Category Archives: Books

Hillary quotes reveal sociopathic personality, Hillary Clinton is evil and if you support her you cannot be a Christian Jew believer or a good person, Quotes are a window into her tortured soul, More to come on why Hillary is a sociopath

Hillary quotes reveal sociopathic personality, Hillary Clinton is evil and if you support her you cannot be a Christian Jew believer or a good person, Quotes are a window into her tortured soul, More to come on why Hillary is a sociopath

“Billy and Hillary Clinton continue to be lying, cheating, manipulative, scratching, clawing, ruthlessly aggressive, insatiably ambitious politicians who are giving public service a bad name – and nothing about them has changed in the past forty-plus years, except that they have deluded more and more people,”…Dolly Kyle Browning

“The Clintons’ “systematically abuse women and others – sexually, physically, and psychologically – in their scramble for power and wealth,” says the book’s press release.”…”The Clintons’ War on Women”

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



Most things are simple, even though we try to complicate them.

The message of Jesus Christ was simple in contradiction to the Pharisees who tried to complicate things.

I rejected evil as a child.

I still do.

That is the reason that I reject Hillary Clinton.

It is not because she is a Democrat.

If you claim to be a Christian, Jew or believer and you support Hillary Clinton, you had better quickly wake up, repent, pay attention, ask questions and inform others.

Hillary Clinton is a sociopath and is of evil.

It is that simple.

Here are some quotes that provide a window into her tortured soul.

““When are they going to get those f—ing ree-tards out of here?!”
Hillary reportedly grew frustrated that handicapped children weren’t collecting their Easter eggs quickly enough on the lawn of the Arkansas governor’s mansion.

“Where is the goddamn fucking flag? I want the goddamn fucking flag up every fucking morning at fucking sunrise.”
—Hillary to Arkansas state troopers at the guardhouse as she was pulling out of the governor’s mansion on Labor Day, 1991 (The
First Partner, p. 192).

“Fuck off! It’s enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day. I’m not going to talk to you, too. Just do your goddamn job and keep your mouth shut.”
—Hillary to her Arkansas state trooper bodyguards, after one of them told her “good morning” (American Evita, p. 90).

“If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags.”
—Hillary to a Secret Service agent who is trained to keep his hands free at all times to protect his boss. According to countless
witnesses, this kind of demanding and demeaning behavior and attitude is very common for Hillary over the years.

“Get fucked! Get the fuck out of my way! Get out of my face!”
—A typical comment from Hillary to Secret Service agents throughout the 1990s (Hillary’s Scheme, p. 89).

“Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck away from me! Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! … Just fucking do as I say, okay?”
—Hillary to her Secret Service detail (Unlimited Access, p. 139).

“Bimbos,” “sluts,” “trailer trash,” “rednecks,” and “shit-kickers.”
—Terms Hillary commonly used to describe Arkansans (American Evita, p. 139).

“Goddamn, L. D., did you see that family right out of Deliverance? Get me the hell out of here.”
—L. D. Brown, Bill’s favorite state trooper, while at a county fair in Arkansas in the early 1980s. They had just spoken to “salt of the
earth” country Arkansans who wore bib overalls and cotton dresses. Brown also said that Hillary would reduce grown men state
troopers such as Trooper Mark Allen to tears with her vicious attacks (Crossfire, p. 85).

“You goddamn stupid fucking fool.”
—Hillary to Bill while in the presence of Chelsea, then a toddler (Newsmax, July 15, 2000).

After Hillary had heard some bad news about Whitewater, Lieutenant Colonel Buzz Patterson describes the scene: “As soon as the elevator closed, she exploded at the president with a spew of four-letter words. Every vulgar word you’ve ever heard poured from her mouth: ‘Goddamnit,’ ‘you bastard,’ ‘it’s your fucking fault.’” Patterson said Bill just hung his head, took the abuse while the Secret
Service agents and a doctor looked on mortified. (Dereliction of Duty, p. 68).

“That’ll teach them to fuck with us.”
—Hillary said to aides right after her comments to Matt Lauer in January 1998 that a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was out to get the Clintons (The Case Against Hillary Clinton, p. 162).

