, precipitated by the deposition of her friend, Judy Stokes, in the Jones case.

In September 1998, in the midst of the Impeachment hearings, and months after her initial disclosure, Gracen told The Toronto Sun:

I think Clinton is a very dangerous, manipulative man and I’ve had to be very careful. . . . There was a lot of pressure of my family and friends, people being staked out. I was afraid for my safety at one point. It’s just not an area where you’re safe. I would never have said what I just told you a month ago.

Later that month, Gracen elaborated on her statement, and told The New York Post about ominous telephone calls she received in 1997 and 1998:

[T]his year, late last year, I started receiving calls that made things fall into place. Some friendly calls telling me to get out of town to dodge a subpoena from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Some nasty calls saying my character was about to be assassinated. . . . My friends were being asked mystery questions about tapes . . ..

Gracen also described a strange incident in which her hotel room was broken into and ransacked while on vacation. “They were looking for tapes that did not exist. The gentleman looking after our room said he saw two men in suits enter the place and one man in a suit waiting outside. He didn’t challenge them, he thought they were our friends.” Id. After that incident, she stated that the telephone calls started again, and she attributed them to the Clinton Administration:

Yes, I was physically scared. We are talking about the presidency of the country here, and between the friendly calls on one hand telling me to get out of town for my own good and then talking about smear tactics on the other, I got scared. There were always veiled threats. . . .

In January 1999, through her attorney, Gracen alleged that the Clinton Administration instituted an IRS audit against her in retaliation for her refusing to stay silent. Gracen’s lawyer, Vincent Vento, told theThe New York Post that weeks after Gracen’s interview with The Toronto Sun in which she spoke of her involvement with Clinton, Gracen received a telephone call in which the caller stated: “You should really keep your mouth shut about Bill Clinton and go on with your life. You could be discredited. You could have an IRS investigation.” Id. Vento also stated that a few weeks after the telephone call, the letter from the IRS arrived, sent to her parents home, which is not listed on her tax filings. Id.

Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Gracen’s expected testimony is probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice, obstruction of a criminal investigation, victim/witness tampering, and victim/witness retaliation by Clinton and his agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1510, 1512 and1513.

Ms. Kathleen Willey

Plaintiffs seek to question Ms. Willey about threatening incidents she said occurred before her deposition in the Jones case. The incidents — nails in her car tires, the disappearance of the family cat, and an unknown (at the time) jogger who questioned her about the prior two incidents, asking “Don’t you get the message?” – were apparently an effort to intimidate her from giving truthful testimony in the Jonescase. Plaintiffs also want to question her about her statements that Clinton lawyer, Robert Bennett, threatened her suggesting she should plead the Fifth Amendment and hire a criminal defense lawyer before her Jones deposition. Plaintiffs also want to inquire about private investigator Jared Stern who, at the behest of Martin Landow, Democratic Party contributor, was hired to conduct a “noisy” investigation of her during the Jones case and Independent Counsel investigation.

Ms. Willey worked in the White House as a volunteer in 1993. In early 1998, she claimed that she had been sexually groped by Clinton on November 23, 1993, in the same Oval Office room where he later had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. In an interview with 60 Minutes’ Ed Bradley, she stated that Clinton embraced her, kissed her, touched her breast, and placed her hand on his genitals. Willey also told ABC News that two weeks before her January 11, 1997 deposition in the Jones case, she found masses of nails in three of her car tires. Shortly thereafter, her cat, which she had had for many years, disappeared. Then, just before she testified in the Jones case, a jogger stopped her and asked her about her tires, her cat, and her children — by name. “Don’t you get the message?” he asked, and then jogged off. The jogger was recently identified as Cody Shearer, the brother-in-law of Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and long-time friend of Clinton.

Willey confirmed and elaborated upon her account of this incident in a recent interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews. She described in more detail her encounter with the mysterious jogger in her Virginia neighborhood on January 8, 1998, just days before her deposition in the Jones case:

WILLEY: . . . I went out for a walk. I had my three dogs with me, and I saw a man coming towards me. And I at first thought that he was a neighbor. . . . And he was coming towards me, and he called my – out my name, and he said, ‘Kathleen.’ And I stopped and I said, ‘Yes?’ And he said, ‘Did you ever find your cat?’ And I said, ‘No.’ . . . I’d asked a couple of neighbors to keep an eye out for this family pet, a 13-year-old cat. I’d never told anybody his name. I just described him to these neighbors, and I thought that maybe word had gotten around in the neighborhood  . . ..

And so he asked me, ‘Did you ever find your cat?’ And I said ‘No, I didn’t.’ And I said . . . ‘Not – no, I haven’t, and we – we really miss him.’ And then he said, ‘Did you ever get those tires fixed on your car?’ And I said ‘No.’ And that’s when the hairs started standing up on the back of my neck.

And he said . . . ‘That – that cat of yours, he was a nice cat.’ And he said . . . ‘Bullseye was his name, wasn’t it?’ ‘He was a really nice cat.’ And I said ‘How do you know my cat’s name? I mean, what – how do you know anything about this?’ And then I said, ‘And how do you know about my car and how do you know about the tires?’ And he said, ‘Well, did you ever get them fixed?’ And I said ‘yes, I did.’ . . . It was – it was a very insidious thing, and it was meant to scare me.. . .

MATTHEWS: And it did, to some extent. You testified a couple of days later in a kind of hesitant manner.

WILLEY: He asked me about my children by name. ‘How are your children? How are Shannon and Patrick?’ . . .

WILLEY: He asked how they were and, at the – at this point, I started asking him who he was and what he wanted.

MATTHEWS: Right.

WILLEY: And he just looked me right in the eye and he said, ‘You’re just not getting the message, are you?’ And I turned around and – and ran. I had no business running, and probably ran about 100 yards, I was so frightened, and I turned around and he was gone.

Willey later stated to Matthews that she recognized the man from pictures shown to her by ABC News reporter Jackie Judd. When asked by Matthews if it was Cody Shearer, Willey said that she couldn’t say, citing the Independent Counsel’s investigation. Id. NewsMax.com reports that Willey later told Matthews off camera that the stranger was in fact Clinton operative Cody Shearer.

Willey also told 60 Minutes that she felt pressured by Clinton’s lawyer Bob Bennett. She said that Bennett suggested she plead the Fifth Amendment and hire a criminal lawyer. According to Willey, “the insinuation to me was that Mr. Bennett was implying that I was going to face some kind of a criminal charge for perjury or – or something else, and that I would need an inside the loop – an inside Washington criminal lawyer, and . . . I didn’t and I don’t.”

Willey also stated that Nathan Landow tried to pressure her to keep her story secret. ABC News reported that Landow poured over $247,000 and raised over $600,000 for Clinton’s presidential campaigns. He reportedly pressured Willey in the weeks before and after her Jones deposition to deny her accusation that Clinton groped her, and to state that nothing had in fact happened.

ABC News also reported that a private investigator, Jared Stern, was hired by Landow’s lawyer “to pull Willey’s phone records, to find out what medications Willey might be taking and to conduct a ‘noisy’ investigation aimed at making sure Willey knew she was being watched.” Stern’s lawyer stated that Stern “perceived a situation where he was being asked to do something he wasn’t comfortable with.” As a result, Stern called Willey and left a message – using an alias – warning her that someone wanted to do her harm.

Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Willey’s expected testimony is probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice, obstruction of a criminal investigation, victim/witness tampering, and victim/witness retaliation by Clinton and his agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1510, 1512 and 1513.

Ms. Julie Hiatt Steele

Plaintiffs wish to question Ms. Steele on the reason(s) she changed her story about Kathleen Willey’s having confided to her the details of Clinton’s sexual assault, first stating and then denying that Willey told her about the incident immediately after it happened. Additionally, Plaintiffs also want to ask her whether former United States Trade Representative, Commerce Secretary and longtime Clinton operative Mickey Kantor threatened her to change her story by questioning the conditions surrounding the adoption of her child. Finally, Plaintiffs want to inquire about her friend, Mary Earl Highsmith’s, recent testimony in federal court that Steele told her she was “afraid it would be to her detriment” to take a position against Clinton.

In her May 11, 1999 interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews, Kathleen Willey stated that 60 Minutes Producer Michael Radutzky told her that Mickey Kantor had threatened her friend, Julie Hiatt Steele, to change her story. “[T]hey told me that — that my friend, Julie Steele, had been approached by a very high ranking member of the Clinton [A]dministration questioning her about the — the conditions of her adoption of her child.” Willey said that Radutzky told her that Kantor pressured her friend, Julie Steele, to change Steele’s corroboration of Willey’s encounter with Clinton:

MATTHEWS: . . . But its your belief that the [A]dministration used that child as – as a hostage, in effect, to get her to turn around?

WILLEY: That’s what I was told. . ..

MATTHEWS: By whom?

WILLEY: Well, by – I was told it was Mickey Kantor that went and threatened her with that.

MATTHEWS: Who told you that?

WILLEY: Michael Radutzky at “60 Minutes.”

The next day on Larry King Live, Willey explained that it was this act of intimidation by the White House that motivated her to do the 60 Minutes interview last year:

WILLEY: That’s what turned me. I didn’t go on “60 [M]inutes” to talk about the incident in the Oval Office. I was so outraged that they had – supposedly, that the White House had sent one of their minions to intimidate Julie with this adoption; I thought, well, regardless of what she’d done to me, regardless of how she had said that I had asked her to lie, I just thought that no mother should be threatened with her child. . . .

