Category Archives: CitizenWells

Thrivent new employee dispute resolution mandate?, Effective January 1, 2019?, Citizen Wells breaking news?, Teresa Rasmussen new Thrivent CEO October 2018

Thrivent new employee dispute resolution mandate?, Effective January 1, 2019?, Citizen Wells breaking news?, Teresa Rasmussen new Thrivent CEO October 2018

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

“Companies don’t want to go to court because it puts them on a level playing field. Courts are ruled by law, legal precedent, and legal discovery, which allows litigants to obtain information and evidence from their opponents or from third parties. Discovery is a privilege in arbitration, but not a right. Arbitrators can’t enforce subpoenas, meaning you have to file a lawsuit just to get a third party or a piece of information into the hearing. In open court, you don’t have to jump through nearly as many hoops. Further, judgments in court are often more favorable to the consumer, both in the rate of success and the dollar amount of judgments.”…North Carolina Consumers Council

 

 

Has Thrivent Financial implemented a new employee dispute resolution mandate similar to their MDRP dispute resolution mandated for members since 1999?

If so, why is there no news of this until now on the internet or Thrivent’s website?

Was this supposed to be kept secret?

Did someone inadvertently place this on their website where it got on the internet and was subsequently “rectified”, scrubbed?

A lot of questions have been raised.

Teresa Rasmussen, formerly general counsel and a president at Thrivent became CEO in October.

Is this tied to her?

Did this evolve from Thrivent’s lawsuits against the Department of Labor?

Was this lawsuit a catalyst?

“Executive sues Thrivent, saying he was fired because he is black”

http://eachstorytold.com/2018/05/26/thrivent-executive-fired-gregory-m-smith-lawsuit-says-he-was-fired-because-he-is-black-represented-by-attorney-clayton-halunen-we-are-going-to-get-rid-of-that-black-piece-of-shit/

The following link was scrubbed.

https://www.thrivent.com/privacy-and-security/files/Employee-Dispute-Resolution-Program.pdf

WE CAN’T FIND YOUR PAGE

You may have used an out-of-date link, bookmarked a page that has moved or typed the address (URL) incorrectly.

To find the information you are looking for, use the site navigation, visit our homepage, or use the site search.

Nothing was found by searching on their website or the internet.

However, this was found in cache:

This is Google’s cache of https://www.thrivent.com/privacy-and-security/dispute-resolution-program.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Nov 12, 2018 11:25:51 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ESWyoGuIC10J:https://www.thrivent.com/privacy-and-security/dispute-resolution-program.html+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The following was found under the FAQ section:

  • Why is Thrivent introducing the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program?
    • • Thrivent has had a successful Member Dispute Resolution Program in place for 19 years, and now we are providing our workforce with a similar dispute resolution program that is:
      • Neutral.
      • Timely.
      • Cost-effective.
    • Introducing this program puts us in line with many Fortune 500 companies. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 55% of U.S. employees have agreed to arbitration agreements.
  • When does the program take effect?

    Current employees and field sales members must sign their agreements via DocuSign by December 31, 2018, and the program takes effect on January 1, 2019.

  • Am I obligated to use the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program instead of filing a lawsuit?

    Yes. Thrivent provides the Dispute Resolution Program as the exclusive means to resolve workplace disputes. By contracting with, or accepting and continuing employment with Thrivent, you agree to resolve all work-related disputes within the rules of the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program. This agreement is binding on Thrivent, its employees and independent field sales members. Workplace disputes not resolved through Workforce Relations, Code of Conduct, the initial appeal or mediation must be arbitrated under the rules of the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program.

What if I don’t sign the agreement?

Because agreeing to a Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program is a condition of employment for employees and condition of contract for field sales members, employment/contracts will not be continued for anyone who does not agree to the terms of the program. Employees and field sales members who choose not to sign the agreement will not be eligible for any type of severance or transitional pay.

These agreements are binding on both Thrivent, its employees and field sales members. Workplace disputes not resolved by mutual agreement must be arbitrated under the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program.