“These women are all trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.”
—Hillary on Bill’s accusers (Bill & Hillary, p. 220).

“I want to get this shit over with and get these damn people out of here.”
—Hillary, over the Arkansas governor’s mansion intercom as preschoolers who had been invited to the governor’s mansion were
posing on the lawn for a photograph (The First Partner, p. 192).

“We have to destroy her.”
—Hillary on Gennifer Flowers (The Final Days, p. 13).

“You fucking Jew bastard.”
—Hillary to campaign manager Paul Fray on the night of Bill’s loss in his 1974 congressional race (The State of a Union, p. 153).

“[You] Jew bastard! … [You] Jew motherfucker!”
—Hillary and Bill would often call each other these slurs, according to former Arkansas state trooper Larry Patterson (The State of
a Union, p. 155).

Here are just a few from Bill.

“What’s all the fuss about? It was just a goddamn motherfucking pig.”
—Bill Clinton seeing people at the funeral of a black Arkansas state trooper, according to Larry Patterson on an audiotape
interview called More Than Sex, which was produced by Newsmax.

“I can do any goddamned thing I want. I’m the president of the United States. I take care of my friends and I fuck with my enemies.
That is the way it is.”
—Bill to his staff who challenged him after he said he wanted every member of the Independent Counsel’s office audited by the IRS.

There are many many many more quotes.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

I have not included her deeds nor yet provided why she qualifies as a sociopath.

The quotes are enough to make you wonder.

The proof is forthcoming.

Many of the quotes came from the book “The Clintons War on Women.”

I have read part of the book and intend to read the rest.

I highly recommend it.



More here:

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.”

“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:

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.


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. 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?


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:

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

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

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

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

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



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

A big Clinton rat.

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

One day apart.

The “Rosetta Stone” of investigative journalism.

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

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

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

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

The Washington Times reports December 13, 2004.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously Hillary Clinton was posturing herself for the 2008 election.

Appearing to care about the immigration problem and national security.

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

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

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

From David Schippers October 2000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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

I clicked on the link and it had been scrubbed.

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

Isn’t that interesting.

The House Judiciary website.

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


Mathematically highly improbable.

From Rosemary Jenks’ testimony:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2,573 were still being processed by the FBI.

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

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

Read more:

From David Schippers and his book:

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

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

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



More here:


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

From the Washington Post April 1, 1998.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:


More here:

Hillary Bill Clinton Crisis of character review and Hannity interview of Gary Byrne, The Vase chapter, Legal Insurrection questions for Hillary Clinton voters, If this is how Clinton treats her husband how will she treat the rest of us?, If this is the regard she shows the historic treasures of our nation as First Lady why should we trust her as President?

Hillary Bill Clinton Crisis of character review and Hannity interview of Gary Byrne, The Vase chapter, Legal Insurrection questions for Hillary Clinton voters, If this is how Clinton treats her husband how will she treat the rest of us?, If this is the regard she shows the historic treasures of our nation as First Lady why should we trust her as President?

“Millions of cretinous and amoral Americans still admire Bill and Hillary Clinton, the two foulest amoral slimebags that have ever besmirched the White House. These two foulmouthed and lying psychopaths have been, and still are, blindly supported by masses of non-clinical morons, diehard Democrats, and whorish liberal journalists and their editors.

The Clintons’ habitual lies, gutter language, anti-Semitic outbursts, and anti-black slurs have been documented by reliable writers but have been — and still are — routinely suppressed by the so-called liberal media.”…Reinhold Aman, Ph.D.

“I watched her on countless occasions blatantly lie to the American people and knowingly lie.”…Linda Tripp

“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


From Legal Insurrection July 4, 2016.

“Book Review: Crisis of Character”

“While traveling back home from a conference in Atlanta, I had a chance to read the new book Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate by Gary Byrne.

Byrne’s book is a gripping read, as he conveys his personal history to join the Secret Service, his time at the White House, and his decision to join the Federal Air Marshals Service. However, it is not an easy read, as it is difficult to learn of how the Clintons and other elite politicos disdainfully treated patriotic Americans such a Byrne, who want only to serve their country.