KING: “60 [M]inutes” misled you. They were going to do a story about Julie Hiatt Steele and lying, and they did a story instead about groping?

WILLEY: Yes.

KING: So why then do you believe them on Kantor?

WILLEY: Because I think that’s they way the White House operates. I think they try to intimidate people and scare them. They tried to scare me.

Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Steele’s expected testimony is probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice, obstruction of a criminal investigation, witness tampering, and threatening to retaliate against a witness in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1510, 1512 and 1513.

Ms. Sally Perdue

Plaintiffs would also like to question Ms. Sally Perdue, a former Miss Arkansas, about her claim that a known Democratic Party operative tried to hush her up during the 1992 campaign about an alleged affair with Clinton. She says that the man stated to her that “they knew that I went jogging by myself and he couldn’t guarantee what would happen to my pretty little legs.” On information and belief, Ms. Perdue has left the United States because of such threats and is presently in China. Plaintiffs seek leave to depose her as soon as she is located or otherwise becomes available.

III. Conclusion.

The threats, intimidation, and retaliation directed against these women by Clinton and his agents are so similar in nature that each of their accounts renders the next more credible. Indeed, when high government officials are behind such horrific tactics, the fear engendered is particularly agonizing. Here, we see that it was so widespread it kept Ms. Broaddrick from coming forward with her allegations of rape against Clinton. She explained in no uncertain terms that one of the reasons she maintained her silence was because she feared she would be “destroyed” like “the other women” if she came forward and revealed Clinton’s brutal conduct. It is this pervasive atmosphere of fear and intimidation that best demonstrates just how effective the RICO enterprise that meted out threats against these women has been.

Moreover, it is quite apparent from the facts that these women (and their families) were most seriously threatened around the time when they were expected to give testimony in official proceedings against Clinton. As prospective witnesses in this case with personal knowledge of racketeering activities by Clinton, Lindsey, and others, these women are subject to substantial and immediate risks to their physical safety and psychological well-being. No one can predict when or if an accident or change of mind may affect the availability of testimony from any particular witness, but reasonable people can infer that the testimony of a witness who has been assaulted, threatened and intimidated stands the greatest risk of “disappearing.” And, unfortunately, no one can predict the extent to which these Defendants will go to prevent the revelation of unlawful racketeering activities by them and others acting on their behalf. Given all the circumstances in this case, Plaintiffs and the aforementioned witnesses need the Court’s intervention to register and perpetuate their testimony before it is lost forever. There is no doubt that the Court’s intervention “may prevent a failure or delay of justice” in this case. As such, and in accordance with the D.C. Circuit’s recent ruling in Penn Mutual, this Court must, respectfully, permit Plaintiffs to take their depositions without delay.”

Browning Vs Clinton, Plaintiff’s expedited motion for leave to perpetuate testimony of threatened witnesses, Case No. 98-1991, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Elizabeth Gracen, Kathleen Willey, Julie Steele, Sally Perdue

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Boycott Facebook, Dustin Moskovitz donating $ 20 million to Democrats and Hillary to defeat Trump, Moskovitz and other libtards support one of the most evil corrupt candidates ever

Boycott Facebook, Dustin Moskovitz donating $ 20 million to Democrats and Hillary to defeat Trump, Moskovitz and other libtards support one of the most evil corrupt candidates ever

“If the guilty and unrepentant get off easy, what type of
prosecution is this. It’s not time to blame the Independent
Counsel Law; blame the prosecutor who wouldn’t do his job.
Because of Kenneth W. Starr’s complicity, the most corrupt
administration in the history of the country continues with
no end in sight. God save us all.”…Christopher Ruddy, NewsMax July 1, 1999

“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

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

 

 

From Zero Hedge September 9, 2016.

“Facebook Founder Gives $20mm Donation On Hillary To Defeat Trump’s “Fear And Hostility” Campaign

A few weeks back we noted how Bullard had questioned the intentions of ex-Facebook founder Dustin Moskovitz in funding the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up campaign (see “Why Is Facebook Funding “Anti-Fed” Activists“).  The “Fed Up” group has mounted an aggressive effort to convince the Fed to keep rates ultra low noting they favor central banking policies that “are aimed at making sure lower income households and minorities share in the recovery to the same degree as the well off.”

Ironically, Moskovitz, and his inflated FaceBook shares, are among the key beneficiaries of “ultra low rates” and not so much the poor and struggling people of this country.  A fact that was not lost on St. Louis Fed president James Bullard.  Per our previous post:

When it comes to Fed Up, “it’s Facebook money,” Bullard said. “I think it’s kind of a funny thing for them to fund because they want low interest rates in an era where we are awash in low interest rates, so it’s kind of crazy, isn’t it?”

 

I think that Dustin Moskovitz should be here, maybe he can helicopter in from Sun Valley or something instead of sending all these people, if he wants low interest rates. He could just come and argue about it,” Mr. Bullard said.

Just a few short weeks later we now learn that the billionaire techie, and former college roommate of Mark Zuckerberg, is set to become one of the largest donors to the Democratic Party.  According to CNN, Moskovitz will donate a total of $20 million to various Democratic organizations making him the 3rd most generous donor of this election cycle.  But Moskovitz, at least if taken at his word, isn’t really donating to elect Hillary as much as to defeat Trump saying that he wants to teach Republicans a lesson that by “supporting this kind of candidate, they compel people to act in response.

“This decision was not easy, particularly because we have reservations about anyone using large amounts of money to influence elections,” Moskovitz and his wife, Cari Tuna, wrote in a post on Medium. “We hope these efforts make it a little more likely that Secretary Clinton is able to pursue the agenda she’s outlined, and serve as a signal to the Republican Party that by running this kind of campaign – one built on fear and hostility?—?and supporting this kind of candidate, they compel people to act in response.”

 

“Cari and I have dedicated our lives to figuring out how to do the most good we can with the resources we’ve been given. Until now, those efforts have not included making endorsements or contributions in presidential elections,” Moskovitz wrote. “The Republican Party, and Donald Trump in particular, is running on a zero-sum vision, stressing a false contest between their constituency and the rest of the world.””

Read more:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-09/facebook-drops-20mm-donation-hillary-defeat-trumps-fear-and-hostility-campaign

 

Charles Ortel bio, B.A. from Yale, MBA from Harvard Business School, Clinton Foundation “largest unprosecuted charity fraud ever attempted”, $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid, Commercegate on steroids

Charles Ortel bio, B.A. from Yale, MBA from Harvard Business School, Clinton Foundation “largest unprosecuted charity fraud ever attempted”, $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid, Commercegate on steroids

“The Clinton Foundation is Commercegate on steroids.”…Citizen Wells

“If the guilty and unrepentant get off easy, what type of
prosecution is this. It’s not time to blame the Independent
Counsel Law; blame the prosecutor who wouldn’t do his job.
Because of Kenneth W. Starr’s complicity, the most corrupt
administration in the history of the country continues with
no end in sight. God save us all.”…Christopher Ruddy, NewsMax July 1, 1999

“The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation, which reportedly expects to raise $200 million to build a library to help memorialize the ex-president’s legacy, is nothing more than a ‘slush fund,’”…Dick Morris February 9, 2001

 

 

From Wall Street on Parade May 23, 2016.

“A Harvard MBA Guy Is Out to Bring Down the Clintons”

Remember Harry Markopolos? That’s the tenacious financial expert that pounded on the door of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for years, providing it with detailed, written evidentiary support for the premise that Bernie Madoff, the respected former Chairman of the NASDAQ stock market, was running a massive Ponzi scheme. The SEC never confirmed the fraud before Madoff confessed as he ran out of money in December 2008 because it skipped the most basic of investigation techniques: it failed to verify if real stocks and bonds actually existed in Madoff’s client portfolios. They didn’t.

There’s a new Markopolos in town with that same brand of leave-no-stone-unturned tenacity and he has his sights set on the charity operations of Hillary and Bill Clinton, known as the Clinton Foundation and its myriad tentacles. Ortel’s actions come just as Hillary Clinton makes her final sprint for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States with Bill in tow as her economic czar. Like Markopolos, Charles Ortel does not mince words.

In a 9-page letter dated yesterday and posted to his blog, Ortel calls the Clintons’ charity the “largest unprosecuted charity fraud ever attempted,” adding for good measure that the Clinton Foundation is part of an “international charity fraud network whose entire cumulative scale (counting inflows and outflows) approaches and may even exceed $100 billion, measured from 1997 forward.” Ortel lists 40 potential areas of fraud or wrongdoing that he plans to expose over the coming days.

Like Markopolos, Ortel has an impressive resume. Ortel’s LinkedIn profile shows that he received his B.A. from Yale and an MBA from Harvard Business School.  He previously worked as a Managing Director at investment bank Dillon Read and later as a Managing Director at the financial research firm, Newport Value Partners. In more recent years, Ortel has been a contributor to a number of news outlets including the Washington Times and TheStreet.com.

The charges being made by Ortel are difficult to dismiss as a flight of fancy because mainstream media has tinkered around the edges of precisely what Ortel is now calling out in copious detail.

