Category Archives: impeachment

Impeachment should begin for Ilhan Omar, Conviction of immigration fraud should result in loss of US citizenship and deportation, US tax fraud, MN campaign finance violation

Impeachment should begin for Ilhan Omar, Conviction of immigration fraud should result in loss of US citizenship and deportation, US tax fraud, MN campaign finance violation

“In May Ilhan Omar (D-MN) was posing as a legal scholar and citing statutes that do not exist. She implied that President Trump must turn over his tax returns because the law requires it. Now that there are questions about Rep. Omar’s taxes, she won’t turn them over.”…The Mental Recession

“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”…U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln


Impeachment should begin immediately for Rep. Ilhan Omar and if she is convicted of immigration fraud, she should lose her US citizenship and be deported.

The following ethics complaint was filed against Rep. Ilhan Omar on July 22, 2019 by Judicial Watch.

“This letter serves as an official complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).

Substantial, compelling and, to date, unrefuted evidence has been uncovered that Rep. Ilhan Omar may have committed the following crimes in violation of both federal law and Minnesota state law: perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud, and federal student loan fraud.

Such violations would also breach the Code of Ethics for Government Service, to which all federal officeholders are subject, “Any person in Government service should uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.”
1 Rep. Omar actions in this suspected immigration fraud, marriage fraud, perjurious statements on her Minnesota divorce filings, and falsifications on her
tax returns, merit your immediate investigation.

In the words of investigative reporter David Steinberg: “The facts describe perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history. “2

The evidence developed against Rep. Omar was the result of a three-year long
investigation in both the United States and the United Kingdom by Mr. Steinberg and his investigative reporter colleagues Preya Samsundar and Scott Johnson. It is supported by information gathered from public records, social media postings, genealogy databases, computer forensic analysis, unaltered digital photographs, discussions between the investigative reporters
and the subjects of the investigation themselves, and information supplied by confidential sources within the Somali-American community.

Documented-based reporting by Steinberg, et al. has developed the following
information: Rep. Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, a citizen of the United States, married her biological brother, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, a citizen of the United Kingdom, in 2009, presumably as part of an immigration fraud scheme. The couple legally divorced in 2017. In the course of that divorce, Ms. Omar submitted an “Application for an Order for Service by Alternate Means” to the State
of Minnesota on August 2, 2017 and claimed, among other things, that she had had no contact with Ahmed Nur Said Elmi after June 2011. She also claimed that she did not know where to find him. The evidence developed by Mr. Steinberg and his colleagues demonstrates with a high degree of certainty that Ms. Omar not only had contact with Mr. Elmi, but actually met up with him in London in 2015, which is supported by photographic evidence. Ms. Omar signed the
“Application for an Order for Service by Alternate Means” under penalty of perjury. The very document that Ilham Omar signed on August 2, 2017 bears the following notation directly above her signature: “I declare under penalty of perjury that everything I have stated in this document is true and correct. Minn. Stat. § 358.116.”3

Of particular importance are archived photographs taken during a widely reported trip by Ilhan Omar to London in 2015, posted to her own Instagram account under her nickname “hameey”, in which she poses with her husband/presumed brother, Ahmed Elmi. These photographs from 2015 are documentary evidence that in fact she met up with Mr. Elmi after June 2011 and before the date she signed the divorce document in August 2017, thereby calling
into question the veracity of her claim that she had not seen Mr. Elmi since June 2011.4

Rep. Omar’s potential crimes far exceed perjurious statements made in a Minnesota court filing.

Rep. Omar’s conduct may include immigration fraud. It appears that Rep. Omar married her brother in order to assist his emigration to the United States from the United Kingdom. The same immigration fraud scheme may have aided Mr. Elmi in obtaining federally-backed student loans for his attendance at North Dakota State University. Mr. Elmi and Rep. Omar simultaneously attended North Dakota State University and may have derived illicit benefits
predicated on the immigration fraud scheme.

The State of Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board has already determined that Rep. Omar violated state campaign finance laws for improper use of campaign funds. She was forced to reimburse her campaign thousands of dollars. More significantly, the Board discovered that the federal tax returns submitted by Rep. Omar for 2014 and 2015 were filed as “joint” tax returns with a man who was not her husband, named Ahmed Hirsi, while she
was actually married to Ahmed Elmi.5

Under federal law, specifically, 26 U.S. Code§ 7206.1, “Any person who willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter … shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.”

