Category Archives: Congress

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

Posted on August 29, 2016 | 8 comments

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

“the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.”…Bob Herbert, NY Times February 26, 2001

“I think that it was Hillary all the way. I think that she’s the mean-spirited one. She’s the ideologue, she’s the flaming left-wing socialist liberal. She’s a bad person with a criminal mind.”…Jerry Falwell

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

 

 

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

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

From the David Schippers report to the House Judiciary Committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DEPOSITION TAPE #1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

“GRAND JURY TESTIMONY

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

That statement itself is false in many particulars.

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

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

“ABUSE OF POWER

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

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

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

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

“C. Sidney Blumenthal

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

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

Listen to this on January 31:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a few brief quotations:

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

That is because:

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

Finally,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full report:

http://citizenwells.net/2016/08/29/david-schippers-report-house-judiciary-committee-majority-chief-investigative-counsel-for-impeachment-probable-direct-and-deliberate-obstruction-of-justice-witness-tampering-perjury-and-abuse-of-pow/

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

As Mr. Schippers stated:

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

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

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

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

Rapegate and Juanita Broaddrick rape and coverup.

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

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

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

http://citizenwells.net/2016/08/21/the-jane-doe-case-files-part-1-paula-jones-investigators-reveal-their-secrets-other-victims-like-juanita-broaddrick-house-judiciary-committee-congressmen-horrified-and-nauseated-209-witnesses/

Each of us can make a difference.

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

From David Schippers report:

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

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

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

 

 

 

8 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Bill Clinton, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, Clintons, Congress, constitution, Hillary Clinton, US House of Representatives

Tagged ,

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

Posted on August 27, 2016 | 9 comments

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

A big Clinton rat.

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

One day apart.

The “Rosetta Stone” of investigative journalism.

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

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

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

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

The Washington Times reports December 13, 2004.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously Hillary Clinton was posturing herself for the 2008 election.

Appearing to care about the immigration problem and national security.

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

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

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

From David Schippers October 2000.

“In October 1996, in one of the first public accounts of this matter, former Center Senior Fellow Rosemary Jenks testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration about many of the abuses surrounding the Citizenship USA program. Ms. Jenks concluded that due to pressure from the White House, and in particular the Vice President’s office, the Immigration and Naturalization Service disregarded many of the requirements of the naturalization process that ensure that only qualified immigrants with no significant criminal history may become citizens. She subsequently testified before the House immigration subcommittee on the same matter, in April 1997. Her remarks before that committee may be found at www.house.gov/judiciary/666.htm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

http://cis.org/BookReview-InsideStoryClintonImpeachment

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

I clicked on the link and it had been scrubbed.

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

Isn’t that interesting.

The House Judiciary website.

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

Coincidence?

Mathematically highly improbable.

From Rosemary Jenks’ testimony:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2,573 were still being processed by the FBI.

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

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

Read more:

From David Schippers and his book:

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

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

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

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

9 Comments

Posted in Bill Clinton, Books, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Clintons, Congress, Democrats, Election, Election 2016, fraud, Hillary Clinton, illegal aliens, Illegal immigrants, Immigrants, impeachment, US House of Representatives, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , ,

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

Posted on August 26, 2016 | 13 comments

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

From the Washington Post April 1, 1998.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

13 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Bill Clinton, Books, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Clintons, Congress, Crime, Election, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton, impeachment

Tagged , , , ,

Juanita Broaddrick Bill Clinton rape transcript, NBC Dateline interview aired February 24, 1999, Lisa Myers interviewed her on January 20 after Clinton had been acquitted, NBC delayed broadcast, “The good news is you’re credible. The bad news is you’re very credible.”

Posted on August 22, 2016 | 8 comments

Juanita Broaddrick Bill Clinton rape transcript, NBC Dateline interview aired February 24, 1999, Lisa Myers interviewed her on January 20 after Clinton had been acquitted, NBC delayed broadcast, “The good news is you’re credible. The bad news is you’re very credible.”

“Juanita Broaddrick’s story is a credible one, and one of the many “bimbo eruptions” that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton handled during her husband Bill’s presidential campaign As Linda Tripp, confidante of former Clinton intern Monica Lewinsky, told the Daily Mail how Hillary both enabled and covered up Bill’s many dalliances:”…American Thinker August 1, 2015

“David P. Schippers, chief investigator for the House Judiciary Committee Republicans during the impeachment proceedings, said Tuesday that his staffers interviewed Broaddrick more than once and “have assured me that she is the most credible witness that either one of them have ever talked to.””…Washington Post February 25, 1999

“Mrs. Broaddrick understood her position. All she had tried to avoid by refusing all these years to talk to the press, all that she had feared–that she would not be believed, that she would be passed off as just another bimbo with a Clinton story–had now come to pass, in her view. As soon as it was evident there was to be trouble about airing the piece, she recalls, Lisa Myers told her: “The good news is you’re credible. The bad news is you’re very credible.””…Wall Street Journal February 19, 1999

 

The NBC Dateline transcript of the Lisa Myers interview of the Juanita Broaddrick account of her rape by Bill Clinton has apparently been scrubbed by NBC. It therefore is presented in it’s entirety. The interview was recorded on January 20, 1999 and aired on February 24, 1999 after Clinton was acquitted.

“She became known as Jane Doe Number 5. Her story was well known to independent counsel Ken Starr, to House impeachment managers, to Washington insiders and Capitol Hill reporters. A month ago, she gave an interview to NBC News correspondent Lisa Myers. Since then NBC News has been carefully investigating this story — combing through state records, court documents and newspapers, cross-checking dates and events, talking to more than 80 people, and repeatedly requesting information from the White House.

LAST WEEK, as NBC News continued its investigation, Jane Doe Number 5 went public with her extraordinary allegation — that she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton 21 years ago. To some this is an old and unprovable accusation that should never have been circulated to begin with. To others it’s a story that must be told. Is she to be believed? Or is Jane Doe Number 5 the latest weapon in a relentless political war against Bill Clinton?

Juanita Broaddrick: “It’s important to me to tell what happened. I don’t know how people are going to take this. I don’t know what they’re going to think after all these years and months why I’ve come forward.”

Jane Doe Number 5 is 56-year-old Juanita Broaddrick, a successful businesswoman who has been the subject of intense political and media speculation. Rumors about Broaddrick’s story have been floating around Arkansas and Washington for years, known to both Clinton haters and supporters.