In a 2013 New York Times article, “Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions,” reporters Nicholas Confessore and Amy Chozick hint that Hillary Clinton’s political operatives are occupying offices at the Clinton Foundation headquarters, writing that they “will work on organizing Mrs. Clinton’s packed schedule of paid speeches to trade groups and awards ceremonies and assist in the research and writing of Mrs. Clinton’s memoir about her time at the State Department, to be published by Simon & Schuster next summer.”

Read more:

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/05/a-harvard-mba-guy-is-out-to-bring-down-the-clintons/

From Zero Hedge August 8, 2016.

“”Clinton Foundation Is Charity Fraud Of Epic Proportions”, Analyst Charges In Stunning Takedown”

“In early May, we introduced readers to Charles Ortel, a Wall Street analyst who uncovered financial discrepancies at General Electric before its stock crashed in 2008, and whom the Sunday Times of London described as “one of the finest analysts of financial statements on the planet” in a 2009 story detailing the troubles at AIG. Having moved on beyond simple corporate fraud, Ortel spent the past year and a half digging into something more relevant to the current US situation:”charities”, and specifically the Clinton Foundation’s public records, federal and state-level tax filings, and donor disclosures.

Four months ago, Ortel began releasing his preliminary findings in the first of a series of up to 40 planned reports on his website. His allegation was simple: “this is a charity fraud.”

To learn more about the Clinton Foundation, Ortel decided to “take it apart and see how it worked” and he has been doing that ever since February 2015.

“I decided, as I did with GE, let’s pick one that’s complicated,” said Ortel. “The Clinton Foundation is complicated, but it’s really very small compared to GE.”

When Ortel tried to match up the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings with the disclosure reports from its major donors, he said he started to find problems. That includes records from the foundation’s many offshoots—including the Clinton Health Access Initiative and the Clinton Global Initiative—as well as its foreign subsidiaries.”

“”I decided it would be fun to cross-check what their donors thought they did when they donated to the Clinton Foundation, and that’s when I got really irritated,” he said. “There are massive discrepancies between what some of the major donors say they gave to the Clinton Foundation to do, and what the Clinton Foundation said what they got from the donors and what they did with it.”

As previously reported, last year the Clinton Foundation was forced to issue corrected tax filings for several years to correct donation errors. But Ortel said many of the discrepancies remain. “I’m against charity fraud. I think people in both parties are against charity fraud, and this is a charity fraud,” he said.

To be sure, Ortel’s efforts were to be commended: digging through the foundation’s numbers can not have been easy, considering that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put the Clinton Foundation on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits in 2015. Furthermore, the Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid. That’s because the organization spent the vast bulk of its windfall on “administration, travel, salaries and bonuses”, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

* * *

Overnight, on his website, Ortel released the long-awaited executive summary of his numerous, and at time confusing, findings: “Beginning today, and regularly thereafter, numerous detailed Exhibits will examine the known public record of the Clinton Charity Network within the context of applicable state, federal, and foreign laws.”

And while we await the upcoming exhibits to his summary, here are the main highlights from the executive summary, which we urge all visitors – who have an even passing interest in the effort that has consumed the Clintons’ time and energy for the two decades, and brought them substantial wealth – to read.”

Read more:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-07/clinton-foundation-charity-fraud-epic-proportions-analyst-charges-stunning-takedown

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

Who what killed Ron Brown?, Hillary John Podesta Bill Clinton other Clinton handlers?, Hillary plan greed ultimate cause, Hillary lied Ron Brown died

Who what killed Ron Brown?, Hillary John Podesta Bill Clinton other Clinton handlers?, Hillary plan greed ultimate cause, Hillary lied Ron Brown died

“If the guilty and unrepentant get off easy, what type of
prosecution is this. It’s not time to blame the Independent
Counsel Law; blame the prosecutor who wouldn’t do his job.
Because of Kenneth W. Starr’s complicity, the most corrupt
administration in the history of the country continues with
no end in sight. God save us all.”…Christopher Ruddy, NewsMax July 1, 1999

“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

“US criminal law: means, motive, and opportunity is a common summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. The Clinton camp met all 3 requirements in the death of Ron Brown”…Citizen Wells

 

 

I was shocked at how little coverage some of these stories got, then and now.

I was not surprised to find so many articles, critical of and exposing the Clintons, scrubbed from the internet.

Hillary’s role in conceiving the plan to sell Commerce Dept. mission seats for political contributions, and in carrying it out, has barely been covered.

Much of the coverage of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown’s death has been scrubbed. Much of that was from NewsMax. Most of that was scrubbed.

We recently learned from Judicial Watch of email requests to Huma Abedin, et al from Christopher Ruddy of NewsMax.

“The Abedin emails include a mid-August 2009, email exchange in which Band urges Abedin to follow up on a request from Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy to set up a meeting with then-Ambassador to Panama Barbara Stephenson on behalf of lobbyist Amb. Otto Reich, President Reagan’s ambassador to Venezuela who maintained high-level government positions during the tenure of both President George H.W. Bush and President George Bush.  In early September, Ruddy then was contacted by State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roberta S. Jacobson, at the behest of Band and Abedin, in reference to Ruddy’s concerns about Wilson Lucom, whose estate was embroiled in a heated multi-million-dollar lawsuit.  Ruddy’s Newsmax Media Inc, made a contribution to the Clinton Foundation of between $1 million and $5 million. The emails show the responsible official was put in contact with Ruddy.”

Abedin emails NewsMax Christopher Ruddy request, August 2009, Ruddy made a contribution to the Clinton Foundation of between $1 and $5 million, Set up meeting with Ambassador to Panama Barbara Stephenson on behalf of lobbyist Amb. Otto Reich

From NewsMax March 31, 1998 via Citizen News.

“James Carville: Ruddy is Number One “Antagonist” of Clinton White House”

“Clinton confidante James Carville says reporter Christopher Ruddy is the White House’s most antagonistic enemy in the press.

Carville made the revealing claim in a sworn deposition he gave to Judicial Watch which has filed suit against the White House for tampering with confidential FBI files.”

““The comments by Carville and others close to the Clintons about Ruddy proves they are very worried about his reporting,” Joseph Farah said. Farah heads the Western Journalism Center, an organization that supports investigative reporting, including Ruddy’s reporting into the suspicious deaths of Vincent Foster and Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown.

“This White House has engaged in a long term effort to discredit and smear Mr. Ruddy. It is also clear that despite the Lewinsky and Zippergate scandals-matters Ruddy has not touched-the White House is still panicking over the implications of Ruddy’s reports on Foster and Brown and are fearful the American people will come to realize the serious abuse of power that has taken place in these cases,” Farah said.”

James Carville: Ruddy is Number One “Antagonist” of Clinton White House, Sworn deposition for Judicial Watch suit against White House, Joseph Farah: proves they are very worried about his reporting, Newsmax March 31, 1998

From Citizen Wells April 21, 2015.

“If you make a deal with Hillary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation you likely are making a deal with the devil.

clinton_devil

Christopher Ruddy, who wrote many hard hittings articles about the Clintons and Vincent Foster death, became friends with the Clintons in 2007.”

“Ruddy and the late former New York City Mayor Ed Koch helped broker a July 2007 meeting with Scaife and the former president in the Clinton Foundation’s Harlem office, and Scaife donated more than $100,000 to the foundation. Still, Scaife raised eyebrows by praising Hillary Clinton during her 2008 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, and his Tribune-Review later endorsed her over Barack Obama ahead of the Pennsylvania primary.”

“From Joseph Farah of WND March 27, 2012.”

“Newsmax’s Chris Ruddy was once a very good friend of mine.

I thought I knew him well.”

“Today, Dick Scaife and Chris Ruddy own Newsmax – some would suggest my competition.”

“The point is simple. There are many people today who are profiting from their allegedly “conservative” credentials. But some of them – like my old friend Chris Ruddy – have become part of the problem. They haven’t just “compromised,” they’ve gone over to the dark side. In fact, some of them are playing both sides against the middle in an indecent grasp to be part of the establishment.

I just thought you should know.”

Hillary Clinton and Clinton foundation… dealing with the devil, Clintons wield much power, Christopher Ruddy went from Clintons critic to friend, NY Times Bob Herbert wrote in 2001 Democratic Party made the equivalent of a pact with the devil, Ruddy reported it

From World Net Daily March 31, 2006 via Cashill.com.

“Nolanda Hill Reflects on Ron Brown’s 10th Anniversary”

“On April 3, 1996, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and 34 others died following the crash of an Air Force plane into a Croatian hillside.

Ten years later, Brown confidante Nolanda Butler Hill wonders why no one is paying any heed to the 10th anniversary of his death. How often is it, she asks, that a United States cabinet member dies on duty in a foreign country, receives a hero’s burial in Arlington National Cemetery, and then is quickly and decisively forgotten.

Hill speculates that it may have something to do with the fact that Ron was black. That may be part of the equation, but as Hill knows, the issue goes much deeper than race. “The reason Ron Brown died,” says Hill with conviction, “was because he had no choice but to bring the Clinton presidency down.”

A lifelong Democrat, Hill contends that Brown’s memory will remain suppressed as long as Hillary Clinton remains a viable candidate. My experiences with the major media on this issue suggest that she is almost assuredly correct. To a person, black or white, reporters and producers do not want to hear anything about Ron Brown, this despite the fact that his past surely colors the future of his son Michael, now running for mayor in Washington, D.C.