Rep. Omar’s federal tax returns must be examined to determine whether any additional falsifications were made.”

Read more:

“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4


More here:


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

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

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

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

“Let me tell you something. They were all over that woman,” Schippers told “And it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. … Just to let her know ‘We can do what we want.’ ”…David Schippers


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

told Ms. Tripp that she would lie if called to

testify and tried to convince Ms. Tripp to do

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

2) Ms. Lewinsky attempted on several occasions to

get Ms. Tripp to contact the White House before

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

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

3) Ms. Lewinsky participated in preparing a false

and intentionally misleading affidavit to be

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

pp. 200-203).

4) Ms. Lewinsky provided a copy of the draft

affidavit to a third party for approval and

discussed changes calculated to mislead.

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

5) Ms. Lewinsky and the President talked by phone

on January 6, 1998, and agreed that she would

give false and misleading answers to questions

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

p. 197).

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

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

Conspirators intended to use the affidavit

to avoid Ms. Lewinsky’s giving a deposition.

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

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

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

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

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

President met at the White House and discussed

the subpoena she had received. Ms. Lewinsky

suggested that she conceal the gifts received

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

9) Shortly thereafter, the President’s personal

secretary, Betty Currie, picked up a box of

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

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

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

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

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

11) The President gave false answers to questions

contained in Interrogatories in the Jones case.

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

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

suggestion of a third party, deleted 50 draft

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

p. 13). She had already been subpoenaed in

the Jones case.

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

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

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

President gave false and misleading testimony

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

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

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

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

to give a false and misleading account of the

Lewinsky relationship if called to testify.

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

16) The President narrated elaborate detailed

false accounts of his relationship with Monica

Lewinsky to prospective witnesses with

the intention that those false accounts would

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

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

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

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

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

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

and misleading testimony under oath to a

federal grand jury on the following points:

his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, his testimony

in the January 17, 1998 deposition, his

conversations with various individuals and

his knowledge of Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit and its


Read more:


More here:


David Schippers obituary, What fake news doesn’t want you to know Part 1, Schippers Democrat man of principle exposed Clintons, Thank God for David Schippers

David Schippers obituary, What fake news doesn’t want you to know Part 1, Schippers Democrat man of principle exposed Clintons, Thank God for David Schippers

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

“Let me tell you something. They were all over that woman,” Schippers told “And it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. … Just to let her know ‘We can do what we want.’ ”…David Schippers

“Thank God for the life of David Schippers. He is a shining example for all Americans.”…Citizen Wells


If you are a Democrat, first get right with God and then follow the example of David Schippers, a man of principle.

The fake news media has covered his passing, but they have not reported how he exposed the Clintons. Citizen Wells will.

From Legacy Obituaries.

“David Phillip Schippers, Jr., age 88, a resident of Grayslake, passed away on Friday, September 28, 2018 at his home. He was born on November 4, 1929. David was an attorney for 59 years, a member of St. Gilbert Catholic Church and a lifelong White Sox fan. David is survived by his devoted wife, Jacquline, of 66 years. He is further survived by his 10 children, Kate Schippers (Michael Batka), David Schippers III ( Pat Connor), Tiyi Schippers (David Bunce), Ann Schippers Winter (Bob Winter), Colleen Schippers Margolis (Lou Margolis), Hon. Thomas Schippers (Carol), Kevin Schippers (Beth), Dr. Mimi Schippers ( Robert Scott Bullock, Marc Pagani), Patrick Schippers (Trisha), Peter Schippers (Dr. Laura Taylor); 26 grandchildren; and 29 great grandchildren.”

Read more:

From the Chicago SunTimes.

“David P. Schippers Jr., the Republican Party’s chief counsel in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, died of pancreatic cancer Friday at 88 at his home in Grayslake.

In 1998, U.S. Rep. Henry J. Hyde, R-Illinois, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, appointed Mr. Schippers to be the committee’s chief investigator as it weighed whether to endorse the impeachment of Clinton.

