Category Archives: Bribes

NY Times: How Hillary Clinton grappled with Bill Clinton’s infidelity and his accusers, Wicked Leaks will reveal truth, Hillary terrorist using violence threats or intimidation to achieve a political aim, Clintons victims cowering in fear

NY Times: How Hillary Clinton grappled with Bill Clinton’s infidelity and his accusers, Wicked Leaks will reveal truth, Hillary terrorist using violence threats or intimidation to achieve a political aim, Clintons victims cowering in fear

“Broaddrick herself told NewsMax.com last year that her home had been broken into, her pets released and her answering machine tape stolen while she and her husband were away briefly during the House impeachment probe.
“Let me tell you something. They were all over that woman,” Schippers told NewsMax.com. “And it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. … Just to let her know ‘We can do what we want.’ ””…David Schippers

“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

 

Wicked Leaks.

A new Citizen Wells initiative, which like Wiki Leaks will bring to the light information hidden from the public.

Most of the information revealed by Citizen Wells has been scrubbed or diminished in search engines.

Other articles and facts have become topical again and deserve to be read by a new audience of younger people and others now using the internet.

It is fitting and proper that a new NY Times article, covering for Hillary and obfuscating the truth, be highlighted in this introduction.

I will be presenting a small portion of the article at this time to prevent mass nausea and blood pressure rises.

From the NY Times October 2, 2016.

“The enduring image of Mrs. Clinton from that campaign was a “60 Minutes” interview in which she told the country she was not blindly supporting her husband out of wifely duty. “I’m not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette,” she said.

But stand by she did, holding any pain or doubts in check as the campaign battled to keep the Clintons’ political aspirations alive.

Last week, Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee,criticized Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Clinton’s affairs and her response to them, and said he might talk more about the issue in the final weeks before the election.

That could be a treacherous strategy for Mr. Trump, given his own past infidelity and questionable treatment of women. Many voters, particularly women, might see Mrs. Clinton being blamed for her husband’s conduct.

It could also remind voters of a searing period in American history, and in Mrs. Clinton’s life.

Confronting a spouse’s unfaithfulness is painful under any circumstance. For Mrs. Clinton, it happened repeatedly and in the most public of ways, unfolding at the dawn of the 24/7 news cycle, and later in impeachment proceedings that convulsed the nation.

Outwardly, she remained stoic and defiant, defending her husband while a progression of women and well-funded conservative operatives accused Mr. Clinton of behavior unbecoming the leader of the free world.

But privately, she embraced the Clinton campaign’s aggressive strategy of counterattack: Women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Mr. Clinton would become targets of digging and discrediting — tactics that women’s rights advocates frequently denounce.”

“Mrs. Clinton’s level of involvement in that effort, as described in interviews, internal campaign records and archives, is still the subject of debate. By some accounts, she gave the green light and was a motivating force; by others, her support was no more than tacit assent.”

Dolly Kyle Browning has known the Clintons for decades.

“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.”

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

From Dolly Kyle Browning, et al vs William Jefferson Clinton.

“Plaintiff Dolly Kyle Browning has been intentionally and maliciously threatened by Clinton and his agents, including Lindsey. See id. at ¶¶ 131-33. They threatened to “destroy” her if she told the media about her sexual relationship with Clinton. See id. at ¶ 131. They also warned her not to publish her book, Purposes of the Heart, which depicts that 30-year relationship. See id. In addition, Clinton, acting through Lindsey, threatened and intimidated Mrs. Browning into severely limiting her public statements about her relationship with Clinton. Id.

Most significant to the instant motion, Clinton and Lindsey also knowingly used threats and intimidation to prevent Mrs. Browning from testifying in the Paula Jones civil rights/sexual harassment lawsuit (“the Jones case”). They directed Clinton’s lawyers to draft a motion to quash her deposition subpoena, and pressured Mrs. Browning to file it with the court. See id. at ¶¶ 61-64. Mrs. Browning, a member of the Texas Bar and officer of the court, refused to comply, and was deposed in the Jones case on October 28, 1997. See id. at ¶¶ 2, 64-65. Clinton and his agents then followed through on their threats against Mrs. Browning. Among other things, they defamed her, publicly branding her a liar out to “get” the President, and knowingly circulating false and derogatory information about her character and motivations.See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 67, 69, 71-74, 79-81.

Remarkably similar threatening tactics have been directed at other women who, like Mrs. Browning, have personal knowledge of Clinton’s misconduct and were sought as witnesses in official proceedings against Clinton. See id. at ¶ 134. Plaintiffs referred in their Amended Complaint to the threats and retaliation by Clinton and his agents against Kathleen Willey and Linda Tripp when they were called to testify in the Jones case and the Independent Counsel’s investigation of the Lewinsky affair. Indeed, the number of women who have suffered from these “Clintonian” tactics is significant. On March 11, 1999,Investor’s Business Daily reported that at least nine (9) women have now charged that Clinton “personally assaulted them or, through his ‘agents’ or ‘people,’ threatened to do them or their families physical harm.” The list includes Dolly Kyle Browning, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Corbin Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, Sally Perdue, and Elizabeth Ward Gracen. “And all of them say they’re afraid for their safety so long as he remains in power.”

Because of the threats, intimidation, and retaliation directed at these women, their fear for their safety, and the enormous power and means available to Clinton and Lindsey, Plaintiffs must perpetuate the testimony of these women without delay. Their testimony will substantiate Plaintiffs’ RICO allegations, and is both competent and highly relevant to Plaintiffs’ case. As RICO witnesses against the highest officials in our government, these women are at enormous risk. Every moment of delay provides Clinton and Lindsey with additional opportunities to threaten them and/or their families, and enhances the chances that their testimony will be lost forever. Plaintiffs cannot obtain the testimony of these witnesses through the ordinary course of discovery in this case as all discovery has been stayed pending the Court’s ruling on the outstanding motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully move the Court for leave to perpetuate the testimony of these witnesses or, in the alternative, to commence limited discovery to take their depositions.”