Hill is convinced and always has been that Ron Brown was assassinated. At the time of his death, I had refused to believe such a scenario possible. I was doing talk radio then in Kansas City, and I vigorously rejected all speculation about conspiracy. When I started research for my book, Ron Brown’s Body, in 2003, I began with the conviction that the plane crash was accidental and the famed hole in Brown’s head was some sort of anomaly. To say the least, I have lost that conviction.

I lost the conviction even before I found the critical evidence deep in the 22-volume U.S.A.F report, before I reviewed the forensic data on Brown’s head wound, or heard the first hand accounts from U.S. Navy forensic photographer, Kathleen Janoski, who discovered it. What caused me to doubt was what I learned about Brown’s state of mind before his death.

After a lifetime of indifference, Ron Brown had begun going to church. This, even his family acknowledges. For anyone looking closely, this sudden turn to the spiritual rightly suggested a soul in turmoil. Prayer came hard for Brown. He had worshipped too long and too devoutly at the altar of Mammon. But when the independent counsel targeted not only him and Hill, but also his son Michael, Brown lost much of his faith in the here and now. For Brown, this was the beginning of wisdom. The shame was it had to come so late.

Brown needed immediate, temporal help as well. And so he sought a private meeting with President Clinton, one-on-one. They had a lot to talk about. Highest on Brown’s list of priorities was the fate of Michael Brown, now just thirty and the father of twins. Brown loved the boy dearly. He could not bear the thought of his going to jail. He knew it would all but kill his wife, Alma. And he knew finally that he was the one responsible. After all, it was he who had involved Michael in that stupid Oklahoma scam, the one that began when Hillary Clinton asked him to bail out Chief of Staff, Mack McLarty. How to explain that even to himself?

It was Hill who pushed Brown to seek the meeting with Clinton. After Michael was publicly targeted, the pushing got easier. “I was absolutely convinced that Michael was looking at jail time,” says Hill. In the last months of Brown’s life, as a condition for her not rolling over on him, Hill insisted that Brown advise her of all his legal troubles. This he did.

As Hill tells it—and everything she has ever told me checks out–the meeting at the White House family quarters did not go well. Brown told the president to call off the dogs, to shut down the independent counsel, to do whatever had to be done because he was not about to let Michael do jail time.

After Brown had finished, the president told Brown he doubted that he could do anything for him. The die had been cast. The case was out of his hands. In February 1996, more than a year into his mad scramble to retain the presidency, the president likely calculated the political risk to his re-election chances and ruled against intervention.”

Read more:

http://www.cashill.com/ronbrown/ronbrown2006_3.htm

From World Net Daily April 7, 2006 via Cashill.com.

“What really happened to Ron Brown”

“In Argentina, during the dark days, they called them “los desaparecidos,” the disappeared. On April 10, 1996, Ron Brown was buried with full honors at Arlington National Cemetery and then joined his fellow desaparecidos. So thoroughly has Brown disappeared from view that the only articles I could find on Google News about the 10th anniversary of his death were those that I had written myself.

What follows, unless new information breaks, is my last article on the subject. In it, I attempt to find the one scenario that makes sense of all the existing evidence. Although speculative in part, it follows the evidence in full. There are no loose ends.


Aviation systems manager Niko Jerkuic does not report in for work on the morning of April 3, 1996, but he has a busy day ahead of him. He is not looking forward to it. Just a day and a half earlier, embattled Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was ordered to fly to Jerkuic’s airport in Dubrovnik, Croatia. A trip like this in a war-torn area would typically require weeks of security planning. Not this time.

Right after that change of plans, agents of the Croatian intelligence services gave Jerkuic an assignment he did not feel free to turn down. They needed to misdirect Brown’s plane, and they required his assistance.

The project is not technically difficult. Jerkuic has seen a lot in his 46 years. He knows all about “meaconing” or “spoofing” as it is sometimes generically known. Since the 1940s, portable Non-Directional Radio Beacon stations have been available to military and civilian operators and have proved especially useful in war-torn areas like this one near the Bosnian border.

The agents with whom he is working have brought along a gasoline driven generator, a tunable transmitter, and a temporary antenna, all loaded into the back of a pickup truck. Together, they drive to an isolated spot just outside of Dubrovnik and only about three or four miles east-southeast of Kolocep Island, the site of the real Non-Directional Radio Beacon, the beacon on which pilots are supposed to fix in order to guide their planes into the Dubrovnik airport.

Jerkuic sets the frequency of his portable beacon at 318 kilohertz to match that of the Kolocep (KLP) beacon and encodes the KLP Morse code identifier. He cannot power it up, however, until all the earlier scheduled flights have landed.

Still about 100 miles away, a CT-43A, the military version of a Boeing 737 carrying Ron Brown and 34 others, is cleared “direct to the KLP NDB.” The primary reason for Brown’s trip is to broker a sweetheart deal between Croatia and the Enron Corporation. Croatia’s anti-Semitic strongman Franjo Tudhman has agreed to the deal, one disastrous for Croatia, in the hope that by cooperating with Enron he can ingratiate himself to the Clinton administration and avoid indictment by the World Court for war crimes. He has cancer. He doesn’t want to die in prison.

The pilots are told they are “number one for beacon approach.” When the word comes from the Dubrovnik tower that Brown’s plane has checked in at 2:46 p.m. local time and the other planes have landed, Jerkuic shuts down the normal NDB and activates the “rogue” NDB. The automatic direction finder in Brown’s plane now points to Jerkuic’s beacon near Dubrovnik.

At this distance, the needle shift is negligible. USAF pilots Ashley Davis and Tim Shafer scarcely notice. “Hmmm,” Davis thinks to himself when he sees it, “the NDB’s a little further east than I thought.” But given its 318-kilohertz frequency, Davis naturally assumes the radio signal to be coming from Kolocep and flies toward it. The Dubrovnik tower has no radar. At this stage, the radio signal is the pilots’ only real guide to the world below the clouds. In fact, Brown’s itinerary was shifted to Dubrovnik only after the weather service confirmed that the next several days would be overcast in Croatia. These conditions were critical for the plan to work.

As the signal strengthens, Davis gradually aligns the automatic direction finder with the posted 119-degree setting. At 2:54 pm, he watches as the ADF swings back around to the bottom, now at a 299-degree reading. He has passed over the beacon and will navigate from the tail of the ADF needle.

“We’re inside the locator, inbound,” he radios the tower, and the tower clears his approach and landing. At that moment, the charts tell the pilots the airport is 12 miles straight ahead on a 119-degree course. They will be able to see the runway in about three minutes. In fact, however, the plane is now heading right toward St. John’s Peak about eight miles away, as the AWACs plane hovering over head will later verify.

Word of the crash comes over Jerkuic’s radio. He shuts down the temporary transmitter and reactivates the Kolocep beacon. Still, he has no stomach for this. The agents assigned to him sense his unease, but they have work to do, like finding the plane and making sure the person they were assigned to kill is dead.

They make their way to St. John’s Peak and up the mountain. The bodies are scattered, and there are only a few black men among them. They pull out the photo of Brown and start checking. Brown is not hard to find. But what stuns the men is that he is farther from the plane than is anyone else. He appears to have crawled there.

The leader kneels down next to Brown and turns him over on his back. He is still not sure whether Brown is dead or not. He has no obvious fatal wound. The leader pulls out his pistol and fires skillfully into the laceration on the top of Brown’s head. In this part of the world, no one even blinks at the sound of gunfire.

The men look around quickly for other survivors. Tech sergeant Shelly Kelly survived the crash in the rear jump sheet. But her back is broken, and she lies mutely amidst the rubble. The men don’t see or hear her. They hustle back down the hill. Their colleague back at the airport has misdirected the search in the opposite direction, out over the Adriatic, for several hours. But the men on the hill do not want to hang around any longer than necessary. They exit the area with their portable beacon and deep six it. Kelly will die from that misdirection.

Three days after the crash, a memorial service is held at the Dubrovnik airport for those killed in the crash. Just hours later, Niko Jerkuic answers the knock on his door and greets the men who recruited him. He is still anxious, and they can see it. U.S. Air Force investigators will start interviewing airport personnel in two days. The Croatian agents cannot afford to let the Air Force talk to Jerkuic.

“We hate to do this,” says the one agent as he shoots Jerkuic in the chest. They don’t sweat the details as they know who will be investigating, Miroslav Tudjman, Franjo’s son, the head of Croatian intelligence. Miroslav declares it a suicide.”