After independent counsel Ken Starr had recommended 11 grounds for impeachment, including obstruction of justice and lying under oath, Mr. Schippers, a Chicago criminal defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor, said there were at least 15.

“If you don’t impeach, then no House of Representatives will ever be able to impeach again,” he said. “The bar will be so high that only a convicted felon or a traitor will need to be concerned.”

In December 1998, the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice, sending the question to the full House. Days later, for just the second time in history, the Republican-controlled House voted to impeach a president–in this case, for misleading officials about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

After a trial, the Republican-controlled Senate voted on Feb. 12, 1999, to acquit Clinton.

“In the U.S. Senate, politics trumped principles, and polls trumped honor,” Mr. Schippers said in a book he wrote with Alan P. Henry, “Sellout: the Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment.”

He felt “he had a solid case, and he didn’t think all of those people in the Senate were honoring their oath of office,” according to his son David. But his son said he also knew this: “You win some, you lose some.””

“He used to tell his kids, “Never bet against God, Notre Dame and the Democratic Party,” according to his son, who said, “After he got old and the Clinton impeachment, he said, ‘At least, I’m two out of three.’ ”

As a federal prosecutor in Chicago in the 1960s, Mr. Schippers headed an organized-crime division under then-U.S. Attorney Edward V. Hanrahan. He helped prosecute Sam Battaglia, a successor to Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana. And his unit’s work led to a yearlong stay at the Cook County Jail for Giancana, sent there for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury.”

Read more:

For the rest of the story, what fake news is not telling you, stay tuned.


More here:





Bill Clinton brutal rape of Juanita Broaddrick, Newsmax 1999 prediction, Public Will Blot Out Broaddrick’s Accusation, Rape victim in debate audience supports Trump, David Schippers: type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob)

Bill Clinton brutal rape of Juanita Broaddrick, Newsmax 1999 prediction, Public Will Blot Out Broaddrick’s Accusation, Rape victim in debate audience supports Trump, David Schippers: type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob)

“Let me tell you something. They were all over that woman,” Schippers told “And it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. … Just to let her know ‘We can do what we want.’ ”…David Schippers

“Hi. I’m Juanita Broaddrick. And I’m here to support Donald Trump. I tweeted recently — and Mr. Trump retweeted it — that actions speak louder than words. Mr. Trump may have said some bad words, but Bill Clinton raped me and Hillary Clinton threatened me. I don’t think there’s any comparison.”…Juanita Broaddrick, rape victim

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



I will not allow the Juanita Broaddrick rape story to stay scrubbed or forgotten on my watch. Citizen Wells.

From NewsMax February 26, 1999 via Citizen News.

“Public Will Blot Out Broaddrick’s Accusation”

“On Wednesday evening, NBC finally aired the Juanita Broaddrick interview. No one who saw the “Dateline” segment could fail to be impressed by the seeming sincerity of this 56-year-old businesswoman, who had to be practically dragged into the spotlight (deposed in the Paula Jones case, interviewed by the independent counsel ).
Broaddrick charges that in 1978 then-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton raped her in a Little Rock hotel room — not the same Little Rock hotel room where Jones claims the president-to-be exposed himself and requested oral sex in 1991, a matter he recently settled for $850,000. According to Broaddrick, she agreed to meet Clinton, who was running for governer, to discuss nursing homes. As an owner, she wanted to give the candidate her input.

Instead, Broaddrick says, the feminist icon threw her on a bed, bit her lip and raped her. As he was leaving the room, Broaddrick relates, Clinton adjusted his sunglasses and told her to put ice on the lip before it swelled. He felt her pain.

There’s no telltale dress. But Broaddrick’s charges are bolstered by four witnesses who heard the story at the time. They include a nurse employed at her facility, who found Broaddrick crying on the bed with a bruised lip after the attack.

The story fits the presidential perp’s m.o. Here’s a man who is reckless to the point of lunacy, impulse-driven and accustomed to treating women as objects to gratify his urges.