Why is there no mention of this dramatic change in Thrivent news or the internet?

Did  they change their minds?

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Advertisements

Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed, Truth is what we hide, self-serving cover stories are what we sell, We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell

Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed, Truth is what we hide, self-serving cover stories are what we sell, We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”…George Orwell

“Not every item of news should be published: rather must
those who control news policies endeavor to make every item
of news serve a certain purpose.”… Joseph Goebbels

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

 

In my lifetime, it began with the Kennedy assassination narrative.

A narrative was quickly crafted (or perhaps just implemented) and it became the story, “the truth.”

We are only recently beginning to know the real story. And yet the narrative lives.

George Orwell, “1984”:

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”

From Zero Hedge:

“Truth Is What We Hide, Self-Serving Cover Stories Are What We Sell”

We can summarize the current era in one sentence: truth is what we hide, self-serving cover stories are what we sell. Jean-Claude Juncker’s famous quote captures the essence of the era: “When it becomes serious, you have to lie.”

And when does it become serious? When the hidden facts of the matter might be revealed to the general public. Given the regularity of vast troves of well-hidden data being made public by whistleblowers and white-hat hackers, it’s basically serious all the time now, and hence the official default everywhere is: truth is what we hide, self-serving cover stories are what we sell.”

“In academia, censorship and conformity have become the norm (Globe and Mail)

In truth, facts today are deemed controversial if they deviate from accepted narratives, and professors must self-censor out of fear of being condemned and losing their jobs.

Based on conversations I’ve had with colleagues still working in academia and from what I can tell about recent cases of censorship, the antagonism is primarily from left-leaning colleagues attacking other liberals.

These instances are indicative of a larger, worrisome trend – instead of debating contentious ideas, those in opposition to them throw words ending in “-phobic” around, shutting the conversation down and pretending they don’t exist.

For those who say ideas that denigrate members of society shouldn’t be entertained, silencing the debate doesn’t make hateful beliefs go away. In many cases, it isn’t controversial findings that pose a threat; the threat comes from the possibility that others will use these facts to justify discrimination. But it’s important that we distinguish between an idea and the researcher putting forth that idea, and the potential for bad behaviour.

With academics avoiding entire areas of research as a result, knowledge currently being produced is constrained, replaced by beliefs that are pleasant-sounding but biased, or downright nonsensical. The recent “grievance studies” investigation, led by academics Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose, laid bare how bad the problem has become. The trio managed to get seven fake papers (but oh-so politically correct and hence “good to go”–CHS) accepted in high-ranking humanities journals.

In a consumerist-based culture accustomed to 24/7 selling of one self-serving story or another, the fact that lies and cover stories are now the official norm only makes us love our servitude with greater devotion. I’ve noticed a new twist on self-serving propaganda: an alternative opinion isn’t debated, it’s debunked, as if questioning the official narrative is by definition a “conspiracy theory” that can be “debunked” by repeating the official self-serving cover story enough times.”

Read more:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-03/truth-what-we-hide-self-serving-cover-stories-are-what-we-sell

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Thrivent new CEO Attorney Teresa J. Rasmussen, Formerly president and general counsel, More “Core Christian Values” or adversarial positions?

Thrivent new CEO Attorney Teresa J. Rasmussen, Formerly president and general counsel, More “Core Christian Values” or adversarial positions?

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal”…1 Corinthians 13

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”…Jesus, John 8:32

 

I have believed and experienced for years that Thrivent was controlled by attorneys.

Now Thrivent is being run by new CEO Teresa J. Rasmussen, another attorney.

Will she bring more Thrivent touted “Core Christian Values” or attorney driven adversarial positions?

I sent Ms. Rasmussen a heads up email about my case about a week ago.

To her credit, she passed the email on to another in house attorney, the same one who took part in my “mediation” session.

I received an email from him 4 days ago and responded.

From Finance & Commerce October 16, 2018.