Read more:

http://www.cashill.com/ronbrown/ronbrown2006_4.htm

ronbrownsbody

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Hillary guilty in Commercegate trade of mission seats for campaign contributions, Judicial Watch Interim Report to Congress, Nolanda Hill testimony, Leon Panetta and John Podesta ordered Ron Brown to cover-up crimes

Hillary guilty in Commercegate trade of mission seats for campaign contributions, Judicial Watch Interim Report to Congress, Nolanda Hill testimony, Leon Panetta and John Podesta ordered Ron Brown to cover-up crimes

“After the elections of 1994, and the Democrats’ loss of Congress, I became aware, through my discussions with Ron, that the trade missions were being used as a fundraising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore presidential campaign and the Democratic Party. Specifically, Ron told me that domestic companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department. Ron expressed to me his displeasure that the purpose of the Commerce trade missions had been and were being perverted at the direction of The White House.”…Nolanda Hill Affidavit

“The First Lady conceived of the idea to sell the trade mission seats in exchange for political contributions”…Nolanda Hill court testimony

“Hillary lied Americans died”…Citizen Wells

 

From the:

Judicial Watch Interim Report on Crimes and Other Offenses Committedby President Bill Clinton Warranting His Impeachment and Removal from Elected Office

September 28, 1998

“PART III

COMMERCEGATE/CHINAGATE
Crimes and Other Offenses Relating to the Illegal Sale of U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Mission Seats for Campaign Contributions that Warrant Impeachmentand Removal from Office of President Bill Clinton

” I. Introduction.

After the elections of 1994, and the Democrats’ loss of Congress, I became aware, through my discussions with [late Commerce Secretary] Ron [Brown], that the trade missions were being used as a fundraising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore presidential campaign and the Democratic Party. Specifically, Ron told me that domestic companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department. Ron expressed to me his displeasure that the purpose of the Commerce trade missions had been and were being perverted at the direction of The White House.
Affidavit of Nolanda Butler Hill, January 17, 1998(131)
****Question: You are aware, however, that Alexis Herman would set up briefing sessions for participants that went on trade missions before they went overseas? You were aware of that?

Nolanda Hill: I was.

Question: And at those briefing sessions appeared the President and Vice President.

Nolanda Hill: I was told that by Secretary Brown.

****
Question: You’ve mentioned, to some extent – I’ll let your testimony speak for itself – Harold Ickes. Anybody else?…

Nolanda Hill: Ultimately, [Ron Brown] believed that the President of the United States was, at least tangentially.

Question: Involved?

Nolanda Hill: Yes, sir. It was his re-election that was at stake.

Question: Ron believed that the President of the United States knew the trade missions were being sold and their purpose being perverted?

Nolanda Hill: Yes, sir.Nolanda Butler Hill Court Testimony, March 23, 1998(132)

 

In the Fall of 1994, Judicial Watch first became aware of evidence that the Clinton Commerce Department was illegally selling seats on its international trade missions in exchange for political contributions.(133) Reports in Business Week and The Wall Street Journal showed that there was a high incidence of Democratic Party contributors on these taxpayer-financed trade missions.(134)

The fact that the President installed the former head of the Democratic National Committee, Ronald H. Brown, as Commerce Secretary also raised concerns about Clinton Commerce Department operations. When Brown brought his entire DNC fundraising staff with him to Clinton Commerce, these suspicions increased.

After Judicial Watch filed requests with the Clinton Commerce Department for information regarding these trade missions under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), it was immediately stonewalled and was forced to file a lawsuit in 1995 to obtain the requested information.(135) Even after filing suit, the Clinton Administration continued to stonewall.(136)

Over the next three (3) years, Judicial Watch, in its efforts to uncover what the Clinton Commerce Department was hiding from the American people, found substantial, compelling evidence that seats on Clinton Commerce Department trade missions were indeed being sold in exchange for campaign contributions, with the knowledge and complicity, if not at the direction of, officials at the highest levels of the Clinton White House, including the President, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. In addition, Judicial Watch’s attempts to uncover the truth were obstructed through perjury, obstruction of justice, intimidation and retaliation that has marred other recent investigation of Clinton scandals, including the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky matters. In short, the court process was obstructed by Clinton appointees at his Commerce Department and elsewhere by:

� Perjury;� Submission of false sworn declarations;

� Destruction and shredding of evidence;

� Improperly withholding documents contrary to Court orders;

� Threats and intimidation of witnesses and investigators; and

� Misconduct by Clinton Administration lawyers.

Nevertheless, Judicial Watch, through its investigations and the legal discovery process, found “smoking gun” documents detailing the sale the trade mission seats for campaign contributions in the files of the Clinton White House, Clinton Commerce Department, and the DNC, including:

� Memos from the Clinton White House files of Harold Ickes and Alexis Herman showing that the $100,000 DNC Managing Trustee Program included the sale of the Clinton Commerce Department trade mission seats (among other government-financed perks) and was designed to net President Clinton’s DNC political operation $40 million;(137)� A brochure by the Democratic National Committee showing that “foreign trade mission” seats were available for $100,000 contributions to the DNC;(138)

� A list of DNC minority donors found in the files of a key Clinton Commerce Department official;(139)

� A Clinton Commerce Department memo indicating that the DNC donors were input into the Commerce Department government database;(140) and

� A DNC memo showing that the DNC provided the names of donors to the Clinton Commerce Department for trade missions to Russia and Belgium.(141)

In January 1998, Judicial Watch uncovered a witness, Nolanda Butler Hill, a close confidante and business partner of late Commerce Secretary Brown, with whom Secretary Brown had shared key details about the campaign-contributions-for-seats-on-trade-missions scheme, as well as the Clinton Administration’s efforts to stonewall Judicial Watch’s lawsuit. Secretary Brown had even shown important documents to Ms. Hill that detailed this unlawful sale of taxpayer-financed government services. With Ms. Hill’s uncontroverted testimony providing the capstone to its investigation, Judicial Watch has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that not only was the Clinton Administration engaged in an unlawful scheme to sell seats on Commerce Department trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions, but that a criminal cover-up was ordered by President Clinton’s top aides to thwart Judicial Watch’s Court-ordered investigation and to hide the culpability of the President, Mrs. Clinton, the Clinton Administration and the DNC for their use of Commerce Department trade missions as a political fundraising vehicle.

Ms. Hill testified that then White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered Commerce Secretary Brown to defy Court orders and obstruct the Judicial Watch suit until after the 1996 federal elections. Ms. Hill’s sworn testimony implicated the President’s top staff members in obstruction of justice.

Ms. Hill also tied the sale of trade mission seats directly to President Clinton. In both a sworn affidavit and Court testimony, Ms. Hill explained that:

� The First Lady conceived of the idea to sell the trade mission seats in exchange for political contributions;

� The President knew of and approved this scheme;� The Vice President participated in this scheme;

� Commerce Secretary Ron Brown helped implement the illegal fundraising operation out of the Clinton Commerce Department;

� Presidential White House aides Harold Ickes and (now Labor Secretary) Alexis Herman helped orchestrate the sale of the Commerce trade mission seats;

� The President’s top fundraisers at the DNC and his re-election campaign (Marvin Rosen and Terrence McAuliffe) helped coordinate the selling of these taxpayer resources in exchange for political contributions;

� Presidential Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered the cover-up of these activities; and

� The President’s appointees at the Commerce Department have committed perjury, destroyed and suppressed evidence, and likely breached our nation’s security.”

“II. Judicial Watch’s Investigation Has Uncovered Substantial, Compelling Evidence that Seats on Taxpayer-Financed, Commerce Department Trade Missions Were Sold in Exchange for Campaign Contributions.

During the course of its investigation, Judicial Watch discovered substantial, compelling evidence that the Clinton Administration sold seats on taxpayer-financed Commerce Department trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions to the DNC/1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.

At a March 23, 1998 evidentiary hearing in Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit, Ms. Nolanda B. Hill, a close confidante and business partner of the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown,(146) testified, under oath, that Secretary Brown told her that he was ordered by the Clinton White House to begin selling Commerce trade mission seats in exchange for political contributions to the DNC/1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.(147) Ms. Hill’s oral testimony confirmed written testimony she had given to Judicial Watch in an affidavit on January 17, 1998:

After the elections of 1994, and the Democrats’ loss of Congress, I became aware, through my discussions with Ron [Brown], that the trade missions were being used as a fundraising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore presidential campaign and the Democratic Party. Specifically, Ron told me that domestic companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department. Ron expressed to me his displeasure that the purpose of the Commerce trade missions had been and were being perverted at the direction of The White House.(148)

According to what Secretary Brown told Ms. Hill, the trade mission seats were being sold in part because of “panic” by the President and First Lady induced by their Democratic Party’s loss of Congress to the Republicans in 1994:

[Ron Brown’s] discussion with me centered around the panic of – or his perception of panic – with the President and First Lady, after the loss of Congress to the Republicans, and that that was going to – they were afraid they wouldn’t be able to raise money, and they were really worried about it. (149)

Ms. Hill testified that Secretary Brown told her that it was Hillary Rodham Clinton who ordered that the trade mission seats be sold:

Q: And did he not say to you that – and I am kind of paraphrasing – Hillary believes that every thing is politics and politics is driven by money; correct?A: He did say those — close to those words, as I recall….

Q: And he told that you that, in fact, it was Hillary’s idea to use the trade missions to raise money; correct?

A: He initially believed that she was very instrumental, and he gave her a lot of credit.(150)

Seccretary Brown told Ms. Hill that he was “[j]ust doing my chores for Hillary Rodham Clinton” and he complained, “I’m not a mother” – expletive deleted – “king tour guide for HillaryClinton.”(151)

Importantly, Secretary Brown told Hill that the President himself was involved in the sale of seats on Commerce Department trade missions:

A: Ultimately he believed that the President of the United States was, at least tangentially.Q: Involved?

A: Yes sir. It was his re-election that was at stake.

Q: Ron believed that the President of the United States knew the trade missions were being sold, and their purpose was being perverted?