Is it hard to believe that a degenerate who would: 1) flash a lady he’d just met who was escorted into his presence by a state trooper, 2) grope a desperate woman who came to him for a job (Kathleen Willey is lucky there wasn’t a mattress handy) and 3) commence an affair with a White House intern minutes after she snapped her thong bikini at him, would have committed a sexual assault at some point in time?

How proud Senate Democrats and Hollywood donors must be for helping this president cling to office in the face of clearly impeachable offenses (perjury and obstruction of justice).

Are they now shocked, truly shocked, to discover that their hero, described by Vice President Al Gore as “one of our greatest presidents,” may be a rapist?

The media, which throughout the impeachment process chanted a mantra — it’s partisan, the public doesn’t want it, Republicans are committing suicide — continues to function as the alter ego of White House Communications Director Joe Lockhart.

NBC, which taped the Broaddrick interview on Jan. 20, would probably still be sitting on it if The Wall Street Journal didn’t break the story last Friday. As it is, the network decided to run the interview against the Grammys.

In its March 1 issue, Time magazine cast a skeptical eye on the bombshell. In the brief story (appended to 10 pages of Hillary-for-Senate adulation), Time somehow neglected to mention those four corroborating witnesses. The article ended with Broaddrick saying, “I’m just hoping that this absolutely goes away in the next week.” To this, Time editorially commented, “A weary nation would probably agree.” Yes, it’s time to move on. On Wednesday, The New York Times buried Broaddrick on the bottom of page A-16. Like Time, it tried to impugn the Journal’s credibility.

The Times: “The (Wall Street) Journal’s editorial page, one of the nation’s most conservative and a strident critic of Mr. Clinton.” Time: “Precise details of the allegation were published in The Wall Street Journal’s vociferously conservative pages.” The limited right-wing conspiracy, I presume?

When it comes to values, the American people are in a stupor. They’ve been told for so long that there’s no relationship between private conduct and public performance that they’re probably prepared to tolerate a rapist who presides over a record stock market.

In fact, Clinton’s behavior (in office and in hotel rooms) is disgracefully consistent. He lies, cheats, betrays and exploits without qualms. Whether it’s Kosovo and taxes, or testimony under oath, he can be trusted only to be untrustworthy.

Still, the majority didn’t care about revelations of adultery and draft-dodging in 1992. When the president turned the White House into a cat house, they only shook their heads and blamed Kenneth Starr. Even though opinion polls showed most thought the president lied under oath, they were insistent that he not be removed. Therefore, the tendency will be not to disbelieve Broaddrick’s accusation, but to simply blot it out of our consciousness.

You think Bill Clinton is doing a dynamite job. Just don’t let him come to your room for a chat.”

Public will blot out Broaddrick’s accusation, Media throughout impeachment process chanted a mantra — it’s partisan the public doesn’t want it, The majority didn’t care about revelations of adultery and draft-dodging in 1992, Newsmax February 26, 1999


More here:


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

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

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

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

“Hillary lied Americans died”…Citizen Wells


From the:

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

September 28, 1998


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

” I. Introduction.

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

Nolanda Hill: I was.

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

Nolanda Hill: I was told that by Secretary Brown.

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

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

Question: Involved?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

� Perjury;� Submission of false sworn declarations;

� Destruction and shredding of evidence;

� Improperly withholding documents contrary to Court orders;

� Threats and intimidation of witnesses and investigators; and

� Misconduct by Clinton Administration lawyers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: Yes, sir.(152)

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: I understood from Ron that that was correct.

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

A: That’s correct.(156)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: Yes.

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

A: Yes, in part.(185)

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

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

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

A: Yes.

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

A: Yes.

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

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

Q: Imitation?

A: (Nods head affirmatively.)(187)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • “False Sworn Declarations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Why was that important?

A: I don’t think I understand.

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

A: That’s right.

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

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

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

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

Q: Because of the legal ramifications; correct?

A: He was under investigation by independent counsel.

Q: So the answer is yes?

A: Yes.(195)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • “Destruction of Evidence.

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

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

Q: And what types of documents were they?

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

A: Yes, sir.(207)

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

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

“D. Perjury.

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

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

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

A: Yes.

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

A: Yes.

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

A: Yes, sir.

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

A: Yes, sir.(240)

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

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

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

“E. Intimidation and Tampering With Witnesses and Investigators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: (No response.)