Broaddrick was pulled into the Paula Jones case, she met with investigators for the House Judiciary Committee and was interviewed by Ken Starr’s investigators. And though what she told Starr remains sealed it was seen by 40 members of Congress before the impeachment vote in the House. Later House Republican Whip Tom Delay publicly urged senators to find out what Jane Doe Number 5 had to say before deciding the fate of the president.

As the whispers about her grew, Broaddrick found herself hounded by the media — and she says she was the subject of gossip and half truths on the Internet and in the tabloids.

Juanita Broaddrick: “All these stories are floating around. Different stories of what really happened, of what people think happened and I was tired of everybody putting their own spin on it.”

The Broaddrick story became public last week, and since then her story has appeared in print, on radio and TV.

But much of what you may have read or heard is incomplete. While NBC News was investigating this story and seeking comment from the White House, our work became the subject of much speculation.

Tonight, you’ll see what we were able to learn and you’ll hear from Juanita Broaddrick herself — a woman who remained silent for two decades and who admits she has lied under oath about this story in the past but now says she wants to tell the truth.

Juanita Broaddrick’s story begins in 1978 — she was a registered nurse who had started her own nursing home in Van Buren, Arkansas. Bill Clinton was the state attorney general who was running for governor:

Juanita Broaddrick: “I thought he was just something that was gonna be really good for Arkansas. Thought he was a very charismatic man, that had bright ideas for our state… I just really liked him.”

Broaddrick, whose married name at the time was Juanita Hickey, says she was so impressed with Clinton she volunteered to hand out bumper stickers and signs — her first and only political campaign. Broaddrick says she met Clinton for the first time when he made a campaign stop at her nursing home in the spring of 1978.

Juanita Broaddrick: “While he was there visiting, he said ‘If you’re ever in the, ah you know, Little Rock area, please drop by our campaign office,’ and he said ‘be sure to call me when you come in and call down to the campaign office.’”

Broaddrick says not long after that conversation she did go to Little Rock for a nursing home meeting held at the Camelot Hotel — now the Doubletree. She says she checked into the hotel and the next morning called Clinton campaign headquarters. She says she was told Clinton was at his apartment and to call him there.

Juanita Broaddrick: “I did call and ask him if he was gonna be at the headquarters that day and he said no he didn’t plan to be there. He says, Clinton said, ‘Why don’t I just meet you for coffee in the Camelot coffee shop?’”

But Broaddrick says Clinton called later — she thinks it was around 9 in the morning — and asked if they could meet in her hotel room because there were reporters in the coffee shop.

Lisa Myers: “Did you think his interest in you at the time was personal or professional?”

Juanita Broaddrick: “I thought it was professional, completely.”

Myers: “So you thought this was going to be a business meeting?”

Broaddrick: “Yes I did, I really did.”

Myers: “Did you have qualms at all about him coming to the room?”

Broaddrick: “I was a little bit uneasy. But, I felt, ah, a real friendship toward this man and I didn’t really feel any, um any danger in him coming to my room. I sort of ushered us over to the coffee — I had coffee sitting on a little table over there by the window and it was a real pretty window view that looked down at the river. And he came around me and sort of put his arm over my shoulder to point to this little building and he said he was real interested if he became governor to restore that little building and then all of a sudden, he turned me around and started kissing me. And that was a real shock.”

Myers: “What did you do?”

Broaddrick: “I first pushed him away and just told him ‘No, please don’t do that,” and I forget, it’s been 21 years, Lisa, and I forget exactly what he was saying. It seems like he was making statements that would relate to ‘Did you not know why I was coming up here?’ and I told him at the time, I said, ‘I’m married, and I have other things going on in my life, and this is something that I’m not interested in.’”

Myers: “Had you, that morning, or any other time, given him any reason to believe you might be receptive?”

Broaddrick: “No. None. None whatsoever.”

Myers: “Then what happens?”

Broaddrick: “Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip (she cries). Just a minute… He starts to, um, bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. (crying) And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him ‘No,’ that I didn’t want this to happen (crying) but he wouldn’t listen to me.”

Myers: “Did you resist, did you tell him to stop?”

Broaddrick: “Yes, I told him ‘Please don’t.’ He was such a different person at that moment, he was just a vicious awful person.”

Myers: “You said there was a point at which you stopped resisting?”

Broaddrick: “Yeah.”

Myers: “Why?”

Broaddrick: “It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to ‘Please stop.’ And that’s when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip.”

Broaddrick also says the waist of her skirt and her pantyhose were torn.

Juanita Broaddrick: “When everything was over with, he got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says ‘You better get some ice on that.’ And he turned and went out the door.”

Myers: “On your lip?”

Broaddrick: “Yeah.”

Broaddrick estimates Clinton was in her room less than 30 minutes.

Myers: “Is there any way at all that Bill Clinton could have thought that this was consensual?”

Broaddrick: “No. Not with what I told him, and with how I tried to push him away. It was not consensual.”

Myers: “You’re saying that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted you, that he raped you.”

Broaddrick: “Yes.”

Myers: “And there is no doubt in your mind that that’s what happened?”

Broaddrick: “No doubt whatsoever.”

While the president and his lawyer declined to be interviewed on camera, through his lawyer the president did issue a statement saying any allegation he assaulted Broaddrick is “absolutely false” and when asked about it Wednesday the president said he had nothing to add to that statement.

It’s important to note — and Broaddrick concedes — that aside from her, there are no witnesses and as far as we know, no one saw Clinton enter or leave Broaddrick’s room, or even the hotel. She took no photos, kept no evidence and the hotel has no records to confirm that she stayed there. However, Broaddrick does have a friend who backs up her story.

Norma Kelsey did not want to be interviewed on camera. However she told us she did accompany Broaddrick on that business trip to Little Rock — they even shared a hotel room. Norma says when she left that morning Broaddrick told her she was planning to see Clinton. But Norma says when she called around lunchtime, Broaddrick was upset and crying so she returned to the room.

Juanita Broaddrick: “Well, I was very emotional within an hour or so after it happened and then by the time Norma got back my whole top lip was turned out, was very swollen and very ugly looking.”