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

There is much much more information available to respond to this article and the Clintons’ evil and corrupt past.

Just as with Wiki Leaks, much has been revealed and much more is to come.

Wicked Leaks.

Revealing the Clintons’ evil and corrupt past.

Most of the scrubbed articles resurrected can be viewed here.

http://citizenwells.net/

Disclaimer: The use of the words wicked leaks is not tied to or a reference to the book “Wicked Leaks” by Matt Bendoris.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton plan and sale of Commerce Department seats for political donations, Court documents and Nolanda Hill testimony, Judge Lamberth: “DOC…destruction of potentially responsive documents in the office of…Secretary Brown”, Hillary lied Ron Brown died

Hillary Clinton plan and sale of Commerce Department seats for political donations, Court documents and Nolanda Hill testimony, Judge Lamberth: “DOC…destruction of potentially responsive documents in the office of…Secretary Brown”, Hillary lied Ron Brown died

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

“Hillary lied Americans died”…Citizen Wells

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

 

 

From Citizen Wells earlier today via the House Judiciary Committee Evidentiary Record of December 1998, we learn:

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

Ms. Hill testified that then White House Chief of Staff Leon
Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered Commerce
Secretary Brown to defy Court orders and obstruct the Judicial Watch
suit until after the 1996 federal elections. Ms. Hill’s sworn testimony
implicated the President’s top staff members in obstruction of justice.
Ms. Hill also tied the sale of trade mission seats directly to
President Clinton. In both a sworn affidavit and Court testimony, Ms.
Hill explained that:

The First Lady conceived of the idea to sell the
trade mission seats in exchange for political contributions;
The President knew of and approved this scheme;
The Vice President participated in this scheme;
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown helped implement the
illegal fundraising operation out of the Clinton Commerce
Department;

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

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

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

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

https://citizenwells.com/2016/09/05/hillary-clinton-conceived-plan-to-sell-seats-on-commerce-dept-trade-missions-in-exchange-for-political-contributions-panetta-and-podesta-ordered-ron-brown-to-obstruct-justice-judicial-committee-evi/

From court documents related to the FOIA requests of Judicial Watch to the Commerce Department.

Nolanda Butler Hill affidavit.

“Affidavit of Nolanda Butler Hill

I, Nolanda Butler Hill, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. This affidavit is based on my own personal knowledge.

2. I have been a resident of Texas for all of my life and still reside there.

3. Up to the death of Ronald H. Brown, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, I was a business partner and/or close personal confidant for over seven years. During this period, I spoke with Ron, as I used to call him, daily, and frequently several times per day. I was thus intimately knowledgeable about both his personal and professional activities. I also had contact with his family, including his son, Michael, and his daughter in law, Tamara, who worked for me for approximately five years.

4. During the course of my relationship with Ron, I was privy to his activities, and the activities of the people who worked or were in contact with him at Commerce, and elsewhere. Since Ron died on April 3, 1996, I have also been in contact and spoken with many persons who worked or were in contact with him at Commerce, and elsewhere.

5. After the elections of 1992, Ron became Secretary of Commerce. Shortly thereafter, Ron decided that he would focus the majority his activities at Commerce on trade missions.

6. In the fall of 1994, I became aware, through Ron and Jim Hackney, Ron’s Counselor at Commerce – with whom I was and remain close – that a group called Judicial Watch filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to obtain information and documentation about the trade missions. Both Jim and I encouraged Ron at the time to give due consideration to the seriousness of these FOIA requests, as there were politically sensitive issues surrounding the trade missions.

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

8. In the spring of 1995, when this Court ordered production of documents to Judicial Watch, Ron became very concerned and he thus began to discuss with me the strategy of handling the defense of the Judicial Watch lawsuit.

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

10. In late fall 1995, after several rulings or statements by this court, Ron himself became more involved in the defense of the case. Specifically, he told me that he had decided to personally review any documents that might be damaging to the Clinton Administration, or in any way be sensitive. Ron told me that he was very worried about the potential damage of the Judicial Watch case to the Clinton Administration.

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

12. I then saw Ron call the Commerce Department and he spoke with Melissa Moss. He told her that he wanted to meet with her later. I do not know if the meeting ever took place and I had no further discussion with Ron, because of his untimely death, about the documents I had reviewed.

13. I have reviewed the deposition video of Melissa Moss and, based on my knowledge, she has not told the truth in response a number of questions concerning Commerce Department trade missions, as well as other representations she has made under oath.

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

15. Because of a fear for my personal and my family’s well-being and safety, I ask that this affidavit be kept under seal and that a mechanism be set up by the court for me to come forward to tell all I know.

 

Sworn to under penalty of law.”http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/4/132.asp

From the Judge Lamberth Memorandum Opinion.

“G. Nolanda Hill

The highest drama in this litigation was supplied by Nolanda
Hill, former business partner and confidante of Secretary Brown:

On January 28, 1998, Hill submitted under seal a sworn
declaration detailing her knowledge of the Department of
Commerce’s handling of Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests,
information that she allegedly obtained through her relationship
with Secretary Brown. Stating that she was concerned about
retaliatory actions by the government, Hill requested that the
Court provide mechanisms for her protection. Pursuant to that
request, the Court ordered that the affidavit be initially kept
under seal and saw to it that her attorney was made aware of the
situation and was willing to represent and protect her interests
in this matter. An evidentiary hearing was then scheduled for
March 23, 1998.

On March 14, 1998, Hill was indicted on criminal charges.
Although an investigation had been underway before Hill offered
to testify in this case, Judicial Watch claims that the
government had represented to Hill that charges would not be
filed, and that the March 14, 1998 indictment was in retaliation
for her cooperation with Judicial Watch.