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

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

Q: So the answer is yes?

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

Q: With the White House?

A: — with the White House.

Q: With the White House?

A: Yes.(274)

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

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

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

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

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

A: Yes, sir.(330)

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

“V. Conclusion.”

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

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


More here:



Rapegate about Bill Clinton serial rapes and coverup with Hillary’s assistance, Clintons war on women, rape, intimidation, cover-up, drugs, greed, power

Rapegate about Bill Clinton serial rapes and coverup with Hillary’s assistance, Clintons war on women, rape, intimidation, cover-up, drugs, greed, power

“As I stated earlier, this is not about sex or private conduct, it is about multiple obstructions of justice, perjury, false and misleading statements, witness tamperings and abuses of power, all committed or orchestrated by the President of the United States.”…David Schippers report to House Judiciary Committee

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

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


Do a search on rapegate.

I did and found very little on the first 2 pages.

NewsMax, in the late nineties, thought it was an important story and had quite a few articles with rapegate in the title. Here are some of them:

February 3, 1999.

“Media Wags Circle the Wagons on Rapegate”

February 4, 1999.

“Rapegate Victim Slammed”

February 10, 1999

“‘NBC Anchor on Rapegate: ‘I’ve Recused Myself’”

February 19, 1999.

“Key Rapegate Facts First Reported by”

August 3, 2000.

“Shays Reveals Details of Clinton’s ‘Horrific’ Broaddrick Rape”

January 13, 2001.

“L.A. Times Issues Rapegate Apology After NewsMax Report”

Those articles were scrubbed.

They can be found at Citizen News.

There are many more articles about Bill Clinton’s rapes on NewsMax as well and quite a few can be found at Citizen News.

The House Judiciary Committee Evidentiary Record from December 1998 mentions the following:


But no mention of Rapegate.

So what is Rapegate and why has it fundamentally disappeared from the internet and the public’s consciousness?


From Breitbart September 2, 2015.

“New York Times bestselling author Roger Stone has a new book, The Clintons’ War on Women, and he spoke exclusively to Breitbart News about the revelations he is making about Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Stone compared his book to Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash, which “was about the financial crimes of the Clintons, [and] this book is about the non-financial crimes of the Clintons.” Stone is one of the best-known — and best-dressed — political insiders in New York.

“It’s a horrifying true story of rape, intimidation, cover-up, drugs, greed and power.”

Stone coauthored the book with Robert Morrow, a political researcher and historian. Based on their research, the two show how Bill and Hillary left a trail of assault accusations, intimidation, and cover-ups against women and children.

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

Hillary Clinton’s core agenda is a quest for power, even while she presents herself as champion of women’s issues, Stone says.

“If Hillary intends to build her campaign around an appeal to women, her campaign is built on quicksand,” said Stone. But “Hillary is a life-time abuser of women and her advocacy on women issues rings hollow,” he said.

The book includes details about Clinton’s alleged crimes in Arkansas, in the White House, during her term as Secretary of State, and at the Clinton Foundation, and concludes with revelations about Hillary’s current presidential campaign.

“She’s a life-long abuser of women. She denigrates, degrades and threatens those women who are unlucky enough to be the sexual assault victims of her husband, and that number, you know, is in the hundreds,” Stone said exclusively to Breitbart News.

He explained the book focuses on 14 individual cases in which Hillary hired private detectives who “threatened and silenced” Bill’s victims.

Stone also said she is not the champion for children she portrays herself to be either. “We present the evidence that it was Hillary Clinton …who gave the order at Waco that killed 26 innocent children,” Stone told Breitbart News, which he argues in his book. “Janet Reno was only Attorney General for two weeks at the time that the U.S. government assaulted the … compound in Waco,” he said.

“We produce congressional evidence from both the Senate and the House that it was Hillary who gave the order to proceed,” he declared. “Twenty-six innocent children died in that assault, which was completely unnecessary.”

“Hillary’s hypocrisy is stunning ” Stone stated. “The key to defeating Hillary is to prove who she really is to women voters.”