Norma also says that Broaddrick’s lip and mouth were badly swollen, that her pantyhose had been ripped off and she says Broaddrick told her she had been sexually assaulted by Clinton.

Myers: “Did you feel any internal injuries?”

Broaddrick: “Of course. I felt, I felt, just the whole thing you can imagine of being violated. I felt, of course there was pain.”

Myers: “Did you consider going to a doctor?”

Broaddrick: “No. Not at all. I just wanted to get home. I just, ah, I wanted it to all go away. I wanted to just walk outta there and forget that it had never happened, because I felt very responsible that I had allowed him to come to my room.”

Broaddrick says she decided to leave the hotel immediately without going to the nursing home meeting. She says after Norma helped ice her lip, the two of them left Little Rock and drove more than two hours back to Van Buren.

Juanita Broaddrick: “We were still in shock, Lisa, over what had happened… It was like this is a horrible thing and I’m gonna wake up in a minute and this is not going to be true.”

Norma told us on the drive back, Broaddrick was very, very upset and in shock and says Broaddrick blamed herself for letting Clinton in her room. And Broaddrick says she never considered going to the police — especially since Clinton was the Arkansas attorney general at the time.

Myers: “The question everyone is going to ask is ‘Juanita, why didn’t you report this 21 years ago?’”

Broaddrick: “I didn’t think anyone would believe me in the world.”

If Juanita Broaddrick ever wanted to press charges against Bill Clinton, it’s too late. The statute of limitations in Arkansas is six years.

If something did happen in that hotel room, who else knew about it? NBC News spent four weeks trying to confirm as many details as possible.

Lisa Myers: “Did you tell your husband when you got home?”

Juanita Broaddrick: “No, my husband never knew.”

Juanita Broaddrick says that at the time of the alleged sexual assault her marriage was on the rocks. She says she never told her husband, Gary Hickey, about the alleged incident and told him the swollen lip was the result of an accident. Hickey tells NBC News he doesn’t recall either the injury or her explanation. At the time, she was having an affair with the man who would become her second husband — David Broaddrick — to whom she’s been married 18 years. She says she saw David and told him what happened soon after she returned home.

Myers: “Did she have any visible injuries?”

David Broaddrick: “Yes. She, uh, her top lip was black.”

Myers: “As best you can remember, what did she tell you?”

David Broaddrick: “Uh, like I said, I don’t remember the words but that she had been raped by Bill Clinton.”

Myers: “Other than her lip, did she have any injuries?”

David Broaddrick: “Just mentally she was in bad shape.”

Juanita Broaddrick also says her affair with David made her even more reluctant to report the incident:

Juanita Broaddrick: “I don’t think I would have been real honorable back then in the 70s to have been married and having this affair. I just didn’t think anyone would have believed me.”

So who else did Broaddrick talk to?

Three of her friends tell NBC News she told them about the alleged incident at the time: Susan Lewis…

Susan Lewis: “It was very traumatic for her.”

Louise Ma…

Myers: “Did you urge her to report it?”

Louise Ma: “No.”

Myers: “Why not?”

Louise Ma: “Because women were made victims at the time. And you know what the courts were like in that time period. It was always the woman’s fault.”

And Jean Darden, the sister of Norma Kelsey, the woman who says she saw Juanita at the hotel. Both admit they have a serious reason not to like Bill Clinton — in 1981 as governor, Clinton commuted the life sentence of their father’s killer, making him eligible for parole.

The stories her friends tell from 20 years ago are consistent — and Broaddrick herself says she recalls many details. For instance, the outfit she was wearing, the hotel room furnishings, and the time of year — spring. However, there is one important thing she does not remember — when the alleged incident happened: not the date, not even the month.

Lisa Myers: “Some people would say, how can you not remember the specific date of an event as traumatic as this?”

Juanita Broaddrick: “I really don’t have an answer for that except to say I remember the approximate time of year. I probably should remember the date, although it’s something I wanted to forget.”

So NBC News tried to figure out the date of the alleged assault.

Broaddrick gave us access to all the business and personal records she says she could find. We also checked public records, nursing home records and convention schedules.

And indeed there was a nursing home meeting at the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock on April 25, 1978. Further, state records show Broaddrick got credit for a nursing home seminar that was held that day, April 25.

So was Bill Clinton even in Little Rock on April 25, 1978? Despite our repeated requests, the White House would not answer that question and declined to release any information about his schedule.

So we checked 45 Arkansas newspapers and talked to a dozen former Clinton staffers. We found no evidence that Clinton had any public appearances on the morning in question. Articles in Arkansas newspapers suggest he was in Little Rock that day.

And remember the little building Broaddrick says Clinton pointed to just before the alleged assault in the hotel room? We checked that too, and in fact the Pulaski County jail was visible from rooms facing the river. It has since been demolished.

But what happened after the alleged assault? It turns out, just three weeks later Broaddrick actually attended a Clinton fundraiser with her first husband.

Myers: “Some people would wonder why you would go to a fundraiser for someone who you say sexually assaulted you. Couldn’t you have said you were sick or gotten out of it?”

Broaddrick: “I think I was still in denial that time exactly what had happened to me. I still felt very guilty at that time that it was my fault. By letting him come to the room I had given him the wrong idea and just shut up and accept your punishment and don’t ever do it again.”

Broaddrick also told us Clinton called her a half dozen times at the nursing home. She says he got through once and asked her when she was coming back to Little Rock. Her response, she says, “I’m not.”

Then in 1979, a year after the alleged assault, Broaddrick was named by Clinton to a non-paying position on a state advisory board.

Myers: “Did you have reservations about accepting any appointment by Governor Clinton?”

Broaddrick: “Yes, but I had more or less said to the association that I would do this before I knew it was a governor appointing job. When I agreed to do it I had no idea it was an appointment.”

Over the years, Broaddrick said she had business dealings with the governor’s office but not Clinton personally. In 1984, she received a letter signed by Clinton after her nursing home was named one of the state’s best facilities. At the bottom, there is a handwritten note that says, “I admire you very much.” A routine political thank you? She interprets it as a thank you for her silence.

In 1990, Clinton honored one of the patients at the nursing home, but Broaddrick says she wasn’t there, and didn’t learn of the visit until after the fact.

Broaddrick says she had no face-to-face contact with Clinton until 1991, when she attended a meeting in Little Rock with two friends. They all say it was a nursing home meeting — but none can remember the date, nor do they have any records — so we can’t confirm it.