“Teresa Rasmussen is Thrivent’s new CEO

Teresa J. Rasmussen, currently president of Minneapolis-based Thrivent Financial, will take over as CEO by the end of the month. She replaces Bradford Hewitt, who is retiring after eight years of leading the financial services organization.

Rasmussen joined Thrivent in 2005 and has served as general counsel, secretary and senior vice president. She previously worked for American Express and Ameriprise Financial and began her career as a trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice.

She is the first woman in the CEO position, Thrivent said.

In a press release, Thrivent board chair Bonnie Raquet praised both Hewitt and Rasmussen for the work at the organization.

“Terry has distinguished herself as a strong leader with extraordinary business and legal acumen, as well as a deep understanding of Thrivent’s charter as a fraternal benefit society,” Raquet said. “What’s more, she has deep-seated values and a practical approach to aligning our workforce to serve our members and drive growth.””

Read more:

https://finance-commerce.com/2018/10/teresa-rasmussen-is-thrivents-new-ceo/

Without revealing too much of this exchange at this time (I waited 4 days without a response to write this) I would like to clear up the following statement made by the in house attorney:

” I would very much encourage you to seek the advice of counsel before setting forth on your threat to defame Thrivent.  Thrivent is proud of its trusted reputation and will take necessary steps to protect itself from your misrepresentations and false accusations.  For the past 7 years the Ethisphere Institute has recognized Thrivent as one of the top 100 most ethical organizations in the world.  Again, we will take necessary steps to protect our valued reputation.”

First:

Thrivent’s  “Code of Conduct”

“How might my behavior be perceived if it appeared in social media feeds, on the news or in tomorrow’s headlines?”

Second:

I diligently endeavor to write the truth, the facts. I conveyed this to the first Thrivent outside attorney to contact me and cautioned him on trampling on my First Amendment Rights. I also advised him to have Thrivent contact me with any corrections to inaccurate reporting.

I placed the following in an article dated July 30, 2018 addressed to former CEO Brad Hewitt:

“I recently told the outside attorney who relayed this message that I endeavor to be accurate and do not lie.

I stated that if Thrivent finds any errors or wishes to respond with a rebuttal, I will accomodate them.”

So far I have received no corrections from Thrivent, just threats.

Third:

Apparently there is enough evidence to draw the conclusion that the Ethisphere Institute award is one of the best ethics awards that money can buy.

Last:

If Thrivent wishes to protect its “valued reputation” it should immediately issue an apology to me and set in motion efforts for reparations.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Hillary Clinton is “evil incarnate”, Hillary: “If you want to talk about real evil, it’s her”, David Schippers interviews, Schippers life long Democrat voted twice for Bill, Man of principles

Hillary Clinton is “evil incarnate”, Hillary: “If you want to talk about real evil, it’s her”, David Schippers interviews, Schippers life long Democrat voted twice for Bill, Man of principles

“As a result of our research and review of the Referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.”…David Schippers  House Judiciary Committee October 5, 1998

“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

“Hillary: “If you want to talk about real evil, it’s her””…David Schippers

 

I am not a fan of either political party, especially the uber corrupted Democrat Party.

David Schippers, a life long Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice, criticized both parties.

He was the lead counsel in the impeachment investigations of Bill Clinton.

Mr. Schippers passed away in October 2018. God bless him and his family.

I wish that we had a real 2 party system of people like Mr. Schippers who put God and country first over ambition and political party.

David Schippers told the truth about the Clintons and especially Hillary.

From Free Republic April 27, 2002 regarding a radio interview of David Schippers.

“David Schippers, the man called in by Henry Hyde to be chief counsel of the impeachment of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, has been very candid and succinct in his description of Hillary Clinton. When asked about her on FreeRepublic Radio, he described her as “evil incarnate.”

He also described Bill Clinton as the worst thing to ever happen to this country.

Those who are still wearing the ceremonial kneepads and drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid are hard pressed to criticize Schippers as a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Schippers, you see, is a life long Democrat. Schippers, working under Robert Kennedy, helped take down the Chicago mob. Schippers voted twice for Bill Clinton.”