The author has already discussed his book on numerous venues (but notably not on mainstream media outlets), and has focused on his troubling experiences with Hillary Clinton during the interview. He was inspired to write this history because Clinton is poised to be President, and Byrne describes her as “divisive, abuse, and paranoid.”

However, I would like to share a bit related to the chapter entitled “The Vase.” One morning in 1995, the White House staff was treated to a reverberating verbal battle between the Clintons. The row then evolved into something more physical. After a resounding crash, the Secret Service agents were obliged to investigate the source of the sound.

Byrne discovered the shattered remains of a historic vase packed away in the curator’s office. He also noted that Bill Clinton came in the next day with a big black eye not well hidden by makeup. When Byrne commented about Clinton’s bruise to the president’s personal secretary Bettie Curie, she dismissed it as a coffee allergy.

So, the Secret Service officers had to figure out what to do when the President’s wife posed a physical threat to the President.

Here are three mental exercises I would propose that Legal Insurrection readers put to those they know who are voting for Hillary Clinton:

  • How would you suggest Secret Service officers handle a President who is a physical threat to those around her?
  • If this is how Clinton treats her husband, how will she treat the rest of us?  If this is the regard she shows the historic treasures of our nation as First Lady, why should we trust her as President?
  • How would the mainstream media be covering this episode, if the story involved Donald Trump throwing a vase and striking Melania?

Read more:

Book Review: Crisis of Character

This is a must see interview of Gary Byrne by Sean Hannity.


More here:

Carly Fiorina protecting more than Ted Cruz?, Montgomery Sibley book “Why just her”, Sibley reveals “Hewlett Packard Director who made substantial contributions to U.S. Senate races”, DC Madam phone records and other revelations

Carly Fiorina protecting more than Ted Cruz?, Montgomery Sibley book “Why just her”, Sibley reveals “Hewlett Packard Director who made substantial contributions to U.S. Senate races”, DC Madam phone records and other revelations

“You could drive down the streets of Washington and look at every building on your left and right and in each and every one of those buildings, we had clients.”…DC Madam

“Since 2007, I have been under court order restraining me from publically releasing those records. Those records contain information relevant to the 2016 presidential election,”…Montgomery Blair Sibley

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



While we are waiting on DC Madam phone records to be released by Montgomery Blair Sibley, There is more information of interest to be perused.

Montgomery Sibley wrote a book published in 2009, “Why just her.”

From Amazon:

Why Just Her” identifies the external and internal demons that drove the D.C. Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, from an initially defiant woman willing to fight the government to a woman so despairing as to take her own life prior to sentencing upon her conviction for Prostitution Racketeering. Starting with the execution of search on her home and seizure warrants for her bank accounts in October 2006 through her death on May 1, 2008, the book traces Jeane’s final 20 months as the judicial system time and again failed to live up to its promise to insure ‘justice’. Instead, unwittingly sitting atop a client list of the most powerful men in the world, that system made sure that Jeane’s story would never be fully told.

As usual, one thing led to another and the “Yellow Brick Road” led to an older version of a Sibley website and the Wayback Machine.

There were found some interesting tidbits.

From Montgomery Sibley,

“Questions and Answers”

Q.    Do you identify any new clients of the service in the book?

Yes and no.  I do identify that clients of Jeane’s escort service included individuals associated with a wide-range of companies, institutions and government agencies including: the Archdiocese of Washington, the Army Capabilities Integration Center, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the US Army Information Systems Command, the National Drug Intelligence Center and the law firms of (i) Jones Day Reavis and Pogue, (ii) Akin Gump Strauss, (iii) The Durst Law Firm, (iv)  Patterson Belknap Webb, and (v) Reed Smith among many others.

Additionally, I note that those clients included: a  Director of the Defense Contract Management Agency; a Commander of the 332rd  Expeditionary Maintenance Group, Balad Air Base,. Iraq; a high ranking officer of Colonel Pipeline Company which had reached a Settlement for Oil Spills in Five States; an Environmental Protection Agency employee; a former President of National District Attorney Association; a Hewlett Packard Director who made substantial contributions to U.S. Senate races; a director of the Association of Foreign Intelligence Officers; a state representative from Louisiana; a member of the Maryland Public Service Commission; a NASA Astronaut; and a Special Envoy for Middle East Security appointed by Condoleezza Rice.