Broaddrick does remember that she was suddenly called out of the meeting, and, she says, to her surprise, there was Bill Clinton in the hallway. One friend says she saw them talking:

Broaddrick: “And he immediately began this profuse apology, saying, ‘Juanita, I’m so sorry for what I did. I’m not the man that I used to be, can you ever forgive me? What can I do to make this up to you?’ And I’m standing there in absolute shock. And I told him to go to hell, and I walked off.”

But Broaddrick remained silent when she learned soon after that Clinton was making a bid for the Oval Office.

Myers: “Here the man is running for president, doesn’t the country have a right to know this?”

Broaddrick: “Yes, and that’s what I got to thinking about — David and I talked about it. We talked about it, and I cried about it. It brought up a lot of hurt, and a lot of things that I’d buried years ago. And then we just decided it wouldn’t be in our best interest to do it. So we decided not to.”

In fact, Clinton’s political opponents say she rebuffed their efforts to get her to come forward before the 1992 election. After she turned them down, one of the men suggested she had been paid off.

Myers: “Did you receive any payoff to stay silent?”

Broaddrick: “Oh goodness, no. I mean how could anyone be bribed or paid-off for, for something that, to not say anything about something that horrible?”

Myers: “Did Bill Clinton or anyone near him ever threaten you, try to intimidate you, do anything to keep you silent?”

Broaddrick: “No.”

Myers: “This has been strictly your choice.”

Broaddrick: “Yes.”

Broaddrick says she was determined to keep the incident quiet.

But in 1997, her hand was forced when she was subpoenaed by Paula Jones’ lawyers.

She filed an affidavit in that case — under oath as Jane Doe 5 — denying any “unwelcome sexual advances” by Clinton. She said “These allegations are untrue,” and “there is no truth to the rumors.”

Broaddrick: “I didn’t want to be forced to testify about one of the most horrific events in my life. I didn’t want to go through it again.”

She later told the same story, denying the assault, in a sworn deposition in the Jones case.

Myers: “Last March another woman comes forward, Kathleen Willey, accuses the president of unwanted sexual advances — why didn’t you come forward?”

Broaddrick: “Well Lisa, I would get up in the morning and I would think: it’s the thing to do. Then by nighttime I would think that could bring no good whatsoever to my life. And I’m sorry for these women. I’m sorry for what they went through, but I just wasn’t brave enough to do it. There’s nothing else to say.”

But she changed her mind and changed her story, when Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s office approached her last April — investigating wrong-doing in the Jones case.

Broaddrick says she feared lying to a federal grand jury, and once Starr granted her immunity from prosecution for perjury — she agreed to come forward with details of her allegations against Clinton.

But Starr did not pursue the allegations further because he was investigating obstruction of justice charges against the president. Broaddrick never alleged any obstruction — said the president never urged her to lie — so Starr didn’t pursue the allegations any further.

Finally, after months of contact with us, Broaddrick decided to speak to NBC News, on Jan. 20, in the middle of the Senate impeachment trial.

Myers: “Then why now Juanita?”

Broaddrick: (Very emotional) “I just couldn’t hold it in any longer. I didn’t want [my] granddaughters and nieces, when they’re 21 years old to turn to me and say, ‘Why didn’t you tell what this man did to you?’”

We repeatedly asked the White House what it knew about Juanita Broaddrick — about her character or possible motivation. We got no response.

We checked with local and federal law enforcement officials, who told us she’s a solid citizen with no criminal record and that they take her allegations very seriously.

Broaddrick knows that some people have suggested her injuries 21 years ago were inflicted not by Clinton, but by her first husband, Gary Hickey.

Divorce papers obtained by NBC News show that one year after the alleged assault by Clinton, Juanita and Hickey had an altercation. She says Hickey struck her in the mouth. He told NBC News it was an accident. Broaddrick says that is the only time her husband hit her, and there are no records of any earlier incident.

Could Broaddrick have a financial motive — is she hoping to cash in? She says she and her husband are financially comfortable, have turned down any offer to tell her story for money, and have no plans for anything else.

Myers: “No book deal?”

Broaddrick: “No book deal.”

Myers: “No lawsuit?

Broaddrick: “Absolutely not. I don’t want to sue Bill Clinton and I do not want to write a book.”

Finally, did Broaddrick have any other motivation for going public now with her allegations? Were politics behind the decision? Broaddrick’s personal attorney is a Republican state senator in Arkansas, but he says he did not know she decided to go public until she talked to NBC. Broaddrick says she is not registered with any political party — and the Broadrricks say they have donated money to both Republican and Democratic candidates.

Myers: “What is the purpose? Do you want to destroy the president?”

Broaddrick: “No, I don’t want to do anything. I do not have an agenda. I want to put all these rumors to rest. I buried this a long time ago, Lisa, and the only thing I’m trying to do now is clear up all these stories.”

But after all this time, how does Juanita Broaddrick feel about Bill Clinton?

Broaddrick: “I couldn’t say it on the air. My hatred for him is overwhelming.”

Overwhelming enough to invent a story, to distort a memory, all to destroy a presidency? Absolutely not, she says.

Myers: “Twenty years after it happened, having never reported it to authorities, after signing an affidavit denying anything ever happened, now you come forward. You understand how skeptical people may be?”

Broaddrick: “Certainly I can. But I was also afraid what would happen to me if I came forward. I was afraid that I would be destroyed like so many of the other women have been.”

Myers: “Do you understand the enormity of what you’re saying? To him and to you?”

Broaddrick: “Yes I do. It’s been a long hard uphill battle to make these statements. But I feel like I have to. I feel like I have to make these statements now.”

So now there is a face, a voice, a name for Jane Doe Number 5. Her story — just the rumor of it — has influenced politics and journalism, opened up her own life to public scrutiny and cast yet another shadow over the president, who denies the charge.

In the end, the questions remain: Was it sexual assault? Could it have been consensual sex? Did anything happen at all? We may never know and that may be the unsatisfying ending to the story of Jane Doe Number 5.

What won’t end is the debate over whether Juanita Broaddrick’s story is true — whether it has any political relevance, and whether the media, including NBC News, should have reported it.”