Read more:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/673688/posts

In a October 21, 2016 interview by Sandy Rios on American Family Association radio, Mr. Schippers called Hillary evil again, worse even than Bill Clinton.

Hillary: “If you want to talk about real evil, it’s her”

Listen to the entire interview here:

https://afr.net/podcasts/sandy-rios-in-the-morning/2016/october/interview-with-david-schippers-chief-chief-investigative-counsel-for-the-us-house-judiciary-committee/

We owe David Schippers a tremendous debt of gratitude.

More Americans need to follow his example.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Compare Google patents to Data Mine your home and kids’ bedroom to passages from 1984, Big Brother is watching you

Compare Google patents to Data Mine your home and kids’ bedroom to passages from 1984, Big Brother is watching you

“We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.”…George Orwell, “1984″

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

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

 

From Zero Hedge November 22, 2018.

“Google Wants To Data Mine Your Home And Kids’ Bedroom

New patents show Google is quietly developing a smart-home automated system that will routinely eavesdrop on your daily life.

The patents describe how cameras and sensors will be mounted in almost every room of the house, scanning and analyzing every movement a human makes.

According to the patent description, the smart cameras could recognize Will Smith’s face on a T-shirt. After cross-referencing this data against the human’s browser history, the smart-home might announce or send them a message, “You seem to like Will Smith. His new movie is playing in a theater near you.”

By blending that with an in-depth analysis of other electronic devices in the home, and audio signatures to determine gender, Google will have enough data to create a corporate profile on the human and even their family. 

The system will then calculate “fashion tastes” by scanning the human’s outfit, and could even determine their income or social class based on any “expensive mechanical and/or electronic devices” it detects.

Even creepier, the smart-home will track audio signatures too, could be used to identify users, but also determine gender and age.”

Read more:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-20/google-wants-data-mine-your-home-and-kids-bedroom

From “1984” by George Orwell.

“A Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. Even when he is alone he can never be sure that he is alone. Wherever he may be, asleep or awake, working or resting, in his bath or in bed, he can be inspected without warning and without knowing that he is being inspected. Nothing that he does is indifferent. His friendships, his relaxations, his behaviour towards his wife and children, the expression of his face when he is alone, the words he mutters in sleep, even the characteristic movements of his body, are all jealously scrutinized. Not only any actual misdemeanour, but any eccentricity, however small, any change of habits, any nervous mannerism that could possibly be the symptom of an inner struggle, is certain to be detected. He has no freedom of choice in any direction whatever. On the other hand his actions are not regulated by law or by any clearly formulated code of behaviour. In Oceania there is no law. Thoughts and actions which, when detected, mean certain death are not formally forbidden, and the endless purges, arrests, tortures, imprisonments, and vaporizations are not inflicted as punishment for crimes which have actually been committed, but are merely the wiping-out of persons who might perhaps commit a crime at some time in the future.”

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

David Schippers obituary, Part 3: Schippers interviews, Exposes Clintons felonies female abuse Filegate Chinagate congressional corruption, Fake News lies

David Schippers obituary, Part 3: Schippers interviews, Exposes Clintons felonies female abuse Filegate Chinagate congressional corruption, Fake News lies

“As a result of our research and review of the Referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.”…David Schippers  House Judiciary Committee October 5, 1998

“The White House wanted any applicant for citizenship to be naturalized in time to register for the November election, so the pressure on the INS was constant.”…David Schippers

“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 Schippers

 

Citizen journalism and activism. Crucial!

Without the internet and citizen involvement in retrieving, saving and disseminating the truth, we would be kept in the dark about chicanery and corruption such as the Clintons were immersed in.

The Clintons rose to power in the bad old days of pre or minimal internet.

David Schippers was a life long Democrat, voted for Clinton twice but he was an honest, principled man.

He headed up the investigation of President Clinton to determine if impeachment proceedings were justified.