However, as detailed in the book, I have been put under court order not to reveal these names publicly by Judge Robertson.  So I can’t reveal those names only because I risk being incarcerated for contempt-of-court.

Thus the real story became – why was I silenced?  Why did the government want so badly to keep these – and other clients of Jeans’s escort service – from being publicly identified by me?

Q.   Did the White House really call you?

Yes.   Here is the message:

Read more:

From Chapter 20 of the book:

“December 14, 2007 – Part II

Something curious, however, had happened the morning that I was at court with Judge Robertson. One of the subpoenas authorized by Judge Kessler had been answered, with startling information.

Among the subpoenas that Judge Kessler had authorized in November was a subpoena to Verizon Wireless, to which I had attached a list of 5,902 telephone numbers that had turned up in Jeane’s telephone records. The subpoena had sought the account holder information for each telephone number that appeared in Verizon Wireless’ records on the day the call was made to Jeane’s escort service. All of the telephone companies had been complaining to me that the task was too big, but I kept reminding them that this was a federal subpoena and they would be explaining that to the federal judge who had authorized the subpoena.

Thus, it was a surprise to me when I returned to my office after the December 14th hearing to find a FedEx package from Verizon Wireless containing a CD with Verizon Wireless’ response to the subpoena: 815 account holders names, addresses, social security numbers, and home and business telephone numbers—all contained in an Excel spreadsheet. Each name represented a former escort or client who had a cell phone number that had called Jeane’s escort service when that cell phone number was owned by that person. Stated another way, I now had 815 new leads who had not, heretofore, been identified through the telephone records by anyone.

The leads were stunning. Among the entities whose corporate cell phone numbers showed up were:

  • Washington College
  • Jones Day Reavis and Pogue, a large law firm
  • Archdiocese of Washington
  • Hewlett Packard
  • Akin Gump Strauss, a large law firm
  • The Durst Law Firm
  • Philips Electronics North America
  • NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. – Providing engineers and designers with semiconductors, system solutions and software that deliver better sensory experiences. Net sales of $6.32 billion in 2007.
  • Patterson Belknap Webb, a large law firm
  • Defense Group, Inc. – is a high technology company, advancing public safety and national security through innovative research, new technologies, and systems assessments. DGI has key competencies in U.S. strategy and policy, intelligence, Weapons of Mass Destruction, vulnerability assessments, and homeland security, as well as technologies and products that support first responder and medical communities.
  • The Roger Richman Agency Inc – The Roger Richman Agency, Inc. was purchased by Corbis’ owner Bill Gates in 2005 and is the preeminent licensing agency specializing in protecting and promoting the personae of world-renowned entertainment and historic personalities.
  • U.S. Dept of Commerce
  • Internal Revenue Service
  • The Army Capabilities Integration Center – The Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) is the Army’s leader in the identification, design, development, and synchronization of capabilities into the Army current Modular Force and the future Modular Force, bringing together all the Army agencies as well as Joint, Multinational, and other DoD agencies to manage rapid change. ARCIC supports TRADOC in providing adaptive soldiers, leaders and units by contributing to the development of doctrine, TTPs, and the collective training experience.
  • U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command – TRADOC recruits, trains and educates the Army’s soldiers; develops leaders; supports training in units; develops doctrine; establishes standards; and builds the future Army. TRADOC is the architect of the Army and “thinks for the Army” to meet the demands of a nation at war while simultaneously anticipating solutions to the challenges of tomorrow.
  • US Postal Service
  • USPS – Information Technology
  • United States Coast Guard
  • Embassy of Japan
  • Constellation Energy – Constellation Energy, a Fortune 125 competitive energy company based in Baltimore, is the nation’s largest supplier of wholesale power and competitive electricity to large commercial and industrial customers, and a major generator of electricity, with a diversified fleet of power plants strategically located throughout the United States.
  • Andersen Consulting
  • Department of Health & Human Services – Office of the Inspector, The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency – is a Department of Defense combat support agency and a member of the national Intelligence Community (IC). NGA develops imagery and map-based intelligence solutions for U.S. national defense, homeland security and safety of navigation.
  • Reed Smith – a law firm that represents many of the world’s leading companies in complex litigation and other high-stakes disputes, cross-border and other strategic transactions, and crucial regulatory matters. With lawyers from coast-to-coast in the U.S. as well as in the U.K., continental Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, the firm is known for its experience across a broad array of industry sectors. The firm counsels 28 of the top 30 U.S. banks and 10 of the world’s 12 largest pharmaceutical companies.
  • USAISC – U.S. Army Information Systems Command
  • LogicTree – provides innovative IVR solutions for the Transit and 511 markets. They provide solutions focused on connecting agencies to their customers, making access to transit and traffic information easy and intuitive. Since 2001, LogicTree has led the market with innovative, proven solutions, deploying the world’s first speech-enabled transit trip planning IVR, the first Personalized 511 and the first Spanish 511 systems, all using proven speech recognition technology and LogicTree’s patented VoxLinx telephony platform.
  • The National Drug Intelligence Center – established by the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993. Placed under the direction and control of the Attorney General, NDIC was established to “coordinate and consolidate drug intelligence from all national security and law enforcement agencies, and produce information regarding the structure, membership, finances, communications, and activities of drug trafficking organizations.”
  • Atlantic Research Corporation Political Action Committee
  • Fauquier Bank
  • Lockheed Martin MS2– MS2 provides surface, air, and undersea applications on more than 460 programs for U.S. military and international customers