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

8 Comments

Posted in Bill Clinton, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Clintons, Congress, Crime, Election, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton, impeachment, Perjury

Tagged , , , , ,

Hillary Clinton emails obstruction of justice in Travelgate inquiry, Independent Counsel Robert Ray final report January 5, 2001, Appendix 3 the White House’s non compliance with subpoena requests for electronically maintained documents

Posted on May 16, 2015 | 57 comments

Hillary Clinton emails obstruction of justice in Travelgate inquiry, Independent Counsel Robert Ray final report January 5, 2001, Appendix 3 the White House’s non compliance with subpoena requests for electronically maintained documents

“By July 1993, the Clintons and their associates had established
a pattern of concealment with respect to the Clintons’ involvement
with Whitewater and the Madison S&L. Because of the complexity
of the allegations of misdeeds involving these institutions, documents
and files are critical to any inquiries into the matter. Yet,
at every important turn, crucial files and documents ‘‘disappeared’’
or were withheld from scrutiny whenever questions were raised.…Senate Whitewater report June 13, 1996

“Mrs. Clinton personally was involved in the discussions regarding the White House’s handling of documents in Vince
Foster’s office following his death. Mrs. Clinton made known her views that investigators should be denied ‘‘unfettered access’’ to Foster’s office prior to the search of the office on July 22, 1993.”…House Investigation of the White House Travel Office Firings,  September 26, 1996

“The fact that the Secretary exclusively used and maintained a private email server, leaving her with sole and unfettered access to the complete universe of her emails, raises a number of transparency and accountability issues. The fact that the Secretary’s attorneys selfselected the emails to be shared with the State Department raises numerous questions about the completeness of the production of Secretary Clinton’s emails to the Committee, as well as more generally in response to other oversight inquiries by the House with which the Committee has been charged. These questions, which have been raised solely due to the actions of the former Secretary, necessitate a third-party review of the server to ensure that all responsive documents have been produced to the Committee.”…Trey Gowdy, Select Committee on Benghazi update May 8, 2015

 

 

Reported at Citizen Wells on April 29, 2015.

“From the NY Times June 23, 2000.

“Statement on Travel Office Inquiry

WASHINGTON, June 22 — Following is the statement today by the independent counsel Robert W. Ray on his investigation of the firings at the White House travel office in 1993:

The office of the independent counsel has concluded an investigation commonly known as the travel office matter. This matter concerned allegations that David Watkins, former assistant to the president for management and administration, and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton made false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, committed perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621, or obstructed justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503, in connection with their statements and testimony concerning the May 19, 1993, firing of seven employees of the White House travel office. Independent counsel has concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Mr. Watkins or Mrs. Clinton made any knowingly false statements, committed perjury or obstructed justice in this matter.”

“In contrast to the cooperation received from the White House in the F.B.I. files investigation, concluded in March of this year, this office experienced substantial resistance in its efforts to obtain relevant evidence in the travel office matter.

For example, the White House asserted unfounded privileges that were later rejected in court.

White House officials also conducted inadequate searches for documents and failed to make timely production of documents, including relevant e-mails, in their possession.”

Hillary Clinton lies obstruction of justice documented in legal documents and NY Times article, Senate whitewater report, Independent counsel Robert W. Ray statement June 22, 2000, NY Times January 8, 1996 Hillary blizzard of lies

From the Final Report of the Independent Counsel Robert Ray January 5, 2001.

Appendix 3 – White House’s non compliance with subpoena requests for electronically maintained documents.

“I. INTRODUCTION

As of the date of the filing of this Final Report, the White House has failed to produce all documents to which this Office is entitled. Grand juries in the Eastern District of Arkansas and the District of Columbia between March 4, 1994 and December 10, 1998 issued 216 subpoenas to the White House and its affiliates, which required the search of records responsive to those
subpoenas, including all electronic records and e-mails. The Independent Counsel first learned from news accounts in February 2000 that the White House may not have conducted complete searches of records within its custody. It was not until several months later that this Office fully realized the scope of the White House’s lack of compliance with lawfully issued subpoenas.

II. THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL LEARNED IN FEBRUARY 2000
THAT ELECTRONIC RECORDS FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE
ADMINISTRATION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SEARCHED
IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAWFULLY ISSUED SUBPOENAS.

The Washington Times published a story on February 15, 2000 that first alerted the public and the Independent Counsel that, due to a glitch in the White House’s computer server, over 100,000 e-mails were never searched in response to subpoenas. The Independent Counsel, as well as several Congressional investigations issued these subpoenas to the White House. The Washington Times article reported that Northrop Grumman Corporation (“NGC”) contractors
working at the White House discovered that one of the four White House Lotus Notes e-mail servers handling the e-mail for about 500 computer users had been mislabeled, preventing these e-mails from being properly managed.1 The contractors first discovered the problem in May 1998 and determined that it affected servers dating back to August 1996.2 The problem was not
fixed until November 1998 according to the article.3

The White House Counsel sent a letter to the Independent Counsel on March 15, 2000 detailing the problems with its computer system and its failure to capture certain incoming e-mails for certain periods of time.4 These records had not been reconstructed, and therefore, White House Counsel Beth Nolan was unable to determine whether any responsive documents to grand jury subpoenas had been affected.5 The White House Counsel recently revealed on October 30, 2000 that “incoming e-mail” could include any e-mail not a part of the Executive
Office of the President’s (“EOP”) Automated Records Management System (“ARMS”), such as the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the various units which report to the White House Military Office, the White House Access and Visitor Entry System (“WAVES”), any user of the All-in-One system, and the Quorum system.6

This Office initiated an investigation as a result of the White House’s failure to notify this Office of the problems with its computer system and its inability to certify that all responsive documents to lawfully issued grand jury subpoenas have been produced. The investigation continues at the time of the filing of this Final Report. However, this Office has determined that the White House’s failure to search all records within its care, custody, and control, in response
to lawfully issued subpoenas, could be broken down into seven categories of records:

1. Failure to search reconstructed e-mail for the time period of January 1993 through June 1994;
2. Failure to search incoming e-mails to 526 users for the time period of August
1996 through November 1998;
3. Failure to search incoming e-mails of approximately 200 users for the time period of November 1998 through May 1999;
4. Failure to search over 600 backup tapes of former employees’ hard drives;
5. Failure to search incoming e-mail from the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, White House Military Office, WAVES system, and any user of
the All-in-One system;
6. Failure to search a correspondence database system known as Quorum; and
7. Failure to search the internal e-mail system in the Executive Residence.”