The answer was a resounding yes.

He also wrote a book, “Sellout” to tell the rest of the story about the Clintons and the proceedings for the House Judiciary Committee.

The Fake News Media has done their Orwellian best to create a narrative that the impeachment was only about a daliance with Monica Lewinsky.

David Schippers informed us that it was much more than that.

Do an internet search on “David Schippers interviews.”

You will find next to nothing about his book “Sellout” or his investigation.

One of the interviews, from Insight Magazine, was saved by Citizen Wells and was found on Free Republic, saved by a conscientious citizen.

It has been put back up in searchable form. The interview follows:

“Insight: Did you seek the job to head the impeachment investigation?

DS: No. In January 1998 Chairman Hyde called me out of the clear blue sky. Initially, he asked me for help on oversight of a Justice Department matter. Then the Lewinsky issue broke. Hyde asked me if potentially, God forbid, it led to impeachment, would I be willing.

Insight: The White House wanted to make it look like your investigation was a prurient intrusion into Clinton’s private life. Is that so, or were there serious breaches of national security?

DS: After we saw the material assembled in the secure committee room, and after the House voted for the inquiry on Oct. 8, 1998, I went to Henry Hyde and said: “We are going to start a heavy investigation. We’re not going to touch Lewinsky; we’re going to look at Chinagate, Filegate and all the other -gates. I estimated that we wouldn’t be ready to file our findings until July or August 1999.

Insight: What did you think you were getting into with Chinagate?

DS: Prior to the inquiry, I had read the book Year of the Rat by Edward Timperlake and William Triplett, and I realized that there was something there that had to be looked into. So the very first call I made after the House voted for the inquiry was to Timperlake and Triplett. And I asked if they’d cooperate and do the advance investigation because they had so much knowledge from the Senate investigation under Senator Fred Thompson [R-Tenn.]. They said, “We’ll not only help, we’ll work 24 hours a day.” China, to me, was the most dangerous part of the whole thing.

Insight: Why did the Thompson committee drop the ball on Chinagate?

DS: Timperlake and Triplett both had the same question. Nobody seemed to know. We were reaching out for more information, and we were told, “Stop, it’s over.” Little did I realize the frustration we would be facing within a month.

Insight: What kind of job did the House commission led by Rep. Christopher Cox of California do in investigating the Chinagate issues?

DS: Oh, Cox and his colleagues did a good job, but it’s all still classified and nobody can get at it. Cox made clear that he was aware U.S. security had been seriously compromised but he couldn’t go into the specifics because of the security issue.

Insight: How did the House Democratic leadership treat you?

DS: The Democrats always were friendly; they always were affable.

Insight: And the Republicans?

DS: Majority Leader Dick Armey was on our side 100 percent. But others in the Republican leadership, House Speaker Newt Gingrich in particular, were a problem for us. We would have meetings with Gingrich and reach an agreement, “We’re going to do it this way,” but by the time we’d get back to our offices he would be with Minority Leader Richard Gephardt doing exactly the opposite.

Insight: Gingrich and Gephardt acting together?

DS: Our original plan was not to make anything public, to keep it under the tightest security, until we made our reports. But it was Gephardt and Gingrich who decided they were going to let out all the crap. Unfortunately most of it was that sex stuff the media immediately fastened on to send up the battle cry that “It’s only about sex.”

Insight: What kind of damage did their leaks do?

DS: Had it not gone to the media, and had I been able to list 15 felonies, you’d have seen almost no sex in it. It was the felonies on which we focused.

Insight: What about the impeachment committee? Did they release information improperly?

DS: Not Henry Hyde, not the members of the committee. And they fought like tigers. Hyde constantly was pressing the leadership, trying to get them to do things the right way. We originally arranged it so only the members of the committee could get into the room and view the evidence; Gingrich could not get in there until much later. We had an ultrasecure room with ultrasecure evidence, no leaks coming out. Then, in that two weeks [after the House leadership authorized the release of the sex-scandal material], everybody was having a feeding frenzy on all that garbage.