A: Yes, sir.(152)

In fact, Ms. Hill testified that Secretary Brown resented the Clinton’s involvement in the misuse of the Commerce Department trade missions, which he believed had become nothing more than a “street level protection racket.”(153)

Ms. Hill also testified that, in addition to the President and Mrs. Clinton, high level Clinton Administration officials were also directly involved. The Commerce Department’s Office of Business Liaison, then run by former DNC fundraiser Melissa Moss, worked with the President’s Office of Public Liaison at the White House, then run by Labor Secretary Alexis Herman, to set up White House “briefing sessions” for trade mission participants with either President Clinton or Vice President Gore, or both.(154) Hill also testified that Clinton’s top political aide, former Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, served as the White House’s “point man” for the sale of seats on Commerce Department trade missions:

Q: . . . Harold Ickes was involved in the sale of trade missions, too, wasn’t he?A: It was my understanding through Secretary Brown that Mr. Ickes was the political point man for the White House…. Mr. Ickes, according to what Secretary Brown told me, participated heavily in determining what happened from a political standpoint.(155)

Clinton’s top political fundraisers for the DNC and his re-election campaign, Terry McAuliffe and Marvin Rosen, were also heavily involved in the illegal sale of the trade mission trips, according to what Secretary Brown told Ms. Hill:

Q: And [Terry McAuliffe] was instrumental, based on your discussions with Ron, in working with the White House and coordinating the sale of seats on trade missions; correct?A: He was certainly highly involved, according to Ron.

**** Q: And another person who was highly involved from the DNC in coordinating the sale of seats on trade missions for campaign contributions was Marvin Rosen; correct?

A: I understood from Ron that that was correct.

Q: And these people worked with the White House in furthering what Ron thought was a perversion of his trade missions; correct?

A: That’s correct.(156)

Indeed, the sworn testimony of Ms. Hill indicated that donors had to pay the DNC/Clinton-Gore campaign a minimum of $50,000 in order to receive access to government services — Commerce trade mission seats:

In early 1996, Ron showed me a packet of documents, about 1 inch thick, which he removed from his ostrich skin portfolio. Ron told me that these documents had been provided to him from Commerce Department files as part of the collections efforts to produce documents to Judicial Watch in this case. I only reviewed the top five or six documents, which were on Commerce Department letterhead under the signature of Melissa Moss of the Office of Business Liaison. What I reviewed comprised letters of Ms. Moss to trade mission participants, each of which specifically referenced a substantial financial contribution to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). My response was immediate and decisive. I told Ron he must instruct that production of these documents and all responsive documents be immediate and I advised him to mitigate his own damages by releasing Ms. Moss from her duties and admonishing her for using the offices of the Commerce Department for partisan political fundraising.(157)

Ms. Hill testified in open Court that she understood that $50,000 was the minimum “the White House was charging to go on a trade mission . . . .”(158) According to Ms. Hill, Secretary Brown was personally offended that the White House put such a low dollar figure on his trade trips. “I’m worth more than $50,000 a pop,” Secretary Brown told her.(159) A DNC brochure soliciting members for its “Managing Trustee” program shows that participation in “foreign trade missions” was only one of the perks available to a contributor who donated at least $100,000 to the DNC.(160) Documents from the White House files of Harold Ickes and Alexis Herman also clearly show that the $100,000 DNC Managing Trustee Program, which included trade missions, among other taxpayer-financed quid pro quos, was designed to net President Clinton’s DNC political operation $40 million.(161) Importantly, Alexis Herman was listed on the documents as the person to see to purchase a “ticket” on a Clinton Commerce Department trade mission.(162)

Additional evidence corroborates Ms. Hill’s testimony that seats on Clinton Commerce Department trade missions were being sold in exchange for contributions to the DNC/1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign. In the course of discovery in its FOIA litigation, Judicial Watch discovered a list of DNC “minority donors” in the possession of the Clinton Commerce Department.(163) Apparently, this list of DNC contributors had been sent by the DNC to the Commerce Department to select participants on trade missions.

Just recently, Judicial Watch discovered additional documents from the DNC that provide further corroboration of Ms. Hill’s testimony. A January 13, 1994 memorandum from DNC official Eric Silden clearly demonstrates the DNC’s direct role in selecting participants for Commerce Department trade missions:

Sally Painter at Commerce called to ask for a list of candidates for a trade mission to Russia. She needs an initial list by tomorrow (Friday 1/14) of 20-30 names. . . . Ari will use the “Belgium trade mission list” as a base of names, to be augmented by additional names that he feels are relevant to Russian trade. It was suggested that he contact Reta Lewis to determine which names on the Belgium list will be included in the delegation, so that they are not also submitted to Commerce for the Russian delegation. . . . Bob will be the point contact with Commerce, as I will not be in the office on Friday afternoon to deliver the list to Sally. (Emphasis added.)(164)

Judicial Watch has subpoenaed similar materials from the DNC, and will depose top DNC officials Terry McAuliffe and Marvin Rosen in the next few weeks. Even without the additional evidence that Judicial Watch is likely to uncover, it is clear that during the Clinton Administration, the Commerce Department has become nothing more than an arm of the DNC, where taxpayer-financed government services can be bought and sold in exchange for campaign contributions. Even the liberal Center for Public Integrity, after examining some of the evidence uncovered by Judicial Watch, concluded this was a “pay to play” scheme:

When Ron Brown was simultaneously a partner at the preeminent Washington law and lobbying firm of Patton, Boggs and Blow and chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), he was renowned as the consummate deal-maker. By all appearances, Brown’s Department of Commerce has continued to apply the art of the deal. As one Justice Department investigator put it, a corporation can “pay to play.” American giants such as AT&T and ARCO, among others, which made contributions to the DNC, have gotten seats on Brown’s plane when he has traveled to far-off lands to meet with foreign governments in an effort to promote American business.The seat on the secretary’s plane can be viewed essentially as the quo in the quid pro quo relationship between contributors and the administration. Those DNC contributors, with Brown’s assistance, were in a position to cut their own deals for projects in those foreign countries whose representatives attended meetings with the U.S. delegation. Some companies came away from the trips with million and sometimes billion dollar deals.

Others came away with expanded business contacts that led to future deals. And others went in search of tax breaks. For example, gas and oil company representatives on the Russia trip argued for a lowering of the excise tax on oil imposed by the Yelstin government. The Texas-based TGV/Diamond Shamrock company came away from the South America trip with a tax break from Argentina worth an estimated $20-$30 million.(165)

In sum, Judicial Watch has uncovered substantial, compelling evidence demonstrating a massive sell-off of taxpayer-financed services – namely seats on Commerce Department trade missions – upon the orders of, and with the direct knowledge and participation, of the President and Mrs. Clinton. This illegal sale of taxpayer-financed services violates several federal statutes against the misappropriation of government funds, bribery and graft, as well as a host of campaign fundraising statutes, including but hardly limited to 18 U.S.C. § 600, et seq. ”

“Secretary Brown personally involved himself in the FOIA process because of his concerns about what the Judicial Watch suit might expose. He also was ordered to do so by the Clinton White House, with whom he stayed in routine contact about the case.(183) As Ms. Hill would later testify in both her January 17, 1998 affidavit and at the March 23, 1998 evidentiary hearing, President Clinton’s two top deputies, then White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta, directly ordered Brown to defy the Court’s orders and obstruct the Judicial Watch suit until after the 1996 elections:

I further learned through discussions with Ron [Brown] that The White House, through Leon Panetta and John Podesta, had instructed him to delay the case by withholding the production of documents prior to the 1996 elections, and to devise a way not to comply with the court’s orders.(184) (Emphasis added.)

****Q: And that Leon Panetta had told Ron that, quote, “He had the responsibility of containing the Judicial Watch lawsuit”?

A: Yes.

Q: And you responded to Ron, did you not, by telling him that that strategy of stall, stall, stall would not work forever?

A: Yes, in part.(185)

Weekly reports sent by Secretary Brown to Chief of Staff Leon Panetta at the Clinton White House confirm Panetta’s involvement, as they discussed the status of Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests.(186)

Ms. Hill would later testify about Mr. Panetta’s and Mr. Podesta’s efforts to obstruct justice and cover-up the sale of trade mission seats for the President’s re-election effort:

Q: And you learned that Leon Panetta and John Podesta had instructed him to delay the case for political reasons?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, do you remember Ron saying to you that Panetta and Podesta wanted him to, quote, “slow pedal” the case until after the [1996] elections? Those were the words that were used, was it not?

A: Yes.

Q: And that Ron mimicked Leon Panetta and laughed when he used the words “slow pedal”?

A: Well, he did a pretty good Leon Panetta.

Q: Imitation?

A: (Nods head affirmatively.)(187)

Ms. Hill’s testimony indicates that the President was personally aware of this unlawful obstruction. She would later testify that, shortly after she saw Commerce Department correspondence indicating that trade mission seats were being sold in exchange for political contributions, Secretary Brown and the President had a meeting. This meeting occurred just before Brown took his fateful trip to Croatia:(188)

Q: What did he tell you was the reason he went to see the President?A: . . . It concerned the independent counsel investigation.

Q: Ron was also concerned about the situation at the Commerce Department; correct?

A: He was very concerned about the attempt by Congress to shut down the Commerce Department.