 

57 Comments

Posted in Accountability, Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Clintons, Congress, Hillary Clinton, US House of Representatives

Tagged , , ,

Amnesty puts nail in coffin of US jobs, 75 percent of Obama jobs went to Hispanics Latinos, Percent of white Americans working plummeted since 2006, S.744 hurts the American worker

Posted on February 13, 2015 | 72 comments

Amnesty puts nail in coffin of US jobs, 75 percent of Obama jobs went to Hispanics Latinos, Percent of white Americans working plummeted since 2006, S.744 hurts the American worker

“75 percent of the Obama jobs added since Jan. 2009 went to Hispanics and Latinos.”…Citizen Wells February 11, 2015

“Over the last six months, of the net job creation, 97 percent of that is part-time work,”…Keith Hall, former BLS chief

“11.4%: What the U.S. unemployment rate would be if labor force participation were back to January 2008 levels.” …James Pethokoukis, American Enterprise Institute, June 2013

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

From Citizen Wells February 11, 2015.

“75 percent of Obama jobs added since Jan. 2009 have gone to Hispanics and Latinos.

Don’t take my word for it.

Look it up on the BLS website.

Of the total of 6,049,000 more Americans employed since January 2006, 4,511,000 was for Hispanics and Latinos.

Why is this not being reported?”

“From the Center for Immigration Studies June 2014.”

“Government data show that since 2000 all of the net gain in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal). This is remarkable given that native-born Americans accounted for two-thirds of the growth in the total working-age population. Though there has been some recovery from the Great Recession, there were still fewer working-age natives holding a job in the first quarter of 2014 than in 2000, while the number of immigrants with a job was 5.7 million above the 2000 level.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/75-percent-of-obama-jobs-added-go-to-hispanic-latinos-many-low-paying-part-time-jobs-bls-reveals-6-049-million-jobs-added-since-jan-2009-no-white-american-jobs-added-since-2006-obama-lies-why-amn/

Remember that 4 percent lower percent of the population employed that I clarified for Goldman Sachs chief economist Jan Hatzius?

You know, that baby boomers have nothing to do with the drop.

10 million fewer white Americans were in the labor force in Jan. 2015 than Jan. 2006.

From Five Thirty Eight.

“But the wounds of the recession are far from fully healed. Total payrolls remain more than 400,000 below their prior peak due to deep cuts in the number of government workers, especially at the state and local level. And the adult population (16 years and older) has grown by 14 million since the recession began, meaning the U.S. job market is nowhere close to fully recovered on a per-capita basis. The long-term unemployment crisis drags on, the legacy of what is by some measures the slowest recovery since World War II.”

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/back-to-where-we-started/

From Fair US.

“S.744 does not prioritize the American worker at a time when 22 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Instead, S.744 hurts the American worker:

29. S.744 doubles legal immigration within a decade after enactment—and triples it if you include the 12 million amnestied illegal aliens. This is the equivalent of adding the population of Canada – nearly 34 million people, virtually all of whom will need jobs—in a decade. Moreover, this estimate relates to legal permanent residents only, not temporary workers. (See FAIR’s estimate by category of admission)

30. S.744 increases the number of guest workers by 50 percent over the decade after enactment. (See FAIR’s estimate by category of admission)

31. S.744 creates a new unskilled guest worker program, through a new W visa, to bring in up to 200,000 additional workers each year. (Sec. 4703, p. 834)

32. S.744 triples the number of so-called skilled (H-1B) guest workers who may enter the U.S. annually. (Sec. 4101, p. 674)

33. S.744 also grants work authorization to the spouses of H-1B and W visa holders.

34. S.744 exempts immigrants (green card holders) with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and math, also referred to as STEM fields, from the cap on employment-based immigration. This will dramatically increase competition for Americans entering or working in those fields. (Sec. 2307, p. 315-16)”

Click to access Top_Reasons_to_Oppose_the_Gang_of_Eight_Amnesty_Bill_rev-6-6-13.pdf

From Breitbart today.

“SENATE GOP LEADERS PREPARE TO CAVE ON AMNESTY”

“The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security except for President Obama’s executive amnesty program. Now, the Senate is stonewalling, with Democrats voting repeatedly not to take up the bill, insisting instead that Republicans pass a bill funding the executive amnesty along with the rest of the DHS.

Which means that we’re nearing Republican surrender.”

http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/02/13/senate-gop-leaders-prepare-to-cave-on-amnesty/

 

 

 

 

72 Comments

Posted in Amnesty, Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, Economy, Employment, illegal aliens, Illegal immigrants, Immigrants, Jobs, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, The Case Against Barack Obama, Unemployment, US economy, US House of Representatives, US Senate

Tagged , , ,

Ted Cruz eligible for presidency?, Ted Cruz natural born citizen?, Cruz a patriot?, Ted Cruz advisory opinion from FEC, Natural born citizen not citizen, Naturalized citizen Abdul Hassan not eligible

Posted on January 27, 2015 | 32 comments

Ted Cruz eligible for presidency?, Ted Cruz natural born citizen?, Cruz a patriot?, Ted Cruz advisory opinion from FEC, Natural born citizen not citizen, Naturalized citizen Abdul Hassan not eligible

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

To be president of the US one must be a natural born citizen, not just a citizen and not a naturalized citizen.

Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

Based on my understanding the answer is no.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada and had only one US citizen parent.

Is Ted Cruz a patriot?

I believe so.

For the good of the country I am requesting that Ted Cruz, at the earliest possible moment, request an advisory opinion from the FEC about his eligibility for Federal Matching funds and therefore the presidency.

The FEC will be compelled to provide an advisory opinion about whether or not he is a natural born citizen.

This will be important for two reasons.

Ted Cruz needs to know early if his efforts are worthwhile and not counterproductive.

We need a ruling on this. Every government entity that should provide guidance on the definition of natural born citizen has passed the buck, including the US Supreme Court. The courts and congress have shirked their constitutional duty.

There are 2 important instances of an advisory opinion from the FEC on matching funds.

1. Attorney Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie on behalf of Barack Obama in 2007.

From Citizen Wells January 23, 2012.

“WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 4

Obama, attorneys and Democrats control FEC

The devil himself could not have come up with a more devious plan.