According to the breathless press release, Stone and Morrow make the following arguments throughout the book:

  • Bill’s  series of sexual assaults on Eileen Wellstone, Juanita Broaddrick , Carolyn Moffet, Liz Ward Gracen, Becky Brown , Helen Dowdy, Paula Jones, Kathy Fergusen, Christy Zercher and Kathleen Willey among dozens of others.
  • The details of Bill’s rape of 19-year-old Emily Wellstone, for which he was thrown out of Oxford.”

Read more:

Lest you believe the book is conjecture:

The catalyst, not the reason, for Bill Clinton being impeached was his sexual escapades in the White House with Monica Lewinsky. The Clinton’s lying, perjury, obstruction of justice and other actions led to impeachment and subsequently knowledge that Bill Clinton was a serial rapist.

“David P. Schippers is key to the downfall of Hillary Clinton”…Citizen Wells

Who is David Schippers?

“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.”

From the David Schippers Report to the House Judiciary Committee.

“On October 5, 1998, I came before this Committee to advise you of the results of our analysis and review of the Referral from the Office of the Independent Counsel. We concluded that there existed substantial and credible evidence of several separate events directly involving the President that COULD constitute grounds for impeachment. At that time I specifically limited my review and report to evidence of possible felonies. In addition, I asserted that the Report and analysis was merely a litany of crimes that MIGHT HAVE been committed.

On October 7, the House of Representatives passed Resolution 581 calling for an inquiry to determine whether the House should exercise its constitutional duty to impeach President William Jefferson Clinton.

Thereafter, this Committee heard testimony from several experts and other witnesses, including the Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr.

Since that time, my staff and I, as requested, have conducted ongoing investigations and inquiries. We have received and reviewed additional information and evidence from the Independent Counsel, and have developed additional information from diverse sources.

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.”

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 power leads abandoned due to strict time limits

From NewsMax August 22, 2000 via Citizen News

“Bill Clinton tacitly admitted that he raped Juanita Broaddrick during a conversation with her husband in the mid-1980s, according to an account given to House impeachment investigators by Broaddrick herself, a new book claims.

David Schippers, the former Chicago mob-busting attorney selected by House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde to head the Clinton impeachment inquiry two years ago, offers the Clinton rape shocker in “Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment.”

Schippers was initially recruited by Hyde before the Lewinsky case broke, to conduct the first serious oversight investigation of the Justice Department in twenty years.

In that capacity, he uncovered other aspects of Clinton administration corruption that went far beyond the lies and obstruction in the Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones cases. But when Starr sent over an impeachment report that focused exclusively on Sexgate, the constraints of time and the timidity of the GOP leadership left Schippers little choice but to make that the focus of the House impeachment probe.

The longtime Democrat who twice voted for Clinton hired two trusted investigators he knew from his days working with Chicago law enforcement. Seeking to build a case against Clinton that went beyond his lies and obstruction in the Lewinsky case, Schippers sent Diana Woznicki and John Kocoras to Arkansas in search of other Jane Does who had been pressured to deny a sexual relationship with Clinton.

“Within a day or two,” Schippers writes, “Diana reported to me about a woman in Arkansas, Juanita Broaddrick, who alleged that Clinton had raped her years earlier.”

Schippers’ first instinct was to ignore the unconfirmed rumors. It was to him “a shocking story, but nothing in itself that would affect our case in the Senate.”

Then Woznicki dropped a bombshell on her boss.

“Oh, one more thing that I picked up. She was subpoenaed by Jones lawyers. She filed an affidavit denying everything.”

Schippers’ reaction? “Bingo! That changed the whole picture.” If Broaddrick had been pressured to lie, it would be part of a pattern of obstruction of justice that the Senate couldn’t possibly ignore.

Once Schippers discovered that Starr had investigated Broaddrick’s charges, he requested any and all information the Office of Independent Counsel had on the case. House probers learned that Broaddrick’s charges were corroborated by several witness interviewed by the OIC.

At that point, Kocoras and Woznicki were dispatched again to Arkansas. During a meeting with Broaddrick and her lawyer, the Clinton rape accuser was reluctant to acknowledge the assault. But in a telephone conversation later that day, Broaddrick unburdened herself of the secret she had carried for 20 years.