On March 23, 1998, Hill appeared before this Court and gave
extensive testimony as to her knowledge, gained from
communications with Secretary Brown, relating to this action.6
Upon examination by Mr. Klayman, Hill testified that the
Secretary told her that White House officials had actually
instructed him to delay the production of documents responsive to
Judicial Watch’s requests and to come up with a way to avoid
compliance with this Court’s orders. See Transcript of March 23,
1998 Hearing at 85. Hill vividly recalled the Secretary’s
comment that Leon Panetta (then White House Chief of Staff) had
urged him to “slow pedal” the document search. See id. at 85-86.
According to Hill, this message was conveyed to Secretary Brown
by Panetta and by John Podesta (then White House Deputy Chief of
Staff) on several occasions. See id. at 85-88.

In her role as personal advisor and confidante to Secretary
Brown, Hill allegedly offered to review the most sensitive
documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s request, for the purpose
of finding out precisely what was involved and, according to
Hill, to encourage the Secretary to turn over all responsive
documents. See id. at 88. Hill never did review the material,
however, and she was unable to testify as to whether such a
collection of “the most sensitive” responsive documents was ever
assembled. See id. at 89-90.

Ms. Hill did testify to seeing several unproduced responsive
documents in the Secretary’s possession in 1996, shortly before
the Secretary’s death. According to Hill’s testimony, she met
with Secretary Brown at a hotel early in 1996, and on that
occasion the Secretary showed her a one-inch-thick packet of
documents that he produced from a personal portfolio-type
carrying case. See id. at 38-39. The Secretary told Hill that
the documents had been retrieved from DOC files during the
document search for Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests. See id. at
39. Hill reviewed the top five or six documents, confirming that
they were copies of letters from Melissa Moss to trade mission
participants specifically referencing their donations to the DNC,
clearly responsive to Judicial Watch’s requests. See id. at 40-
41. Needless to say, these documents had not been, and have not
since been, released to the plaintiff. Their current location is
unknown, perhaps unknowable, although Judicial Watch argues that
the evidence supports an inference that the documents were either
destroyed during the flurry of document shredding following the
Secretary’s death, or removed from his office during that same
time period. In any event, Hill’s uncontroverted testimony is
strong evidence that the DOC illegally withheld documents from
Judicial Watch in violation of the FOIA. It is also apparent
that the DOC was aware of this Court’s orders that all responsive
documents be produced, and willfully defied those orders,
according to Ms. Hill’s testimony. This conduct alone would seem
to justify entry of judgment against the DOC, and yet it
simultaneously precludes such judgment until the extent of the
DOC’s unlawful behavior is adequately explored.

Also relevant to this action is the testimony of Ms. Hill
that the deposition of Melissa Moss contained a number of
inaccuracies. See id. at 105 et seq. In addition, revelations
about Moss’s role in the orchestration of the trade missions
casts her deposition testimony in a new light, and also raises
doubts as to how the activities in which she participated could
have produced no documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s
requests. As a whole, the evidence supports an inference that
Moss played an important role in resisting Judicial Watch’s FOIA
requests, and the testimony of Nolanda Hill points in particular
to Moss as directly responsible for knowing violations of this
Court’s orders.7

On April 29, 1998, a superseding indictment was issued
against Ms. Hill. Judicial Watch claims that it was intended as
a further signal to keep quiet.”

“In conclusion, this somewhat tedious narration presents
numerous instances of likely violations of the Freedom of
Information Act and this Court’s orders. On many occasions, the
DOC appears to have engaged in the illegal withholding of
responsive documents, in the removal of such documents from the
DOC, and in the destruction of potentially responsive documents
in the office of the late Secretary Brown and elsewhere, as well
as a great deal of misconduct during the litigation which the
Court leaves for another day’s decision. Upon consideration of
this record, and of the legal issues discussed in Part II, the
Court finds that a new search alone is an insufficient remedy,
and thus the DOC’s motion will be denied, partial summary
judgment will be granted in favor of Judicial Watch ordering the
commencement of the search proposed in the motion, and further
discovery under the supervision of a Magistrate Judge will be
ordered.”

http://web.archive.org/web/20050323205903/http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/95cv133.pdf

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Hillary Clinton conceived plan to sell seats on Commerce Dept. trade missions in exchange for political contributions, Panetta and Podesta ordered Ron Brown to obstruct justice, Judicial Committee evidence, Hillary lied Ron Brown died

Hillary Clinton conceived plan to sell seats on Commerce Dept. trade missions in exchange for political contributions, Panetta and Podesta ordered Ron Brown to obstruct justice, Judicial Committee evidence, Hillary lied Ron Brown died

“This time, the Clintons use a reluctant Air Force and a nearly mutinous Armed Forces Institute of Pathology to bury Ron Brown as quickly as possible, literally and figuratively. They exploit Brown’s death for political advantage and leave the truth buried with him. Without an autopsy or a serious investigation, that is where it remains to this day.”…WND September 29, 2004

“Hillary lied Americans died”…Citizen Wells

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

 

 

The devil in the details in the White House

Hillary Clinton conceived the plan to sell seats on Commerce Dept. trade missions in exchange for political contributions as revealed by Judicial Watch and included in the House Judiciary Committee Evidentiary Record December 1998.

“IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

__________

THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD
PURSUANT TO S. RES. 16
VOLUME VII

Transcript of October 5, 1998 presentations of David Schippers and Abbe
Lowell, and debate on H. Res. 581, beginning an impeachment inquiry.
Committee Print, Ser. No. 8, December 1998″

“Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman, I also ask unanimous consent to
insert the Judicial Watch Interim Report dated September 28,
1998.
Mr. Hyde. Without objection.”
“Judicial Watch Interim Report on Crimes and Other Offenses Committed by
President Bill Clinton Warranting His Impeachment and Removal from
Elected Office”

“Through discovery in its civil lawsuit against the Clinton Commerce
Department, Judicial Watch also has found evidence that President
Clinton condoned and participated in a scheme, conceived by First Lady
Hillary Rodham Clinton and approved by the President, to sell seats on
U.S. Department of Commerce trade missions in exchange for political
contributions. Bribery is specifically highlighted in the U.S.
Constitution as an offense warranting impeachment.