Robert Bauer, of Perkins Coie, on February 1, 2007 requested an advisory opinion to keep Obama’s option for matching funds open. Bauer knew full well that Obama, not being a natural born citizen, was not eligible for matching funds. The FEC advisory opinion from March 1, 2007 responded in the affirmative.Ellen L. Weintraub, former staff member at Perkins Coie, was a Democrat appointee of the FEC at that time. She remained well beyond her scheduled tenure with the help of Barack Obama.
Obama, Robert Bauer, Democrats interaction with FEC timeline.
February 1,2007

Advisory Opinion Request: General Election Public Funding

From Obama attorney Robert Bauer to FEC

“This request for an Advisory Opinion is filed on behalf of Senator Barack Obama and the committee, the Obama Exploratory Committee, that he established to fund his exploration of a Presidential candidacy. The question on which he seeks the Commission’s guidance is whether, if Senator Obama becomes a candidate, he may provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option, upon nomination, of returning these contributions and accepting the public funds for which he would be eligible as the Democratic Party’s nominee.”

“cc: Chairman Robert Lenhard
Vice Chair David Mason
Commissioner Michael Toner
Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky
Commissioner Steven Walther
Commissioner Ellen Weintraub“

Note, in the above advisory opinion request, Robert Bauer was a Perkins Coie attorney and Ellen Weintraub was a former Perkins Coie staff member.
March 1, 2007

FEC advisory opinion

From Robert D. Lenhard to Robert Bauer

“The Commission concludes that Senator Obama may solicit and receive private contributions for the 2008 presidential general election without losing his
eligibility to receive public funding if he receives his party’s nomination for President, if he (1) deposits and maintains all private contributions
designated for the general election in a separate account, (2) refrains from using these contributions for any purpose, and (3) refunds the private
contributions in full if he ultimately decides to receive public funds.””

June 19, 2008.

“Obama to Break Promise, Opt Out of Public Financing for General Election”

“In a web video to supporters — “the people who built this movement from the bottom up” — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so.”

“In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”
Obama wrote:

“In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party
candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/obama-ga-ballot-challenge-natural-born-citizen-status-judge-michael-malihi-why-did-obama-refuse-matching-funds-in-2008-part-4-obama-attorneys-democrats-control-fec/

2. Abdul Hassan, a naturalized citizen, requested an advisory opinion in 2012.

From Citizen Wells March 11, 2013.

“From the FEC March 11, 2013.

APPEALS COURT ISSUES PER CURIAM ORDER IN HASSAN v. FEC

WASHINGTON – The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today issued its Per Curiam Order inHassan v. FEC (Case 1:11-cv-02189-EGS). The text of the Order may be found here: (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_ac_order2.pdf).

Background.

From Citizen Wells October 1, 2012.

“From the FEC October 1, 2012.

DISTRICT COURT ISSUES OPINION IN HASSAN v. FEC

WASHINGTON – The United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order in Hassan v. FEC (Case 1:11-cv-02189-EGS). The text of the Memorandum Opinion may be found here (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_memo_opinion.pdf) and the text of the Order may be found here (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_order2.pdf).

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that administers and enforces federal campaign finance laws. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Established in 1975, the FEC is composed of six Commissioners who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20121001_Hassan_v._FEC.shtml

Exerpts:
“Hassan’s challenge to the Fund Act rests on his contention
that the natural born citizen requirement has been implicitly
repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court need
not repeat the thorough and persuasive opinions issued by its
colleagues in at least five other jurisdictions, all of whom
determined that the natural born citizen requirement has not
been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

“Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of
Presidential eligibility remains valid.”

“Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.””

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/abdul-karim-hassan-vs-federal-election-commission-march-11-2013-u-s-court-of-appeals-per-curiam-order-hassan-not-natural-born-citizen/

This is important.

I urge you to contact Ted Cruz with this important information.

 

32 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, Election 2016, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, FEC, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution

Tagged , , , , ,

American household net worth plummets 39.4 percent in Obama Democrat economy, Black households hit hardest, All households since recovery reduced ownership of homes stocks and business equity, Pew Research

Posted on December 13, 2014 | 91 comments

American household net worth plummets 39.4 percent in Obama Democrat economy, Black households hit hardest, All households since recovery reduced ownership of homes stocks and business equity, Pew Research

“For now, the absence of young adults from the housing market continues to put a dent in the homeownership rate, which dropped to 64.8% in the first quarter, compared with 65.2% in the fourth quarter of 2013, according to U.S. Census statistics. The rate was as high as 69.2% in the fourth quarter of 2004. For those younger than 35, the rate has fallen noticeably faster. It slipped to 36.2% in the first quarter, from 36.8% in the fourth. The homeownership rate for this group was as high as 43.6% in the second quarter of 2004.”…Market Watch May 12, 2014

“The share of families with an employed member was unchanged at 80.0 percent in 2013. The likelihood of having an employed family member rose in 2013 for Asian families (to 88.8 percent) and for Hispanic families (to 85.1 percent). The likelihood for white and black families showed little or no change (80.1 percent and 75.7 percent, respectively).”…BLS report, April 25, 2014

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

From 2007 to 2008 the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

From 2009 to 2010 they also controlled the White House.

The Democrats in lock step with Obama were instrumental in destroying the economy and household wealth.

From Pew Research December 12, 2014.

“Wealth inequality has widened along racial, ethnic lines since end of Great Recession”

“The Great Recession, fueled by the crises in the housing and financial markets, was universally hard on the net worth of American families. But even as the economic recovery has begun to mend asset prices, not all households have benefited alike, and wealth inequality has widened along racial and ethnic lines.

The wealth of white households was 13 times the median wealth of black households in 2013, compared with eight times the wealth in 2010, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances. Likewise, the wealth of white households is now more than 10 times the wealth of Hispanic households, compared with nine times the wealth in 2010.

Wealth Gaps by RaceThe current gap between blacks and whites has reached its highest point since 1989, when whites had 17 times the wealth of black households. The current white-to-Hispanic wealth ratio has reached a level not seen since 2001. (Asians and other racial groups are not separately identified in the public-use versions of the Fed’s survey.)