While there might be innocent explanations for company cell phones repeatedly calling an escort service, certainly among the list were former escorts and customers. This supposition was certain as the account holder’s cell phone numbers matched with the date of calls to Jeane’s escort service. Moreover, the list of individuals was also comprehensive and included, among others:

  • a director of the Defense Contract Management Agency
  • a commander of the 332rd Expeditionary Maintenance Group, Balad Air Base, Iraq
  • a high ranking officer of Colonel Pipeline Company which had reached a Settlement for Oil Spills in Five States
  • an Environmental Protection Agency employee
  • a former president of the National District Attorney Association
  • a Hewlett Packard Director who had made substantial contributions to U.S. Senate races
  • an attorney with the prominent Akin Gump law firm (the law firm that fired “Abbey.” an employee upon learning she was an escort for Jeane)
  • a director of the Association of Foreign Intelligence Officers
  • an attorney with Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, another major law firm with deep Washington, D.C. ties
  • a state representative from Louisiana
  • a member of the Maryland Public Service Commission
  • a NASA astronaut
  • a special envoy for Middle East Security appointed by Condoleezza Rice

Plainly, I now had the ability to bring a parade of former clients, companies and government agencies in front of the jury to establish either that (a) no sex was had, or (b) that if sex for money was involved, then “Why Just Jeane?”

However, my dilemma was that Judge Robertson had just quashed this subpoena, meaning that I was not supposed to have, or use, this information.

Moreover, these names were just from Verizon Wireless. Subpoena returns were still outstanding from AT&T Mobility, Sprint/Nextel, T-Mobile USA and Alltel. Those cell phone companies would never respond, as word that Judge Robertson had quashed the subpoenas was apparently rapidly communicated by the Government to prevent these cell phone companies from replying to the subpoenas and further identifying former escorts and clients of Pamela Martin & Associates.

Judge Robertson would subsequently issue a written order overruling Judge Kessler and quashing almost all the subpoenas she had ordered served. Among those quashed were all of the cell phone telephone company subpoenas. As a result, further names and entities would never come to light and those learned through the Verizon Wireless records would, thanks to Preston, likewise never see the light of day.  (N.B. I have now securely stored these records on off-shore servers to be publicly released in the event of my curious disappearance or demise).”

Read more:

Most of us are aware of Carly Fiorina jumping in at the press conference to deflect a reporter’s question and protect Ted Cruz.

From Law Newz March 31, 2016.

“Former CIA Expert: Carly Fiorina Now Helping Cruz Deceive Public on Alleged Infidelity”

“Monday’s Ted Cruz press conference in Wisconsin, in which former Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina leaped in to intercept a reporter’s question about Cruz’s alleged marital infidelity, was pivotal. It marked the first time we have seen an instance of collective deception in what appears to be a desperate effort to keep Cruz sufficiently unsullied to stop Donald Trump.