In President Clinton’s push to sell taxpayer-financed government
services to raise money for his political operations, national security
likely was breached by his Commerce Department appointees and those
involved in his fundraising scheme, such as John Huang. While Judicial
Watch is at an interim stage of investigation in this sensitive area,
the breaches of national security uncovered at the Clinton Commerce
Department raise real questions of treasonous activities by the
President and members of his Administration.

To cover-up this illegal fundraising and likely national security
breaches, President Clinton’s top two staffers, then-Chief of Staff
Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta, ordered late
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to obstruct justice and defy federal Court
orders. The evidence also indicates that Secretary Brown personally
consulted with President Clinton in furtherance of this cover-up.

In addition to the illegal sale of taxpayer-financed services, such
as seats on government trade missions, for political contributions, the
President and Mrs. Clinton have illegally solicited and received monies
directly from private citizens and others. The creation and use of
legal defense funds is not only prohibited under federal law, but they
have proved to be a means whereby lobbyists, influence peddlers and
foreign powers have tried to influence the Administration, contrary to
U.S. national security interests.”

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

Affidavit of Nolanda Butler Hill, January 17, 1998
(131)
* * * * *
Question: You are aware, however, that Alexis Herman would
set up briefing sessions for participants that went on trade
missions before they went overseas? You were aware of that?
Nolanda Hill: I was.
Question: And at those briefing sessions appeared the
President and Vice President.
Nolanda Hill: I was told that by Secretary Brown.
* * * * *
Question: You’ve mentioned, to some extent–I’ll let your
testimony speak for itself–Harold Ickes. Anybody else? . . .
Nolanda Hill: Ultimately, [Ron Brown] believed that the
President of the United States was, at least tangentially.
Question: Involved?
Nolanda Hill: Yes, sir. It was his re-election that was at
stake.
Question: Ron believed that the President of the United
States knew the trade missions were being sold and their
purpose being perverted?
Nolanda Hill: Yes, sir.
Nolanda Butler Hill Court Testimony, March 23, 1998
(132)

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

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

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

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

Perjury;
Submission of false sworn declarations;
Destruction and shredding of evidence;
Improperly withholding documents contrary to Court
orders;
Threats and intimidation of witnesses and
investigators; and
Misconduct by Clinton Administration lawyers.

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

Memos from the Clinton White House files of Harold
Ickes and Alexis Herman showing that the $100,000 DNC Managing
Trustee Program included the sale of the Clinton Commerce
Department trade mission seats (among other government-financed
perks) and was designed to net President Clinton’s DNC
political operation $40 million; (137)

A brochure by the Democratic National Committee
showing that “foreign trade mission” seats were available for
$100,000 contributions to the DNC; (138)

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

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

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

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

Ms. Hill testified that then White House Chief of Staff Leon
Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered Commerce
Secretary Brown to defy Court orders and obstruct the Judicial Watch
suit until after the 1996 federal elections. Ms. Hill’s sworn testimony
implicated the President’s top staff members in obstruction of justice.
Ms. Hill also tied the sale of trade mission seats directly to
President Clinton. In both a sworn affidavit and Court testimony, Ms.
Hill explained that:

The First Lady conceived of the idea to sell the
trade mission seats in exchange for political contributions;
The President knew of and approved this scheme;
The Vice President participated in this scheme;
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown helped implement the
illegal fundraising operation out of the Clinton Commerce
Department;

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

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

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

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

Commercegate Chinagate illegal sale of US Department of Commerce Trade Mission Seats for campaign contributions, Judiciary Committee evidence, Judicial Watch interim report on crimes and other offenses committed by President Bill Clinton, December 1998

 

More Here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Hillary role in Filegate aided and abetted Bill Clinton in bribery perjury obstruction of justice misuse of federal agencies graft and likely breaches of national security, House Judiciary Committee evidentiary record December 1998

Hillary role in Filegate aided and abetted Bill Clinton in bribery perjury obstruction of justice misuse of federal agencies graft and likely breaches of national security, House Judiciary Committee evidentiary record December 1998

 

 

Hillary Clinton’s role in  Filegate was revealed by Judicial Watch and included in the House Judiciary Committee Evidentiary Record December 1998.

“IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

__________

THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD
PURSUANT TO S. RES. 16
VOLUME VII

Transcript of October 5, 1998 presentations of David Schippers and Abbe
Lowell, and debate on H. Res. 581, beginning an impeachment inquiry.
Committee Print, Ser. No. 8, December 1998″

“Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman, I also ask unanimous consent to
insert the Judicial Watch Interim Report dated September 28,
1998.
Mr. Hyde. Without objection.”
“Judicial Watch Interim Report on Crimes and Other Offenses Committed by
President Bill Clinton Warranting His Impeachment and Removal from
Elected Office”

“INTRODUCTION

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United
States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and conviction
of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States,
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath
faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and,
to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,
has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice,
in that:

Beginning around the Fall of 1994, William Jefferson Clinton,
his agents and subordinates engaged in bribery through the sale
of taxpayer-financed trade mission seats in exchange for
campaign contributions. Subsequent thereto, President Bill
Clinton, using the powers of his high office, engaged
personally and through his close agents and subordinates, in a
course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and
obstruct the investigation of such bribery; to cover up,
conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the
existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

Throughout his terms of office, William Jefferson Clinton has
repeatedly engaged, personally and through his close subordinates and
agents, in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens,
breaching the national security, impairing the due and proper
administration of justice, and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or
contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and
the purposes of these agencies.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional
government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants
impeachment and trial, and removal from office.(1)

Judicial Watch, Inc. respectfully submits to the United
States Congress its Interim Report on Crimes and Other Offenses
Committed by President Bill Clinton Warranting His Impeachment and
Removal from Elected Office.

As the United States House of Representatives considers whether to
launch impeachment proceedings against President William Jefferson
Clinton over his conduct relating to the Paula Jones sexual harassment
lawsuit and resulting criminal grand jury investigations, we ask that
it also consider this additional evidence, developed over the last
several years through Judicial Watch’s civil lawsuits, Freedom of
Information Act requests, and other investigations of government
corruption.(2)

Judicial Watch has uncovered evidence that President Clinton and
his agents have violated a number of federal laws relating to bribery,
campaign fundraising, the theft of government services, privacy,
corruption of federal law enforcement, abuse and misuse of federal
agencies (including the Internal Revenue Service), perjury, civil
rights violations, obstruction of justice, graft and likely breaches of
national security.