Insight: Gingrich and Gephardt discredited the impeachment investigation?

DS: Oh, yes. They were the ones who against our wishes put out [President Clinton’s] grand-jury testimony. Never mind that the deposition [to Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch] was more useful. First, it was shorter; second, it contained many more lies, more provable lies.

Insight: But the sex issue obscured the damage to U.S. national security.

DS: The whole national-security dimension was lost. The entire matter of the fact that he [Clinton] was committing perjury, obstructions and all that — that was lost. The Filegate thing was lost, everything we intended to get into.
We were going into the committee vote on the impeachment articles. I had thought the strongest article was abuse of the Office of the President. Another of the abuses was that Citizenship USA matter, where the administration had politicized everything and used everything at its disposal. An amendment passed that completely emasculated that article, which meant that we would lose it, and we did lose it.

Insight: Did you have any idea the Senate would respond the way it did to the impeachment articles?

DS: No way. When we finished in the House — the managers, the staff and myself — we honestly believed that once the actual evidence was presented in a trial atmosphere where the American people could see and hear what happened without the use of the word “sex” they would see the witnesses, the victims, the documents, the films.
We had four to five weeks’ worth of evidence. We thought that once this was presented and the American people saw the truth the Democrats would be required to vote their conscience. We thought we would convict and remove him.
That’s why we were so shocked when [Senate Majority Leader] Trent Lott told Henry Hyde, “You’re not going to dump that garbage on us.” Suddenly we realized that our own people were going to sell us down the river in the Senate. We were terribly upset.

Insight: Why did you get that response?

DS: I was shocked because I thought things were on the square. I thought that when a senator took the oath to give equal and impartial justice that he would do that. But it was completely partisan. The Democrats were adamant that the evidence not be produced, and the Republicans did not have the courage to fight them.
The ultimate failure of Republican courage in the Senate was absolutely sickening. They just let the Democrats run roughshod.

Insight: Why didn’t a single Democrat break?

DS: They had a stand-up crew. The discipline in the Democratic Party was absolutely remarkable. I don’t know if it was because of Filegate or what. On the committee in the House, once members saw all the evidence, we expected to pick up four or five of the committee Democrats and vote to impeach. But even in the Senate the only one who broke was Senator [Russell] Feingold [of Wisconsin] who voted against the motion to dismiss. He broke with the party and voted his conscience on that.

Insight: Why did the senators ignore the facts?

DS: I think they wanted to be in the position to say, like Senator [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa] said, “Oh, gee, if I’d known that, I would have changed my vote.” They didn’t want to know anything.

Insight: What do you mean when you say that it may have been Filegate that kept the senators from convicting Clinton?

DS: I don’t think that anybody in the White House or the president’s entourage picked up the phone and called senators and said, “Look, we’ve got something on you and if you do this we’re going to out you,” but after the [Bob] Livingston matter broke and he resigned [even though he was scheduled to be speaker of the House], everybody got the message. And a lot of people may have had something in their background that they didn’t want made public. Who knows?
But everybody knew that if the president had it he would use it. There was always that sword of Damocles over their heads. Maybe that affected the way the senators voted.

Insight: Have we heard the end of Filegate?

DS: Filegate never was resolved. Never. And it probably never will be unless Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch breaks it. He had a lot of information that he was willing to furnish to us in connection with the impeachment had we been able to get into Filegate, and he was extremely unhappy when we were not allowed to get to it. I think Larry eventually may be the one to get to the bottom of it.

Insight: How else has the administration’s impunity undermined our national-security system? What about the 1997 case of Lt. Cmdr. Jack Daly, the Navy intelligence officer whose eyes were burned when a Russian spy ship fired a laser at him, and the Clinton administration covered it up?

DS: They’ll say his injuries are not
service-connected.

Insight: That’s exactly what the Navy has been saying.

DS: The dirty bastards, and they know better! They don’t dare admit it, because then they’ll be admitting that the Russians committed a crime against humanity and an act of war.

Insight: Is there anything not in your book that you think should have been?

DS: Oh, yeah, some of the things I learned in the [Charles] Labella report [on campaign finance from the FBI], some of the things in the room that now are in the archives. I can’t go into specifics, but there’s a lot of material there that corroborated the theory that there was a massive obstruction of justice. There are an awful lot of leads that, had I had more concrete evidence of the kind we intended to get, would have led a hell of a lot more into Chinagate.
Also, I would have gone more into Filegate. And I would have gone into the matter of [late commerce secretary] Ron Brown and [Clinton/Gore fund-raiser and suspected Chinese spy] John Huang and those trips that were being sold on Commerce planes. There’s a lot more I would have gone into had we had more direct proof, but we were given no chance to get it.

Insight: What were the biggest obstacles?

DS: Time. And the leadership in the House. Right after the [1998] election, Henry Hyde was told, “You will finish this by the first of December and, if this goes on into the next Congress, you won’t get authorization; you won’t get more money for the investigation. We don’t want you to do any further investigation. You go with what you’ve got.” Which essentially was the Paula Jones case.
It was the leadership, though I don’t know who specifically talked to Hyde. He never told us. It had to be Gingrich, and after Gingrich resigned the shot was going to be called by whoever would succeed him. Then they got Livingston.

Insight: So the Republicans helped cover up for Clinton?

DS: Originally we were told that it wouldn’t come out of committee and that if it did come out of the committee they’d make sure that 40 Republicans came out against impeachment in the House. We asked that all the Republicans come over and look at what we had, hear the witnesses, see the evidence. We had 65 Republicans over, including a number who said they weren’t going to impeach. And, of those 65, all but one voted to impeach.”

Read more:

http://citizenwells.net/2018/11/20/schippers-exposes-impeachment-debacle-david-schippers-interview-by-insight-magazine-december-8-2000-democrat-schippers-book-sellout/

David Schippers interviewed by Sandy Rios of American Family Association.

“The American Family Association believes that God has communicated absolute truth to mankind, and that all people are subject to the authority of God’s Word at all times. Therefore AFA believes that a culture based on biblical truth best serves the well-being of our nation and our families, in accordance with the vision of our founding documents; and that personal transformation through the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest agent of biblical change in any culture.”

https://afr.net/podcasts/sandy-rios-in-the-morning/2016/october/interview-with-david-schippers-chief-chief-investigative-counsel-for-the-us-house-judiciary-committee/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

David Schippers obituary, Part 2: ” fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies”, Fake News media rectifies

David Schippers obituary, Part 2: ” fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies”, Fake News media rectifies

“As a result of our research and review of the Referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.”…David Schippers  House Judiciary Committee October 5, 1998

“The White House wanted any applicant for citizenship to be naturalized in time to register for the November election, so the pressure on the INS was constant.”…David Schippers

“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

 

If you have read Fake News media reports regarding the House impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton or the obituary or legacy of David Schippers, you are likely reading a watered down, diminished or as Orwell put it “rectified” version of the facts.

Citizen Wells is the antidote for the Fake News media, aka Big Brother.

David Schippers report to the House Judiciary Committee October 5, 1998.

“As a result of our research and review of the Referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.”

“I.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have been part of a conspiracy with Monica Lewinsky and others to obstruct justice and the due administration of justice by:

(A) Providing false and misleading testimony under oath in a civil deposition and before the grand jury;

(B) Withholding evidence and causing evidence to be withheld and concealed; and

(C) Tampering with prospective witnesses in a civil lawsuit and before a federal grand jury.

The President and Ms. Lewinsky had developed a “cover story” to conceal their activities. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, at pp. 54-55, 234). On December 6, 1997, the President learned that Ms. Lewinsky’s name had appeared on the Jones v. Clinton witness list. (Clinton GJ, p. 84). He informed Ms. Lewinsky of that fact on December 17, 1997, and the two agreed that they would employ the same cover story in the Jonescase. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123;

M.L. 2/1/98 Proffer). The President at that time suggested that an affidavit might be enough to prevent Ms. Lewinsky from testifying. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123). On December 19, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed to give a deposition in the Jones case. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 128).