The question, posed by Daily Mail reporter David Martosko, was straight and to the point: “Can you please swat down more definitively this National Enquirer piece by telling us on the record that you’ve never been unfaithful to your wife?” It was a question that was screaming to be asked, in light of the deceptive nature of Cruz’s response to the National Enquirer story, which we have previously highlighted.

What ensued reminded us of the old adage, “One lies and the other swears to it.” That Fiorina felt compelled to jump in and rescue Cruz from the question was enormously troubling in itself. Why did she feel she couldn’t just let Cruz respond categorically that he had never been unfaithful? But an even more troubling dimension unfolded as Fiorina launched into a harsh attack on Trump, on the media, and, bewilderingly, on President Obama. The attack behavior was clearly aimed at shifting the spotlight away from Cruz, because, we believe Fiorina must have feared, the truth was not Cruz’s ally.”

Read more:

Former CIA Expert: Carly Fiorina Now Helping Cruz Deceive Public on Alleged Infidelity

From Montgomery Sibley above:

“Hewlett Packard Director who made substantial contributions to U.S. Senate races”

Is Carly Fiorina protecting someone else too?



Ted Cruz forward US Constitution For Dummies, Book reveals Cruz not eligible as natural born citizen, US Supreme Court 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, Chief Justice Melville Fuller … were eligible to the presidency while children of our citizens born abroad were not

Ted Cruz forward US Constitution For Dummies, Book reveals Cruz not eligible as natural born citizen, US Supreme Court 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, Chief Justice Melville Fuller … were eligible to the presidency while children of our citizens born abroad were not

“It is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country . . . were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”…Chief Justice Melville Fuller, Wong Kim Ark

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

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



Allegedly from a 2012 interview with Ted Cruz:

“In a campaign interview during his freshman senate race, a GOP Texas State Committee member sat down with the young candidate to ask a few poignant vetting questions, and here are the questions and answers from that interview… (Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)

Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it’s a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”

Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”

Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”

Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.” ”

Citizen Wells commenter and Illinois ballot challenger Bill Graham provided the following information last night.

“Can’t make this stuff up. Did you know Cruz wrote the forward to this book by a non-lawyer Brit? The book does mention NBC qualification, born here of citizen parents on page 115. Of course Cruz could have written the forward without reading the book. On-line reviews are mediocre.”

From U.S. Constitution for Dummies by Michael Arnheim.

“The U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment”

“Defining Citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment”

“The birthright basis of U.S. citizenship was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898. This ruling was made in the case of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the United States to Chinese noncitizen parents. The court decided that he was a U.S. citizen even though his parents were not.

Chief Justice Melville Fuller in his dissenting opinion in Wong’s case put his finger on a problem with the birthright rule: “It is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country . . . were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.””

From the book:

“Foreword by Ted Cruz Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Former Solicitor General of Texas”

From the Forward:

““We the people” are the opening words of the U.S. Constitution, and it is fi tting that this book is written for “We the people.” Both the Constitution itself, and this book explaining it, were meant for everybody, for all of the American people. This book can be read on several different levels. If you just want to understand the basics of the Constitution, this book offers you an easy, enjoyable, and at times humorous way to do so.”

“For good or for ill, the meaning of the Constitution has often been very much in the hands of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“The Constitution is designed to limit government and to protect all the freedoms that you and I cherish as Americans. And this book is a clear, straightforward roadmap to understanding how it works — and a lot more.”

Mr. Graham also provided an update to his Illinois ballot challenge to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

January 26, 2016 5:30 PM.

“Filed today rebuttals to Memoranda of Law from Rubio and Cruz; all documents now with Hearing Officer. Today’s filing on Founders intent referred to Maskill’s CRS update 1-11-16 and on NBC definition to Mario Apuzzo 11-29-15 opinion on Minor and Wong Kim Ark.

Candidates claim anyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen, even if they owe their citizenship to the 14th Amendment or Naturalization law. Even if their one or both parents have allegiance to another country. Founders wasted undivided allegiance.”