The evidence uncovered by Judicial Watch overwhelmingly indicates
that President Clinton condoned, directed and effected this
lawbreaking. It also shows that he was aided and abetted by, among
others, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Vice President Albert Gore, late
Commerce Secretary Ronald Brown, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other
key White House personnel, including Leon Panetta, John Podesta, Harold
Ickes, Bruce Lindsey, Bernard Nussbaum, and Labor Secretary Alexis
Herman.

For example, Judicial Watch has uncovered key evidence in the
massive political espionage, witness tampering and intimidation
operation popularly known as “Filegate.” In “Filegate,” the Clinton
White House, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Hillary
Rodham Clinton, former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, and
Clinton appointees Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca, illegally
obtained and misused the FBI files of former Reagan and Bush
Administration staffers and others to gain sensitive information on
perceived political opponents and material witnesses for use in its
smear campaigns. Judicial Watch represents the victims of “Filegate”
in a civil lawsuit.

The “Filegate” political espionage, witness tampering and
intimidation operation, a horrendous violation of the Privacy Act and
other laws, continues to this day. It represents the means by which the
Clintons defend the various scandals which threaten their hold on
power. The evidence indicates that the Clinton Administration, with the
direct knowledge and participation of the President, continues to
illegally compile, maintain and disseminate sensitive information on
perceived adversaries from confidential government files. Contrary to
previous Clinton Administration explanations, Judicial Watch discovered
that it was a high-level Clinton political appointee who illegally
ordered the release of Linda Tripp’s confidential information from her
Pentagon file in a clear effort to intimidate her from telling what she
knew of Clinton White House illegal activities, and to destroy her
credibility. Judicial Watch also uncovered evidence indicating that
President Clinton authorized the illegal release of Kathleen Willey’s
letters, stored in a White House filing system subject to the Privacy
Act, in an effort to intimidate and smear her. Like Ms. Tripp, Ms.
Willey is a material witness in on-going criminal grand jury
investigations and civil lawsuits.

Part of the pattern of “Filegate” is President Clinton’s use of
private investigators, the Reno Justice Department, the FBI, the IRS,
and political operatives such as James Carville to obstruct justice,
silence witnesses and intimidate investigators. For example, Judicial
Watch has uncovered evidence that President Clinton personally
participated in this operation by threatening “to destroy,” and then
defaming one witness, Dolly Kyle Browning, if she dared to tell the
truth about their 30-year friendship and sexual relationship.
President Clinton’s political appointee and former IRS Commissioner
Margaret Milner Richardson also illegally used the IRS to audit public
interest groups thought to be hostile to the Clinton Administration,
including the Western Journalism Center.

Through discovery in its civil lawsuit against the Clinton Commerce
Department, Judicial Watch also has found evidence that President
Clinton condoned and participated in a scheme, conceived by First Lady
Hillary Rodham Clinton and approved by the President, to sell seats on
U.S. Department of Commerce trade missions in exchange for political
contributions. Bribery is specifically highlighted in the U.S.
Constitution as an offense warranting impeachment.

In President Clinton’s push to sell taxpayer-financed government
services to raise money for his political operations, national security
likely was breached by his Commerce Department appointees and those
involved in his fundraising scheme, such as John Huang. While Judicial
Watch is at an interim stage of investigation in this sensitive area,
the breaches of national security uncovered at the Clinton Commerce
Department raise real questions of treasonous activities by the
President and members of his Administration.

To cover-up this illegal fundraising and likely national security
breaches, President Clinton’s top two staffers, then-Chief of Staff
Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta, ordered late
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to obstruct justice and defy federal Court
orders. The evidence also indicates that Secretary Brown personally
consulted with President Clinton in furtherance of this cover-up.
In addition to the illegal sale of taxpayer-financed services, such
as seats on government trade missions, for political contributions, the
President and Mrs. Clinton have illegally solicited and received monies
directly from private citizens and others. The creation and use of
legal defense funds is not only prohibited under federal law, but they
have proved to be a means whereby lobbyists, influence peddlers and
foreign powers have tried to influence the Administration, contrary to
U.S. national security interests.

This President’s Administration has also misused government lawyers
to obstruct investigations into his wrongdoing. His Commerce Department
lawyers obstructed Court-ordered discovery into the illegal sale of
taxpayer-financed trade mission seats for political contributions. His
Justice Department lawyers threatened investigators with criminal
prosecution, timed the indictment of a major whistle-blower witness to
try to force her into silence, and consistently obstructed Court
processes to cover-up Clinton-appointee wrongdoing, perjury and
destruction of evidence.

In sum, Judicial Watch has uncovered a pattern of conduct by this
President and his agents that indicates he has run, in effect, a
criminal enterprise from the White House to obtain and maintain hold on
the Office of the President of the United States. Indeed, he is likely
in violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO), a charge recently filed against him by Dolly Kyle Browning
in federal court.(3) This pervasive corruption, flowing from
the Oval Office, is the common thread throughout the various “high
crimes and misdemeanors” outlined in this interim report.”

Read more:

Filegate Bill Clinton aided and abetted by Hillary Gore Reno Brown conduct or plan designed to delay impede and obstruct the investigation of bribery, Cover up conceal and protect those responsible, Conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities, December 1998

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Hillary Clinton role in Russian uranium deal, Incompetence pay to play blackmail or all of the above, Over 90% of uranium purchased by US commercial nuclear reactors from outside America, Why did Hillary not stop sale to Russia?

Hillary Clinton role in Russian uranium deal, Incompetence pay to play blackmail or all of the above, Over 90% of uranium purchased by US commercial nuclear reactors from outside America, Why did Hillary not stop sale to Russia?