Q: And he was also concerned about this lawsuit; correct, Judicial Watch’s lawsuit?

A: He was concerned about it, yes, sir.

Q: And you had actually suggested to him that he go see the President, didn’t you?

A: I suggested to him that that – yes, I did.

Q: And Ron relayed to you — there was a meeting between Ron and the President at that time, Ron told you; did he not?

A: Ron told me that there was.(189)

The evidence thus shows that key White House officials, acting on the likely command of the President himself, ordered Secretary Brown to obstruct the lawsuit and defy Court orders. This obstruction of justice would involve the use of perjury, the destruction of documents and threats and intimidation of witnesses and investigators.”

    • “False Sworn Declarations.

Secretary Brown himself submitted a sworn statement, which Judicial Watch later learned was patently false and misleading. In his March 14, 1996 declaration, Secretary Brown testified:

1. I did not direct, supervise, or otherwise participate in determining, the scope of the Department of Commerce’s search for and/or preparation of response to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests made the basis of this suit. 2. I do not maintain documents responsive to the FOIA requests made the basis of this suit, nor at the time of the FOIA requests did I maintain any such documents.(190)

In reviewing this declaration, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth remarked about its obviously careful wording:

Well, unfortunately, the Secretary died before his deposition, but that statement from the Secretary raises more questions than it answers. . . . He didn’t say there were no such documents or that he never had any such documents . . . which would have been the logical thing to say . . . .(191)

Ms. Hill would later testify that, not only did Secretary Brown maintain responsive documents in his office, but he even showed her clearly responsive documents on Clinton Commerce Department letterhead, under Melissa Moss’ signature, which he kept in an ostrich skin portfolio.(192) These documents have never been produced to Judicial Watch despite Ms. Hill’s advice to Secretary Brown that they be produced immediately,(193) and were likely destroyed after Secretary Brown’s death.(194)

Ms. Hill also later testified that Secretary Brown told her that his declaration was purposely misleading:

A: He felt like the wording was truthful, but it was crafted very carefully.

Q: How was it crafted very carefully?A: The words “in determining.” He felt like he could truthfully say that he didn’t determine the scope of the search.

Q: Why was that important?

A: I don’t think I understand.

Q: In other words, he didn’t want to be part – he didn’t want to be implicated in the aspect of actually searching? He didn’t want to have to swear to that; correct?

A: That’s right.

Q: Because of the sensitive nature of some documents, showing the involvement of the White House in selling trade missions?

A: He just didn’t want to be involved.

Q: Dealing with the White House, the sale of trade missions; correct?

A: He didn’t want to be involved with the FOIA issue.

Q: Because of the legal ramifications; correct?

A: He was under investigation by independent counsel.

Q: So the answer is yes?

A: Yes.(195)

Secretary Brown carefully crafted a misleading affidavit to the Court and unlawfully withheld responsive documents. He personally showed Ms. Hill “smoking gun” Commerce Department documents under Melissa Moss’ signature detailing the sale of the taxpayer-financed trade mission seats for political contributions to the DNC.(196) He obviously complied with his orders from the White House, and in doing so obstructed justice.

In addition, the Clinton Commerce Department touted Anthony Das, the Executive Secretary in the Executive Secretariat of the Office of the Secretary of Commerce, as the person charged with overseeing the search for and production of documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request. In a sworn declaration dated March 10, 1995, Mr. Das testified that, as Executive Secretary, he had “been delegated authority to initially respond to the requests for records of the Executive Secretariat,” and that, upon receipt of such a request, it was the job of the Executive Secretariat to “direct[] all other Department offices which might have responsive records to conduct searches for records.”(197)

Contrary to his sworn declaration, at his March 27, 1996 and October 9, 1996 depositions, Das made it clear that his role in the search for responsive documents was minimal, if not non-existent. First, Das testified that he never reviewed Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests.(198) Das also testified that he never discussed the document search with Secretary Brown, although he had frequent contact with him.(199) He also testified that he didn’t know of anyone searching Secretary Brown’s office.(200) Upon reviewing these obvious inconsistencies between Das’ declaration and his deposition testimony, the Court asked Clinton Justice Department counsel:

Don’t you think it’s rather curious that you would file with me an affidavit from Das saying the Secretary had no records and then admit in his deposition he never asked the Secretary?(201)

Clinton Justice Department lawyer, Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Hegyi, responded that Das somehow knew Brown did not keep records in his office. Thirty-eight (38) subsequent depositions showed no one asked about or searched Secretary Brown’s office for responsive documents.

Additional evidence of false, sworn declarations arose when Judicial Watch deposed Mary Ann McFate, Director of the Office of Organization and Management Support at the Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration (“ITA”). Ms. McFate submitted no less than eight (8) sworn declarations claiming responsibility for the search for and production of responsive documents throughout the Clinton Commerce Department.(202) However, at her October 15, 1996 deposition, Ms. McFate testified that her search for documents was limited solely to the ITA, although the ITA was clearly not the only branch of the Clinton Commerce Department possessing responsive documents.(203) Ms. McFate also testified at her deposition that she was not involved in searching any other bureaus or offices of the Clinton Commerce Department.(204) Accordingly, the declarations of Ms. McFate, submitted by the Clinton Commerce Department’s Office of General Counsel, were clearly false and misleading.(205)

    • “Destruction of Evidence.

The letters Ms. Hill reviewed, which detailed the unlawful sale of seats on Commerce Department trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions, were never turned over to Judicial Watch or the Court.(206) This alone constitutes evidence of obstruction of justice. In addition, however, Ms. Hill testified that Secretary Brown kept documents in his office that were responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request and which the Court had ordered to be produced:

A: I became aware that [late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown] kept documents related to this [Judicial Watch FOIA] lawsuit. He had some in his office . . . .

Q: And what types of documents were they?

A: The ones that I know about were documents relating to Commerce Department activities that had been subpoenaed.Q: And ordered by the Court to be produced?

A: Yes, sir.(207)

Depositions taken by Judicial Watch revealed the likely fate of these and other likely responsive documents that were never produced to Judicial Watch.

Although Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking production of documents concerning trade missions was pending, and although the Clinton Commerce Department was under a Court order to produce all responsive documents, several witnesses testified about the wholesale shredding of documents in the Office of the Secretary after Brown’s death. In a sworn affidavit volunteered by Mr. Robert Adkins, a former Commerce Department employee who worked with Clinton fundraiser and Commerce Department appointee John Huang, Mr. Adkins testified that there was so much shredding of Clinton White House and DNC documents at the Clinton Commerce Department that the shredder broke. “Among the documents which I personally saw shredded,” Adkins said, “were … documents bearing the logo of the Executive Office of the President as well as documents bearing the logo of the Democratic National Committee.”(208)

“D. Perjury.

In addition to the perjury committed by Secretary Brown and others in the submission of false declarations to the Court, a host of other Clinton Administration witnesses perjured themselves under oath.

Prominent among these is Melissa Moss, the key Clinton fundraiser at the Commerce Department. Moss falsely testified at her October 10, 1996 deposition that fundraising was not a factor in selecting participants for Commerce Department trade missions, and that she did not conduct fundraising out of the Commerce Department for the DNC.(237) Ms. Hill reviewed Moss’s videotaped deposition testimony and swore in her affidavit that Moss did not tell “the truth in response [to] a number of questions concerning Commerce Department trade missions, as well as other representations she has made under oath.”(238) In addition to having seen letters on Commerce Department stationary under Moss’ signature concerning the sale of seats on Commerce Department trade missions,(239) Ms. Hill testified:

Q: Okay. Now, Melissa Moss worked with the White House, based on your discussions with Ron, over the trade missions; correct?

A: Yes.

Q: So when she says that trade missions weren’t a factor in terms of getting campaign contributions, that’s false, isn’t it?

A: Yes.

Q: When she says that she was not engaging in fundraising, based upon what you know, having seen those documents, that’s false isn’t it?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And when she says that she didn’t know of criteria to choose trade mission participants other than the ones she listed, which she claimed were based on economic considerations, that’s false, isn’t it?

A: Yes, sir.(240)

Further evidence of Moss’ illegal fundraising activities on behalf of the DNC and the President’s re-election campaign(241) came from the files of the Clinton Commerce Department. A series of letters from prospective and actual trade mission participants, and internal memoranda from top Commerce officials show that political contributions were indeed a factor.(242) On April 8, 1994, businessman Ko Saribekian, a participant in the Clinton Commerce Department trade mission to Russia, wrote Secretary Brown to thank him. Obviously referring to the expected political contributions, Saribekian wrote:

Again I thank you and your exceptional team for the opportunity to participate and I look forward to repaying the generosity of Department of Commerce in some way in the months ahead. Melissa and I are keeping in touch about the latter.(243)

It thus seems quite clear that Moss was using the Commerce Department trade missions for political fundraising to benefit President Clinton. It also seems quite clear that Moss continuously lied about this activity and worked to cover it up.”

“E. Intimidation and Tampering With Witnesses and Investigators.

As it has done to contain its numerous other scandals, the Clinton Administration went to extreme lengths to cover-up the sale of the taxpayer-financed trade mission seats for campaign contributions, even attempting to intimidate and retaliate against witnesses and Judicial Watch itself.