Leaving aside race and ethnicity, the net worth of American families overall — the difference between the values of their assets and liabilities — held steady during the economic recovery. The typical household had a net worth of $81,400 in 2013, according to the Fed’s survey — almost the same as what it was in 2010, when the median net worth of U.S. households was $82,300 (values expressed in 2013 dollars).

The stability in household wealth follows a dramatic drop during the Great Recession. From 2007 to 2010, the median net worth of American families decreased by 39.4%, from $135,700 to $82,300. Rapidly plunging house prices and a stock market crash were the immediate contributors to this shellacking.”

“A number of factors seem responsible for the widening of the wealth gaps during the economic recovery. As the Federal Reserve notes, the median income of minority households (blacks, Hispanics and other non-whites combined) fell 9% from its 2010 to 2013 surveys, compared with a decrease of 1% for non-Hispanic white households. Thus, minority households may not have replenished their savings as much as white households or they may have had to draw down their savings even more during the recovery.”

“All American households since the recovery have started to reduce their ownership of key assets, such as homes, stocks and business equity. But the decrease in asset ownership tended to be proportionally greater among minority households. For example, the homeownership rate for non-Hispanic white households fell from 75.3% in 2010 to 73.9% in 2013, a percentage drop of 2%. Meanwhile, the homeownership rate among minority households decreased from 50.6% in 2010 to 47.4% in 2013, a slippage of 6.5%.”

Read more:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/

 

 

91 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, Democrats, Economy, Employment, Jobs, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, The Case Against Barack Obama

Tagged , , ,

David Rouzer wins NC 7th Congressional District, First Republican since 1868, Democrat stronghold

Posted on November 5, 2014 | 162 comments

David Rouzer wins NC 7th Congressional District, First Republican since 1868, Democrat stronghold

“One of the CBO’s most intriguing estimates is that by 2017 there will be 2 million fewer full-time jobs on the market than there would have been without Obamacare, and that figure could climb to 2.5 million by 2024.”…Market Watch February 4, 2014

“Nearly half of U.S. companies are reluctant to hire full-time employees because of the ACA. One in five firms indicates they are likely to hire fewer employees, and another one in 10 may lay off current employees in response to the law.

Other firms will shift toward part-time workers. More than 40 percent of CFOs say their companies will consider switching some jobs to less than 30 hours per week or targeting part-time workers for future employment.”…Duke University Fuqua School of Business December 11, 2013

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

NC rejected Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

By now you know that Thom Tillis defeated Kay Hagan. Another rejection of Obama and his policies.

You may have heard that David Rouzer won the NC 7th Congressional District seat.

What you probably did not hear was that Rouzer is the first Republican to win that seat since 1868.

From the Wilmington Star News November 4, 2014.

“Republicans victorious in U.S. House districts 3 and 7

David Rouzer has been elected the first Republican in generations to represent Southeastern North Carolina in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rouzer, a repeat Republican candidate for North Carolina’s 7th Congressional District, was declared winner by the Associated Press at 9 p.m. Meanwhile, Republican U.S. Rep. Walter Jones easily held onto his 3rd Congressional District seat.

Rouzer said Tuesday night he was humbled by the support he received from 7th District voters.

“This election is not about me, it’s about doing what’s right for America,” Rouzer said in an interview.

As a congressman, Rouzer said he will support a strong national defense, energy development and getting burdensome federal regulations out of the way.

“The challenges we face in this country are significant, and there is only one clear path forward to restore America to greatness,” Rouzer said in a statement. “We must get back to God and common sense.”

When Mike McIntyre announced earlier this year he was retiring from Congress, it guaranteed a new face for the seat he has held for 18 years.

Three men in their 40s, Rouzer, Democrat Jonathan Barfield Jr. and Libertarian J. Wesley Casteen, faced off in the race.

Rouzer, who lost to McIntyre in 2012 by a razor-thin margin, seemed to have two advantages: He raised more money by wide margins and his 2012 campaign experience gave him more time to build name recognition and support in the sprawling district.”

Read more:

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20141104/ARTICLES/141109929?p=1&tc=pg

 

162 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, Election, NC, NC voters, North Carolina, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records

Tagged , ,

CBO raises 2014 budget deficit by 14 billion, Lowers GDP from 3.1 to 1.5 percent, Red ink to rise in coming years if Washington doesn’t change current laws, Lower tax revenue

Posted on August 27, 2014 | 63 comments

CBO raises 2014 budget deficit by 14 billion, Lowers GDP from 3.1 to 1.5 percent, Red ink to rise in coming years if Washington doesn’t change current laws, Lower tax revenue

“The number of people receiving health coverage through public exchanges under President Obama’s health-care overhaul will total roughly 25 million by 2018, will add more than $1 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade and could very well create a small contingent of workers unwilling to work for fear of losing federal medical aid.”
“One of the CBO’s most intriguing estimates is that by 2017 there will be 2 million fewer full-time jobs on the market than there would have been without Obamacare, and that figure could climb to 2.5 million by 2024.”…Market Watch February 4, 2014

“What do you think a stimulus is? It’s spending – that’s the whole point! Seriously.”…Barack Obama

 

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

From Market Watch August 27, 2014.

“CBO forecasts $506 billion budget deficit for 2014”
“The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday raised its estimate of the federal government’s budget deficit for the current fiscal year as it slashed its growth forecast, and warned red ink was due to rise in coming years if Washington doesn’t change current laws.

In an update of budget and economic projections for 2014 to 2024, the nonpartisan CBO said the U.S. government’s deficit for fiscal 2014 will be $506 billion, or 2.9% of gross domestic product. The new estimate is $14 billion more than the agency’s prior estimate for the year, issued in April.

The new estimate is largely a result of lower-than-expected revenues for the year — particularly receipts of corporate taxes. CBO now estimates that all revenues will be 0.9% below its projection in April. Corporate tax revenues will be $315 billion in 2014, compared to a prior estimate of $351 billion, CBO said.”
“The agency lowered its projection of GDP growth for the year, to 1.5% from 3.1%, “reflecting the surprising economic weakness in the first half of the year.””
“But there are fiscal pressures on the horizon. The CBO said deficits will start to rise again after 2015, and approach $1 trillion in 2024.”

Read more:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbo-forecasts-506-billion-budget-deficit-for-2014-2014-08-27?dist=countdown

 

63 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, Deficit, Economy, Employment, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama taxes, ObamaCare, The Case Against Barack Obama

Tagged , , ,