“Clinton Foundation quid-pro-quo worries are lingering, will be exploited in general”…DNC email, April 24, 2016 from Wikileaks

“Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.””…NY Times April 23, 2015

“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,”… Rep. Trey Gowdy

 

URANIUM FACTS

From the US Energy Information Administration July 11, 2011.

“Over 90% of uranium purchased by U.S. commercial nuclear reactors is from outside the U.S.”

“Owners and operators of U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors purchased nearly 47 million pounds of uranium from U.S. and foreign suppliers during 2010; 92% of this total was of foreign origin.

Historically, U.S. owners and operators have purchased the majority of their uranium from foreign sources. Russia, Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, and Namibia represent the top five countries of origin for U.S. uranium, and together account for 85% of total U.S. uranium purchases in 2010. Owners and operators of U.S. commercial nuclear power plants purchased uranium from a total of 14 different countries in 2010.”

Read more:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=2150

From the US Energy Information Administration June 1, 2016.

“U.S. uranium production is near historic low as imports continue to fuel U.S. reactors”

“Most of the uranium loaded into U.S. nuclear power reactors is imported. During 2015, owners and operators of U.S. nuclear power reactors purchased 57 million pounds of uranium. Nearly half of these purchases originated from two countries, Canada and Kazakhstan, providing 17 million pounds and 11 million pounds of uranium, respectively.

U.S. uranium concentrate production, which started in 1949 and peaked in 1980, has recently been near historic lows. Uranium production was 0.63 million pounds of uranium (U3O8) in the first quarter 2016. At that rate, total 2016 production may be about 2.5 million pounds, only slightly higher than the low of 2.0 million pounds produced in 2003.”

Read more:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26472

So, why would Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, allow the sale of Uranium One and control of 20 percent of US uranium to the Russians?

Was it:

Incompetence?

Pay to Play involving the Clinton Foundation?

Blackmail by the Russians?

or

All of the above?

From Breitbart July 25, 2016.

“The Democrats’ newfound paranoia about Russian influence on American affairs was certainly nowhere to be found when Hillary Clinton was cheerfully selling them a huge chunk of America’s uranium stockpile, right after a Russian bank paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech.

The Uranium One story is among the incidents detailed in Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash. A quick recap: Uranium One was originally a Canadian company, bought out by Russia’s state atomic energy agency, Rosatom.

Uranium One’s big shots were very, very generous donors to the Clinton Foundation, the “charity” through which so much foreign money flowed to Bill and Hillary Clinton. The New York Times reported in April 2015 about how those donations spiked as the deal for Rosatom to secure Uranium One and its holdings in the United States was brought to a successful conclusion, along with one of Bill Clinton’s biggest paydays ever:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

Read more:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/25/flashback-clintons-loved-russia-enough-sell-uranium/

Was it incompetence?

FBI Director James Comey:

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Whether or not the Russians hacked Hillary’s emails, it is now apparent that they have had access to her classified exchanges while Secretary of State.

Blackmail is a distinct possibility!

Did Hillary delete emails related to the Russian uranium deal?

From Politico July 6, 2016.

“The Strange Gaps in Hillary Clinton’s Email Traffic

An analysis of the released emails raises questions about whether Clinton deleted a number of work-related emails—and if she did, why.”

“But then there is an instance where the State Department cable traffic rises and there are few if any Clinton corresponding emails. It’s the case of Rosatom, the Russian State Nuclear Agency: Clinton and senior officials at the State Department received dozens of cables on the subject of Rosatom’s activities around the world, including a hair-raising cable about Russian efforts to dominate the uranium market. As secretary of state, Clinton was a central player in a variety of diplomatic initiatives involving Rosatom officials. But strangely, there is only one email that mentions Rosatom in Clinton’s entire collection, an innocuous email about Rosatom’s activities in Ecuador. To put that into perspective, there are more mentions of LeBron James, yoga and NBC’s Saturday Night Live than the Russian Nuclear Agency in Clinton’s emails deemed “official.”
What could explain this lack of emails on the Russian Nuclear Agency? Were Clinton’s aides negligent in passing along unimportant information while ignoring the far more troubling matters concerning Rosatom? Possibly. Or, were emails on this subject deleted as falling into the “personal” category? It is certainly odd that there’s virtually no email traffic on this subject in particular. Remember that a major deal involving Rosatom that was of vital concern to Clinton Foundation donors went down in 2009 and 2010. Rosatom bought a small Canadian uranium company owned by nine investors who were or became major Clinton Foundation donors, sending $145 million in contributions. The Rosatom deal required approval from several departments, including the State Department.”

Read more:

From the NY Times April 23, 2015.

 

“The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.

Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”

“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”

When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee’s review. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the deal.

Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One’s largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”

“Equally alarming,” Mr. Barrasso added, “this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”

Uranium One’s shareholders were also alarmed, and were “afraid of Rosatom as a Russian state giant,” Sergei Novikov, a company spokesman, recalled in an interview. He said Rosatom’s chief, Mr. Kiriyenko, sought to reassure Uranium One investors, promising that Rosatom would not break up the company and would keep the same management, including Mr. Telfer, the chairman. Another Rosatom official said publicly that it did not intend to increase its investment beyond 51 percent, and that it envisioned keeping Uranium One a public company.”

“That renewed adversarial relationship has raised concerns about European dependency on Russian energy resources, including nuclear fuel. The unease reaches beyond diplomatic circles. In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control over mining rights on his property.

“I hate to see a foreign government own mining rights here in the United States,” he said. “I don’t think that should happen.”

Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.

Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.

The “no export” assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it.”

Read more:

Incompetence?

Pay to Play involving the Clinton Foundation?

Blackmail by the Russians?

or

All of the above?

YOU DECIDE.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

 

 

 

Steven Loren sentencing September 19, 2012, Teachers Retirement System corruption with Cellini Rezko Levine Obama

Steven Loren sentencing September 19, 2012, Teachers Retirement System corruption with Cellini Rezko Levine Obama

“Why was Obama promoting Capri Capital and other investment firms at the same time that Rezko, Levine and Cellini were shaking them down?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“Why was Tony Rezko’s sentencing delayed?”…Citizen Wells

Steven Loren is scheduled for sentencing today, September 19, 2012,  in the courtroom of  Judge  Amy J. St. Eve.