Foremost among these apparent efforts was the indictment of Ms. Hill on fraud and tax evasion charges only a week before she was to testify at the March 23, 1998 evidentiary hearing.(256) When Judicial Watch uncovered Ms. Hill and obtained an affidavit from her in January 1998, the affidavit was presented to the Court. In her affidavit, Ms. Hill testified that she feared retaliation from the Clinton Administration:

I would like to come forward and tell this court everything I know about the failure to produce documents to Judicial Watch and this court. I am concerned, however, that if I do so, the Clinton Administration, and more particularly its Justice Department, will try to retaliate against me. As a result, I look to this court for guidance on how I can come forward and tell all I know in the interest of justice.(257)

Consequently, on February 4, 1998, the Court ordered Ms. Hill’s affidavit be kept under seal, specifically because Ms. Hill was concerned about retaliation.(258)

“Even Secretary Ron Brown was fearful of crossing the Clinton White House. Ms. Hill testified that one of the reasons Secretary Brown did not want to turn over incriminating documents to Judicial Watch was because he needed the support of the Clinton White House as he faced his own Independent Counsel investigation:

A: [Secretary Brown] was concerned about the independent counsel investigation that he was under, and the potential for how he was going to – not the potential, but the catch 22, because he didn’t want to be put in the position that he was in, of appearing to be non-responsive, while at the same time he felt the support of the White House during the pendency of the independent counsel investigation.

Q: So he was concerned that he needed the support on the independent counsel side, and the White House needed his support with regard to the sale of trade missions and exposing that; correct?

A: (No response.)

Q: In other words, he was between a rock and a hard place. He didn’t want to have to turn the White House in for selling trade missions?

A: He didn’t want to do anything that would rock the boat.

Q: So the answer is yes?

A: I think the answer is what I said. He didn’t want to do anything that would rock the boat –

Q: With the White House?

A: — with the White House.

Q: With the White House?

A: Yes.(274)

Indeed, it was about his own independent counsel investigation, and the “catch-22” he was in over the illegal sale of seats on Commerce Department trade missions and cover-up, that he went to see President Clinton shortly before he was killed.(275)

“A. John Huang, Accused Spy, Had A Role in Commerce Trade Missions and Other Clinton Fundraising Schemes.

While investigating the sale of taxpayer-financed trade mission seats by the Clinton Commerce Department, Judicial Watch uncovered John Huang, the Clinton fundraiser/Commerce operative believed by many to be an agent for the Chinese Government.(325) To date, only Judicial Watch has deposed Huang under oath.(326) This deposition uncovered Huang’s lies and sparked the Clinton controversy called “Chinagate.” Not surprisingly, the Clinton Administration and its allies at the DNC did their best to prevent Huang from testifying under oath, and Huang himself went into hiding from federal agents trying to serve him with a deposition subpoena.(327) In attempting to learn of Huang’s whereabouts, DNC officials later lied to the Court.(329)

Indeed, Judicial Watch has learned that, not only was Secretary Brown ordered by the White House to sell seats on Commerce Department trade missions, but he was also forced to hire Huang. Ms. Hill testified that Mrs. Clinton was involved in Huang’s placement at the Clinton Commerce Department:

Q: And he told you, Secretary Brown, did he not, that John Huang was forced into the Commerce Department by the Hillary Rodham Clinton Arkansas group at the White House? He told you that, didn’t he?

A: Yes, sir.(330)

Indeed, as we now know, Huang was the “top priority for placement” in the new Clinton Administration by the Lippo Group, the Jakarta-based business conglomerate that has substantial dealings and joint operations with the Chinese Government, and is headed by the Riady family.(331) James and Mochtar Riady have been longtime friends and strong financial supporters of the Clintons dating back to when President Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas. Mochtar and James Riady are believed by U.S. authorities to “have had a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency.”(332) Before being placed at Commerce, Huang was the top U.S. executive for Lippo, and “the political power that advise[d] the Riady family on issues and where to make contributions.”(333)

“V. Conclusion.”

“A reasonable analysis of the documentary and testimonial evidence unearthed by Judicial Watch would indicate that President Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton were heavily involved in the theft of government resources to sell for contributions for President Clinton’s re-election bid. This fundraising push, to the degree it involved individuals such as Clinton-hire John Huang and policies such Clinton-approved hi-tech transfers to China through Commerce, compromised our nation’s security. The President’s two White House deputies, then-Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta, ordered the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to cover-up these crimes. Clinton’s agents at Commerce and the Department of Justice did their level best to accomplish this.

If it were not for Judicial Watch’s exposure of John Huang; if it were not for Judicial Watch’s refusal to walk away with $2 million in taxpayer dollars offered by Clinton’s agents; if it were not for Judicial Watch’s investigations that have uncovered key documents and witnesses such as Nolanda Hill, and if it were not for a diligent and alert Court, then the President, his appointees, and agents might have gotten away with this criminal enterprise.”

https://www.scribd.com/document/323182360/Judicial-Watch-Interim-Report-on-Crimes-and-Other-Offenses-Committed-by-President-Bill-Clinton-Warranting-His-Impeachment-and-Removal-from-Elected-Off

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Abedin emails NewsMax Christopher Ruddy request, August 2009, Ruddy made a contribution to the Clinton Foundation of between $1 and $5 million, Set up meeting with Ambassador to Panama Barbara Stephenson on behalf of lobbyist Amb. Otto Reich

Abedin emails NewsMax Christopher Ruddy request, August 2009, Ruddy made a contribution to the Clinton Foundation of between $1 and $5 million, Set up meeting with Ambassador to Panama Barbara Stephenson on behalf of lobbyist Amb. Otto Reich

“As Catastrophe: Clinton’s Role in America’s Worst Disaster demonstrates, the events of September 11 not only were predictable after eight years of Clinton, but they also could have been prevented.
Catastrophe exposes what really happened during the Clinton years, and how Bill Clinton and his administration systematically undermined America’s national security by emasculating the U.S. military and the nation’s intelligence agencies.
Bill Clinton made America vulnerable to attack.”…Amazon on “Catastrophe” by Christopher Ruddy

“If the guilty and unrepentant get off easy, what type of
prosecution is this. It’s not time to blame the Independent
Counsel Law; blame the prosecutor who wouldn’t do his job.
Because of Kenneth W. Starr’s complicity, the most corrupt
administration in the history of the country continues with
no end in sight. God save us all.”…Christopher Ruddy, NewsMax July 1, 1999

“The point is simple. There are many people today who are profiting from their allegedly “conservative” credentials. But some of them – like my old friend Chris Ruddy – have become part of the problem. They haven’t just “compromised,” they’ve gone over to the dark side. In fact, some of them are playing both sides against the middle in an indecent grasp to be part of the establishment.
I just thought you should know.”…Joseph Farah

 

 

From Judicial Watch September 1, 2016.

The Abedin emails include a mid-August 2009, email exchange in which Band urges Abedin to follow up on a request from Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy to set up a meeting with then-Ambassador to Panama Barbara Stephenson on behalf of lobbyist Amb. Otto Reich, President Reagan’s ambassador to Venezuela who maintained high-level government positions during the tenure of both President George H.W. Bush and President George Bush.  In early September, Ruddy then was contacted by State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roberta S. Jacobson, at the behest of Band and Abedin, in reference to Ruddy’s concerns about Wilson Lucom, whose estate was embroiled in a heated multi-million-dollar lawsuit.  Ruddy’s Newsmax Media Inc, made a contribution to the Clinton Foundation of between $1 million and $5 million. The emails show the responsible official was put in contact with Ruddy.

FromChristopher [Redacted]

To: Doug Band [Redacted]

Sent: Mon Aug 17 3:40:56 2009

Subject: Panama

Otto Reich is arriving in Panama tonite on the matter I discussed. He was hoping to meet with Barbara Stephenson or her Charge this week. He has not heard back from her. Any “air’ support you can give for this meeting would be helpful. Thanks! – Christopher Ruddy

From: Doug Band

To: Huma Abedin

Sent: Aug 18, 2009 10:37 PM

Subject: Fw: Panama

Would be good to do quickly.

Even a call

From: Huma Abedin

To: Doug Band

Sent: Wed Aug 19 4:51:35 2009

Subject: Re: Panama

Both of our point people are out on vacation. I can ask someone junior to deal with this?

From: Doug Band

Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:20:13 PM

To: Huma Abedin

Subject: Re: Panama

Sure

From: Jacobson, Roberta S

Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 7:32 AM

To: ruddy [Redacted]

Subject: Panama case

Mr. Ruddy: Your inquiry about the Lucom case has been passed to the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs here at State. I apologize for not getting you a response on our position last evening, but we will get back to you as soon as possible today. Many thanks. Roberta Jacobson.

From: Christopher Ruddy

To: dband

Sent: Fri Sep 04, 08:01:20 2009 7:32 AM

Subject: FW: Panama case

From: Doug Band

To: Huma Abedin

Sent: Fri Sep 04 08:18:43 2009

Subject: Fw: Panama case

From: Huma Abedin

Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 8:37:21 AM

To: Doug Band

Subject: Re: Panama case

She’s the dep assistant secretary for the whole bureau.

The Panama desk guy is on leave so I asked that she at least reach out.

(Newsmax publishes a regular Judicial Watch column.)

Read more:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-abedin-emails-reveal-top-clinton-foundation-executive-doug-band-sought-diplomatic-passport-clinton-state-department/