Thereafter, the record tends to establish that the following events took place:

1) In the second week of December, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky

told Ms. Tripp that she would lie if called to

testify and tried to convince Ms. Tripp to do

the same. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 127).

2) Ms. Lewinsky attempted on several occasions to

get Ms. Tripp to contact the White House before

giving testimony in the Jones case. (Tripp 7/16/98 GJ,

p. 75; M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 71).

3) Ms. Lewinsky participated in preparing a false

and intentionally misleading affidavit to be

filed in the Jones case. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ,

pp. 200-203).

4) Ms. Lewinsky provided a copy of the draft

affidavit to a third party for approval and

discussed changes calculated to mislead.

(M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 200-202).

5) Ms. Lewinsky and the President talked by phone

on January 6, 1998, and agreed that she would

give false and misleading answers to questions

about her job at the Pentagon. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ,

p. 197).

6) On January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed the false

and misleading affidavit. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 203).

Conspirators intended to use the affidavit

to avoid Ms. Lewinsky’s giving a deposition.

(M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123; M.L. 2/1/98 Proffer).

7) After Ms. Lewinsky’s name surfaced, conspirators

began to employ code names in their contacts. (M.L.

8/6/98 GJ, pp. 215-217).

8) On December 28, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky and the

President met at the White House and discussed

the subpoena she had received. Ms. Lewinsky

suggested that she conceal the gifts received

from the President. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 152).

9) Shortly thereafter, the President’s personal

secretary, Betty Currie, picked up a box of

the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky. (Currie 5/6/98 GJ,

pp. 107-108; M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 154-156).

10) Betty Currie hid the box of gifts under her bed

at home. (Currie 5/6/98 GJ, pp. 107-108;

Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 57-58).

11) The President gave false answers to questions

contained in Interrogatories in the Jones case.

(V2-DC-53; V2-DC-104).

12) On December 31, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky, at the

suggestion of a third party, deleted 50 draft

notes to the President. (M.L. 8/1/98 OIC Interview,

p. 13). She had already been subpoenaed in

the Jones case.

13) On January 17, 1998, the President’s attorney

produced Ms. Lewinsky’s false affidavit at the President’s deposition and the President adopted it as true.

14) On January 17, 1998, in his deposition, the

President gave false and misleading testimony

under oath concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky about the gifts she had given him

and several other matters. (Clinton Dep., pp. 49-84;

M.L. 7/27/98 OIC Interview, pp. 12-15).

15) The President, on January 18, 1998, and thereafter, coached his personal secretary, Betty Currie,

to give a false and misleading account of the

Lewinsky relationship if called to testify.

(Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 71-74, 81).

16) The President narrated elaborate detailed

false accounts of his relationship with Monica

Lewinsky to prospective witnesses with

the intention that those false accounts would

be repeated in testimony. (Currie 1/27/98 GJ,

pp. 71-74, 81; Podesta 6/16/98 GJ, pp. 88-92;

Blumenthal 6/4/98 GJ, pp. 49-51; Blumenthal 6/25/98

GJ, p. 8; Bowles 4/2/98 GJ, pp. 83-84;

Ickes 6/10/98 GJ, p. 73; Ickes 8/5/98 GJ, p. 88).

17) On August 17, 1998, the President gave false

and misleading testimony under oath to a

federal grand jury on the following points:

his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, his testimony

in the January 17, 1998 deposition, his

conversations with various individuals and

his knowledge of Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit and its

falsity.”

Read more:

http://citizenwells.net/2016/08/30/david-p-schippers-results-of-analysis-and-review-house-judiciary-committee-october-5-1998-there-exists-substantial-and-credible-evidence-of-fifteen-separate-events-directly-involving-president-wil/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/