Daily Calendar

Wednesday, September 19, 2012 (As of 09/19/12 at 06:46:51 AM

Honorable Amy J. St. Eve                    Courtroom 1241 (ASE)

1:05-cr-00691   USA v. Loren                           09:30   Sentencing

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/DailyCal/0.htm

Steven Loren.

From Citizen Wells October 19, 2011.

“Following Obama’s efforts, the Illinois Teachers’ Retirement System gave Ariel Capital $112.5 million to manage, and added hundreds of millions more over the next few years.”

“Three other minority-run firms — Holland Capital, Loop Capital and Capri Capital Partners — also saw hundreds of millions of assets turned over to them to manage after meeting with Obama and the state pension boards.”

Capri Capital is a little more interesting.
From the William Cellini Indictment Press Release:

“WILLIAM F. CELLINI, SR., INDICTED FOR ALLEGED ROLE IN DEFRAUDING TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM WITH REZKO, LEVINE AND OTHERS”

“A longtime political insider in Springfield was indicted today on federal corruption charges for allegedly conspiring with two Chicago businessmen and others to obtain political contributions for a certain public official by shaking down an investment firm that was seeking a $220 million allocation from the state Teachers Retirement System (TRS.) The defendant, William F. Cellini, Sr., was charged in a four-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury, announced Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.”

“Cellini’s alleged crimes – essentially conspiring with others to force Capri Capital, also a real estate investment firm, and Thomas Rosenberg, a principal and part owner of Capri, to raise or donate substantial political contributions for Public Official A – were the subject of testimony earlier this year at the trial of alleged co-conspirator Antoin “Tony” Rezko. Cellini was charged with conspiring with Rezko, former TRS trustee Stuart Levine, the pension fund’s outside lawyer Steven Loren and others between the spring of 2003 and the summer of 2005 to defraud TRS beneficiaries and the people of Illinois of Levine’s honest services as a TRS trustee. TRS, a public pension plan for teachers and administrators in public schools statewide except in Chicago, serves hundreds of thousands of members and beneficiaries and has assets in excess of $30 billion.

Cellini is the 13th defendant charged as part of Operation Board Games, an ongoing federal public corruption investigation of insider-dealing, influence-peddling and kickbacks involving private interests and public duties related to various state boards and non-profit organizations.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/william-cellini-trial-capri-capital-obama-connection-obama-arrest-prevented-by-corrupt-us-justice-department-where-is-the-house-judiciary-committee/

Obama and GE pay to play politics, General Electric high profits low US taxes, 24.9 Million stimulus money cut 18000 US jobs, Rezko loans from GE Capital

Obama and GE pay to play politics, General Electric high profits low US taxes, 24.9 Million stimulus money cut 18000 US jobs, Rezko loans from GE Capital

“Citizen Wells, we bring bad things to light”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Mutual Bank fire whistleblower Kenneth J Connor after he
challenged the appraisal on the land purchased by Rita Rezko, just
prior to the land sale to Obama?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did the Rezkos enter into an agreement to purchase the lot next to the Obama house and pay the asking price of $ 625,000 at a time when they were broke and heavily in debt?”…Citizen Wells

From CNS News October 11, 2010.

“The Obama administration gave corporate giant General Electric—the parent company of NBC–$24.9 million in grants from the $787-billion economic “stimulus” law President Barack Obama signed in February 2009, according to records posted by the administration at Recovery.gov.

Despite getting $24.9 million from U.S. taxpayers, GE decreased its U.S.-based employees by 18,000 in 2009, according to the company’s 2009 annual report.

According to Standard & Poor’s, GE took in $156 billion in revenue in 2009.

GE was the primary recipient of 14 stimulus grants, a spokeswoman for Recovery.gov confirmed to CNSNews.com. These 14 grants provided GE with $24.9 million in tax dollars. On four additional stimulus grants, the primary recipient of the federal money hired GE as a contractor. Recovery.gov is the administration’s website that tracks stimulus expenditures.

At the end of 2008, GE employed 152,000 U.S. workers, according to its 2009 annual report. But at the end of 2009, according to the report, it employed only 134,000 U.S. workers, a decline of 18,000 workers.

The Energy Department provided GE with 9 stimulus grants, the Department of Health and Human Services provided the company with 3, and the Justice Department and the Commerce Department each gave the company 1 stimulus grant.

All of these federal stimulus grants went to GE’s Global Research Center.

The earliest of the stimulus grants went to GE in July 2009 and the latest in April 2010.

CNSNews.com asked a GE spokesperson if the company contested Recovery.gov’s representation that GE had received 14 stimulus grants worth $24.9 million, and also whether the company now employed more or fewer workers as a result of receiving the grants.

In an e-mail response, GE spokeswoman Anne Eisele said, “I’m afraid I must politely decline to comment.”

What did all the money to GE go for? Recovery.gov posts brief explanations of each grant. For example, the Department of Justice gave GE $999,955 in stimulus money. “The goal of this program,” said Recovery.gov, “is to develop a comprehensive reasoning system for event and scenario recognition for an intelligent video system.”

In addition to the $24.9 million it received in stimulus grants, GE was also awarded $5 million in federal contracts under the economic stimulus law. These contracts were payment for services provided by the company.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-gave-general-electric-parent-company-nbc-249-million-stimulus

Interesting.

I saved this article a few hours ago. I now get this:

“Parse error: syntax error, unexpected ‘=’, expecting ‘)’ in /cluster/www_system/www/v2.cnsnews.com/public_html/sites/default/settings.php on line 216”

A search on the link yields:

Obama Administration Gave General ElectricParent  – CNS News

cnsnews.com › News

Oct 11, 2010 – health care-obama. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden react to cheers as they arrive in the East Room of the White House 

You’ve visited this page 3 times. Last visit: 9/15/12
That wasn’t supposed to be part of this story. It just happened.
Seems like Obama really likes GE.
From NewsMax March 23, 2011.

“General Electric CEO Jeffrey R. Immelt is super-close to President Obama. The president named Immelt chairman of his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
Before that, Immelt was on Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

He’s also a regular companion when Obama travels abroad to hawk American exports. (Why does business need government to do that?)

“Jeff Immelt is perhaps the CEO who is most cozy with President Obama,” says journalist Tim Carney. “General Electric is structuring their business around
where government is going . . . high-speed rail, solar, wind. GE is lining up to get what government is handing out.””

http://www.newsmax.com/Stossel/Obama-GeneralElectric-CorporateWelfare-Immelt/2011/03/23/id/390486

From Hot Air March 25, 2011.

“What a coincidence! I’m sure that GE’s ability to generate $14.2 billion in profits, $5.1 billion in the US, and end up getting back $3.2 billion from
taxpayers has nothing at all to do with its political connections and favorable tax breaks and loopholes it has pushed through Congress.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/25/obamas-favorite-ceo-gets-ge-out-from-paying-any-us-taxes/

What a coincidence! Tony Rezko likes GE too.

General Electric Capital Corporation

“Company Description

General Electric Capital (GE Capital) encompasses the financing operations of sprawling conglomerate General Electric. The group’s five segments provide
commercial loans and leases, consumer loans and credit cards, and real estate financing services around the world. GE Capital’s largest segments are
commercial lending and leasing and consumer lending, which together account for about 80% of revenues. Its GE Commercial Aviation Services specialist segment leases commercial aircraft, while its energy financial services segment provides project funding for customers in the energy and water sectors. GE Capital is active in more than 50 countries but does most of its business in the US and Europe.”

http://www.hoovers.com/company/General_Electric_Capital_Corporation/hchhri-1.html

From the Tony Rezko Indictment Press Release, October 11, 2006.

“The second indictment alleges that Rezko fraudulently obtained more than $10 million in loans for a pizza restaurant business from General Electric Capital Corp. (GECC) and also defrauded investors in that business.”

“The loan fraud indictment, which charges only Rezko, alleges that he fraudulently caused GECC to extend more than $10 million in loans to finance what Rezko portrayed as sales of two different groups of pizza restaurants in the Chicago and Milwaukee areas. In fact, the indictment alleges, the sales were sham transactions that occurred at inflated prices, and involved the presentation of false financial information to GECC. The indictment alleges that in addition to defrauding GECC, Rezko defrauded investors in his pizza business by concealing the fact that he was transferring the company’s assets to himself and a straw purchaser.”

““This indictment describes a frenzy of corrupt scheming, particularly in April and May 2004, in which political insiders sought to manipulate the activities of two state boards to fleece investment firms and individuals. The defendants and their associates put the word out loud and clear: you have to pay to play in Illinois,” Mr. Fitzgerald said.”

“The indictment alleges that Rezko and his co-schemers fraudulently obtained a $4.5 million loan from GECC in March 2001 to finance the purchase of the Milwaukee stores by a straw purchaser and his company at an inflated price, and through the submission of fraudulent documents, including false financial statements about the condition of the pizza stores.”

“The indictment alleges that Rezko and his co-schemers made similar fraudulent representations to obtain a $6 million loan from GECC in October 2001 in connection with Rezko’s sale of the Chicago area pizza restaurants from Rezko Enterprises to his own company, Chicago PJ LLC. After closing on the loan for the Chicago stores, the loan became delinquent, and Rezko caused additional false financial information to be submitted to GECC in asking for forebearance on the default.”

From the San Francisco Chronicle March 3, 2008.

“Obama, a Democrat, is not part of the case against Rezko, who is accused of shaking down companies seeking business with the state of Illinois. Obama has
conceded it was a mistake to bring Rezko into his personal real estate dealings, although he has insisted there was nothing unusual about the developer
deciding to buy a sought-after lot in an upscale neighborhood. But a review of court records, including new details of Rezko’s finances that have emerged
recently, show that the lot purchase occurred as he was being pursued by creditors seeking more than $10 million, deepening the mystery of why he would plunge into a real estate investment whose biggest beneficiary appears to have been Obama.

Dodging creditors

As Obama and Rezko were completing the property purchases in June 2005, Rezko was fighting to keep lenders and investors at bay over defaulted loans and
failing business ventures. But he sidestepped that financial dragnet by arranging for the land to be purchased in his wife’s name, making it the only
property she owned by herself, according to land records.

As a result, when Obama and his wife, Michelle, bought a portion of the land from Rezko seven months later to widen their yard, the money they paid was
beyond the reach of Rezko’s creditors, including one conducting a court-ordered hunt for his assets to recover a $3.5 million debt.

Two lawyers involved in the civil litigation against Rezko said they believed that the property was subject to possible seizure on the premise that Rezko had
been trying to hide behind his wife, Rita, who had little money of her own to complete the $625,000 purchase.

The lawyers, both of whom requested anonymity because they did not have their clients’ permission to speak about the cases, said there was little purpose in
pursuing it because the legal costs would have outweighed the value of the property, which was encumbered by a $500,000 mortgage.”

“Federal prosecutors recently filed papers saying Rezko had trouble paying creditors for years. At least 12 lawsuits had been filed against Rezko and his
businesses from November 2002 to January 2005, including one by GE Commercial Finance Corp., which had extended more than $5 million in loans for Rezko’s pizza franchises.

GE obtained a court judgment against Rezko in November 2004 for the $3.5 million it said was outstanding on its loans, but the company put collection efforts on hold during the first half of 2005 as it negotiated with Rezko, court records show. When the Obamas and Rezkos bought their adjacent parcels that June, Rezko’s wife, Rita, put down $125,000 in cash and financed the rest with a bank loan.”

http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Obama-could-feel-heat-from-developer-s-trial-3292768.php

Obama and Rezko like GE, especially in 2005.
More to come.
Citizen Wells, we bring bad things to light.