For an hour and a half, the Arkansas businesswoman described the the terrifying experience to Woznicki, who had worked with rape victims during her days on the Chicago police force. When the two investigators returned to Washington, Woznicki told Schippers, “Juanita fits the pattern of the classic rape victim.””

Schippers Book Bombshell: Clinton acknowledged Broaddrick rape, Schippers pre-impeachment probe of Justice Dept uncovered Clinton INS plan to naturalize tens of thousands of immigrants, 75k made citizens under Clinton plan had arrest records, Newsmax August 22, 2000

From NewsMax February 19, 1999 via Citizen News.

“Did NBC News Save Clinton?”

“What might have happened had NBC News broadcast its Jan. 20 interview with alleged Clinton rape victim Juanita Broaddrick during President Clinton’s impeachment trial?”

“It was the perception of Clinton’s invincible popularity that saved him at the end of the day, with normally reasonable senators like Robert Byrd, West Virginia Democrat, admitting that he was impeachably guilty of high crimes but not removable because of his public support.

Enter Juanita Broaddrick, who told her story to NBC’s Lisa Myers at the height of Clinton’s impeachment trial — only to see the network put her interview on ice for the duration.

NBC executives surely worried about the impact of Broaddrick’s rape allegation against Clinton as they ran out the clock. The Rapegate shocker threatened Clinton’s popularity as no other revelation had since the opening days of the Lewinsky scandal.

Here, the White House was faced with an allegation of violent sexual assault that eyewitnesses say left its victim hysterical, bruised, and bleeding. “It’s just about sex,” had worked for 12 months. How would “It’s just about rape” play in Peoria?

Certainly NBC remembered that when Clinton’s early Monicagate poll numbers went over the cliff, it really was just about sex. There was no semen-stained dress to prove Clinton’s perjury in the Paula Jones case. White House secretary Betty Currie had yet to tell Ken Starr’s grand jury about Clinton coaching her with lies “to refresh his memory.” And Monica herself wouldn’t turn state’s evidence for another six months.

It was just about sex between a 21-year-old girl and a 50-year-old president — in the same room where Lincoln had planned his Civil War strategy with Grant; where Roosevelt and Churchill decided the fate of the world 80 years later. And for a short few weeks, the public was repulsed and disgusted.

Nearly a year to the day after Clinton’s political lifesaving State of the Union address, NBC tentatively scheduled Juanita Broaddrick’s interview for broadcast. But three days earlier, Broaddrick had been warned there was trouble back at the ranch.

“The good news is, you’re credible,” Lisa Myers told her. “The bad news is, you’re very, very credible.” Network brass was panicking after interviewing five corroborating witnesses and putting Broaddrick through a background check from which she emerged, she was told, “squeaky clean.”

And there were other concerns. Though they’ve generally kept this news from the rest of the country, journalists know that the House vote to impeach Clinton was swayed by secret material stored in a locked and guarded evidence room in D.C.’s Gerald Ford Building.

This was the information House Majority Whip Tom DeLay referenced when he suggested that senators “pay a visit to the evidence room and you might just see 67 votes [to convict] appear out of thin air.” Congressman who have reviewed the information describe it as “horrific” and “nauseating.” One was reduced to tears.

But the Senate, hell-bent for acquittal, declined DeLay’s invitation.”

Did NBC News Save Clinton?, Delay of broadcast of interview with alleged Clinton rape victim Juanita Broaddrick, Rapegate shocker threatened Clinton’s popularity, Lisa Myers To Broaddrick: The bad news is you’re very very credible, Newsmax February 19, 1999


There is much much more and more to come here:

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

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

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

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

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



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

A big Clinton rat.

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

One day apart.

The “Rosetta Stone” of investigative journalism.

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

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

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

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

The Washington Times reports December 13, 2004.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously Hillary Clinton was posturing herself for the 2008 election.

Appearing to care about the immigration problem and national security.

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

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

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

From David Schippers October 2000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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

I clicked on the link and it had been scrubbed.

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

Isn’t that interesting.

The House Judiciary website.

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


Mathematically highly improbable.

From Rosemary Jenks’ testimony:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2,573 were still being processed by the FBI.

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

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

Read more:

From David Schippers and his book:

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

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

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



More here: