Category Archives: Justice

Justice

Seth Rich murder anniversary July 10, 2017, Rich assassination by hit men, If not for DNC leaks then why?, Forensic experts claim not a botched robbery, Julian Assange offered reward and implied Rich was source of leaks, Hard facts and compelling circumstantial evidence

Seth Rich murder anniversary July 10, 2017, Rich assassination by hit men, If not for DNC leaks then why?, Forensic experts claim not a botched robbery, Julian Assange offered reward and implied Rich was source of leaks, Hard facts and compelling circumstantial evidence

“There is an epidemic of messenger shooting.”…Citizen Wells

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

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

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

 

July 10, 2017 is the one year anniversary of the murder/assassination of Seth Rich.

Forensic experts studied the case and their conclusion was that it was not a botched robbery.

They stated that it was probably a hit or serial killer.

Fox News reported that a video showed the legs of 2 men following Rich just before he collapsed.

That points to hit men.

The mainstream/fake news media jumped all over this to protect Hillary and the DNC while concurrently promoting the false flag Russia interference meme.

Well mainstream/fake news media, and other components of the Orwellian Thought Police, if Rich wasn’t murdered for leaking the DNC data, what was he murdered for by apparently 2 men who knew what they were doing?

The hard proven facts in this case are compelling.

But so is the mountain of circumstantial evidence.

“Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial  evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that”circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence”(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121,75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.”

Forget the false narrative of a botched robbery and the messenger shooting from the mainstream/fake news media. Examine the facts and draw your own conclusions.

Better yet, urge the Trump Administration and Justice Dept. to get involved.

There is another petition to “Appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the murder of Seth Rich”

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/appoint-special-prosecutor-investigate-murder-seth-rich

Here is a good source of information that you are not getting from the mainstream/fake news media:

https://our.wikileaks.org/Seth_Rich_Murder

The Profiling Project: Seth Rich Homicide – Initial Findings – June 20, 2017

https://www.scribd.com/document/351805646/The-Profiling-Project-Seth-Rich-Report#download&from_embed

This will only go away if we let it.

Wells

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

My disability how it affected me and how I was treated by the disability insurance company and social security disability, Delay and deny incompetence and evil, What I will eventually write will shock and infuriate you

My disability how it affected me and how I was treated by the disability insurance company and social security disability, Delay and deny incompetence and evil, What I will eventually write will shock and infuriate you

“Insurance Companies Practice Deny & Delay Tactics”…The Deutermann Law Group

“Some critics say being barred from court discourages complaints, and some of those barred from court say they don’t trust the arbitration system enough to pursue it. Joseph Belth, a retired professor of insurance at Indiana University and editor of a widely read industry newsletter, calls the ability of fraternals to unilaterally change dispute-resolution rules for policyholders “an outrage.””…WSJ May 30, 2006

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”…Ephesians 6:12

 

 

My disability, how it affected me and how I was treated by the Disability insurance company and Social Security Disability.

Prior to my disability, I had been active all of my life, had only been to the hospital for sports injuries and had worked hard mentally and physically.

My disability event happened on February 27, 2009.

After 2 initial filings for disability claims and a letter from an attorney, my claim was denied.

The claim has been ongoing since then and I have had legal representation for over a year.

I vowed that no matter how this played out, I would expose the mistreatment I received from the disability insurance company.

Since the claim process is ongoing, I will report what I am able to reveal.

Here is the general sequence of events:

I was upstairs and alone.

I felt a numbness beginning in my right foot which began to spread up my right side.

I walked a short distance to the bedroom and laid down.

I was thinking stroke but tried to remain calm.

I called my lady friend who called her physician father on the west coast.

She arrived home and immediately took me to the emergency room a short distance away.

They triaged me for stroke which thank God it wasn’t, ran some more tests and kept me overnight.

The numbness all along my right side began to go away overnight except for my right foot, which remains with me today.

It wasn’t just numbness but there was also pain. The closest analogy I can think of is when your hands get numb and painful from making snowballs too long.

From the time that I left the hospital I was forced to keep my right leg propped up and pretty soon my lower back beagn hurting.

I was in pain during the day and my sleep was difficult at night.

A few days later I had an appointment with the attending physician, who I had never met before the hospital visit. He began talking about taking vitamins and quite frankly did not impress me.

After the second visit and my insistence, he referred me to a podiatrist.

The podiatrist was competent and immediately referred me to a spine specialist.

The spine spcialists examined me and took xrays. They found compression and fusion in my lower back. They also gave me an injection for pain which did little to help.

On the next visit they ran point to point tests from my lower spine to my foot.
.
Their conclusion was atypical neuropathy.

I had contacted my disability insurance company earlier to inform them of what had happened and they sent claim forms.

I filed claims with them twice and on both occasions the spine specialists indicated “no work.”

After the second denial I had an attorney write an excellent letter to no avail (except for documentation).

I also filed an online claim with Social Security Disability. More on this later.

Knowing what I know now, I would have immediately contacted an attorney to handle this case.

There were multiple reasons why I did not.

First of all, this was a fraternal plan I had paid on for 25 years. I was in disbelief, shock as well as pain. I could not trust them.

Also in the contract you agree to go through a process of appeal, mediation and binding arbitration. I should have had an attorney handle that.

After months of diagnosis, filing claims and dealing with the pain I had to protect myself. Thank God I had assets. I got by on savings, disposal of assets and eventually early Social Security retirement at a reduced amount.

I was able to make payments on the house I moved back into after my lady (fair weather) friend broke things off and my car.

I am one of the fortunate ones.

The TV ads daily reveal those who were helped by an attorney or they would have gone under financially.

Once again, I am blessed. But I was devastated financially.

Medicare was a blessing. With the great supplement a friend recommended, I was able to get a knee replacement for my other knee.

Exercise became part of my therapy to reduce the pain. I was then able to resume it.

What the disability company did was wrong, evil.

I am not going to let them get away with this, for myself and others.

More on this when I am able.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Obama Hillary Loretta Lynch conspiracy, Clinton endorsed and not prosecuted, Trump defeat, The Donald wins and Obama and Hillary are prosecuted and Lynch is out, Obama had to win to control US Justice Department

Obama Hillary Loretta Lynch conspiracy, Clinton endorsed and not prosecuted, Trump defeat, The Donald wins and Obama and Hillary are prosecuted and Lynch is out, Obama had to win to control US Justice Department

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

Why was Tony West, who helped Obama keep his records hidden at taxpayer expense, promoted to the third highest Justice Department position?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Justice Department and White House staff yell and curse at CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson over questions about Fast and Furious?”…Citizen Wells

“By using her own computer server instead of the government’s in the four years of her tenure as secretary of state, she knowingly compromised the national security of the United States. She did this by receiving and sending at least 400 emails that contained information that under federal law was confidential, secret or top-secret, which is a felony.”…Judge Andrew Napolitano

 

Citizen Wells told you back in 2008 that Barack Obama had to win to control the US Justice Department and avoid prosecution.

We now have an even more complicated scenario and the stakes are higher.

If Donald Trump wins, Loretta Lynch will be gone and Obama and Hillary will likely be prosecuted.

It came as no surprise that Obama endorsed Hillary. She has to win to protect them both.

From Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch June 9, 2016.

“Klayman rips Obama over endorsement of Hillary Clinton

Says it is Proof Positive that President Has Told Attorney General to Deep Any Indictment of Clinton Over Email Scandal and Shows Just How Corrupt Obama and his Obama Justice Department Are!”

“Hillary Clinton, who has a sordid past of illegalities, crimes and cover-up, and is embroiled in an on-going criminal investigation over her illegal use of a private email server while Secretary of State, has now been endorsed by her fellow criminal, President Barack Obama, who has perpetrated numerous scandals during his presidential administration, ranging from Benghazi-gate, to IRS-gate, to Fast and Furious-gate to Illegal Immigration-gate, and a myriad of others.

This endorsement is proof positive, as boasted to by Hillary Clinton herself just yesterday, that she will never be indicted by President Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch, over the FBI’s on-going investigation of her illegal use of a private email server while Secretary of State under Obama. This private email server was used not just to circumvent national security laws, but so Clinton could sell access to the State Department to enrich herself, her husband Bill Clinton, and the Clinton Foundation. In effect the private server was used to solicit bribes from foreign interests in Iran, Saudi Arabia and other terrorist and terrorist supporting Middle Eastern countries.

Our nation is being destroyed by corrupt politicians in both political parties and our justice system is corrupt to the core. By endorsing Clinton, President Obama has brazenly admitted that the fix is in, and that he and the Clintons continue to be above the law. They have little regard for the Director of the FBI, James Comey and his fine special agents, who in good faith have been conducting a bona fide criminal investigation which has yet to be completed. Not since the days of Richard Nixon has a president so defied the FBI and those honest working level servants in my alma mater, the U.S. Department of Justice, of which Attorney General Loretta Lynch, like her predecessor, is not one.”

Read more:

http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/klayman-rips-obama-over-endorsement-of-hillary-clinton

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan Hillary Clinton didn’t follow government email policies, Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, State department ordered to give FBI emails, More damning evidence?

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan Hillary Clinton didn’t follow government email policies, Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, State department ordered to give FBI emails, More damning evidence?

“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

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

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

 

 

More damning evidence against Hillary Clinton to be found?

From the NY Times August 20, 2015.

“A federal judge on Thursday said that Hillary Rodham Clinton did not comply with government policies in her exclusive use of a personal email account while she was secretary of state, challenging her longstanding position that she abided by the rules.

At a hearing for a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, the judge, Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, said that “we wouldn’t be here today if the employee had followed government policy.”

Judge Sullivan also opened the door for the F.B.I., which is investigating whether there was classified information on Mrs. Clinton’s account, to expand its inquiry to pursue emails that she may have deleted. The judge ordered the State Department to ask the F.B.I. to give it any emails recovered from Mrs. Clinton’s private server that were not already in the State Department’s possession or that may be related to the lawsuit.

The Justice Department, which oversees the F.B.I., has argued that Freedom of Information Act searches do not typically involve a government employee’s personal email account.

Mrs. Clinton has said she gave the State Department more than 30,000 emails related to her work in office. She deleted about the same number of emails that she said were personal. Her lawyer has said the server was then wiped clean. Mrs. Clinton has also said that she had no classified information on her account.

In a statement, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton defended her use of the account. “Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email account was consistent with the practice of other secretaries of state, and permissible under the department’s policy at the time,” said the spokesman, Brian Fallon.

When Mrs. Clinton became secretary in February 2009, the State Department’s general policy was “that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized” government computer. Nine months later, federal regulations were toughened to say that government agencies that allow employees to use nongovernment email accounts must “ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.””

Read more:

US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution

US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution

“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be pruledassed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”…Marbury V Madison

“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

 

 

Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court and courts in general have failed to do their duty.

Roberts has acted irrationally in his opinions regarding Obamacare.

Our courts have failed to do their duty in regard to clarifying what natural born citizen means and the eligibility of Barack Obama to occupy the White House.

I was however pleased to see Justice Roberts step up to the plate with his dissent on the same sex marriage ruling.

When I heard the SCOTUS opinion I thought to myself how absurd.

A marriage contract is between 2 people and the state they get married in and the federal government has no damn business meddling in this.

“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting. Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the
past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered). Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are? It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned with the wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J., dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent. Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
Petitioners and their amici base their arguments on the “right to marry” and the imperative of “marriage equality.” There is no serious dispute that, under our precedents, the Constitution protects a right to marry and requires States to apply their marriage laws equally. The real question in these cases is what constitutes “marriage,” or—more precisely—who decides what constitutes “marriage”? The majority largely ignores these questions, relegating ages of human experience with marriage to a paragraph or two. Even if history and precedent are not “the end” of these cases, ante, at 4, I would not “sweep away what has so long been settled” without showing greater respect for all that preceded us. Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 8). “

From the Center for Immigration Studies June 23, 2015.

“The Supreme Court recently issued a decision in an immigration-related case Kerry, Secretary of State, et al. v. Din. The decision reaffirms that although people have the right to marry anyone they like, if the spouse is a foreigner, he or she has no intrinsic right to enter the United States when excludable under any of the grounds laid out by law.

To people like myself, it is one of the rare victories these days in an increasingly beleaguered national immigration system under peril from open borders advocates who persistently push the boundaries of sovereignty and common sense.”

“Despite the salutary outcome, there are several disturbing things about this case that merit mentioning:

  • First, of course, is that the 9-CCA ruled as it did. One sometimes wonders whether they ought to be impeached, en banc. Perhaps they could take up residence as appellate court judges somewhere else more appropriate to their extreme views? Like Venezuela.
  • Next, is that four of the nine Supreme Court justices also held that Din’s rights had been infringed because of her husband’s visa denial, and that she was somehow entitled to additional due process review because of it. Imagine the loophole that would have been caused but for one slim vote. Terrorists, narcotraffickers, and sundry other villains would be lining up to join the marriage fraud queue so that their spouses could avail themselves of their “constitutional right” to live in the United States with them.
  • Then there is the curious case of Din herself. She came to the United States as a refugee from Afghanistan in 2000 when the Taliban was in the full glory of its power, sheltering the likes of Osama bin Laden and conducting public maimings, stonings, and executions under Sharia law at the main soccer stadium in Kabul. But where did she find her husband? In Afghanistan, where she traveled in 2006. And whom did he work for? The Taliban, from whom she presumably sought refuge. Did none of this seem curious or anomalous to the folks at USCIS — the ones who had granted her the refugee status in the first place, who were adjudicating her petition for her spouse, and who could have, who should have, taken a second look at whether her refugee application was fraudulent instead of proceeding to naturalize her? Nah, apparently not.

Kind of disturbing to think that USCIS and courts like the Ninth Circuit are the thin line protecting us from terrorists seeking benefits to live in the United States.

http://www.cis.org/cadman/supreme-court-provides-win-sovereignty-security-and-common-sense

Trey Gowdy must read House investigation of White House travel office Sept. 26, 1996, Bill Hillary Clinton obstruction of Justice, Vince Foster death, Benghazi email coverups history repeat, Persistent pattern of misinformation misuse of executive power and executive privilege

Trey Gowdy must read House investigation of White House travel office Sept. 26, 1996, Bill Hillary Clinton obstruction of Justice, Vince Foster death, Benghazi email coverups history repeat, Persistent pattern of misinformation misuse of executive power and executive privilege

“There has been a very active coverup by the FBI and the Justice Department. It’s very unlikely that he committed suicide. I’ve never written that he was murdered, but it’s hard to see it otherwise,”…Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Sunday Telegraph, on Vince Foster death

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

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

 

Trey Gowdy and the Select Committee on Benghazi released an update on May 8, 2015.

“Another substantial obstacle to the development of a full and complete record of the facts relating to Benghazi has been the unique arrangement that former Secretary of State Clinton had with herself. In August 2014, the State Department included in its production of documents eight emails to or from former Secretary Clinton. Some of these emails indicated that the Secretary used a private email account to communicate about official government business. Other emails gave no indication whether the email account used was private or a government account.

Since late fall, the Committee has consistently pressed the State Department for the former Secretary’s emails. On February 13, 2015, the State Department produced nearly 850 pages of roughly 300 emails to and from the former Secretary pertaining to Benghazi. The production was significant in that every one of the emails produced came from Secretary Clinton’s private email account.”

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

That is why in an April 23, 2015 letter to the former Secretary’s attorney, the Committee reiterated its request for her to turn over the server to a neutral, third party, such as an inspector general. The Committee will call Secretary Clinton to testify once it is satisfied that all the relevant information has been provided by both the State Department and her.”

http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Interim%20Progress%20Update%2005-08-15.pdf

 

I have to believe that Trey Gowdy has read the September 26, 1996 House

“INVESTIGATION OF THE WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL OFFICE FIRINGS AND RELATED MATTERS”.

If not he certainly should and so should you.

Here are just a few exerpts.

“It is clear that once the ‘‘official’’ story was made public, any movement toward the truth brought the threat of damaging legal and political ramifications that the Clinton White House could not afford to risk.

The extensive documentary record constructed over the past year has dismantled the White House cover story.

The committee sought records of meetings, phone logs, Secret Service logs and White House residence records that were the only way to fill in the missing memories of countless witnesses. While the recollections of witnesses frequently have been implausibly flawed, the documentary record often tells a very different and far more complete story.

Finally, it is the President himself who ultimately must be held accountable for this persistent pattern of White House misinformation and misuse of executive power and executive privilege. Given the alarming turnover of key White House operatives over the past 31⁄2 years, only the President himself could have sustained such a pattern of misbehavior. Why has President Clinton tried to keep the true story from being told? A recurring question arises whether the President is above the law—whether the First Lady is above the law.

The discrepancies, vagaries and omissions between the ‘‘official’’ White House account of these matters and the factual record now properly falls within the scope of the criminal investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, now known as ‘‘Travelgate.’’”
“MRS. CLINTON INSTRUCTED WHITE HOUSE STAFF ON THE HANDLING
OF FOSTER DOCUMENTS AND THE FOSTER NOTE FOUND ON JULY 26,
1993, AND SENIOR WHITE HOUSE STAFF COVERED UP THIS INFORMATION
AND KEPT IT FROM INVESTIGATORS

· Mrs. Clinton personally was involved in the discussions regarding the White House’s handling of documents in Vince
Foster’s office following his death. Mrs. Clinton made known her views that investigators should be denied ‘‘unfettered access’’ to Foster’s office prior to the search of the office on July 22, 1993.

· The White House withheld evidence subsequently discovered among the 2,000 pages over which President Clinton invoked
executive privilege, that senior White House aide Bill Burton spoke with Mrs. Clinton on the evening of Foster’s death (July 20, 1993).

· Mrs. Clinton directed that Mack McLarty and others not inform the President about the discovery of the Foster ‘‘suicide’’ note on July 26, 1993. This note essentially defended Foster’s and the White House’s actions in the Travel Office firings and Mrs. Clinton suggested that executive privilege research be done regarding the note.

· The White House’s delay in turning over the Foster note was due to senior staffers’ deference to Mrs. Clinton’s wishes.
Statements by Mack McLarty and David Gergen that the note was not immediately turned over because of the need to notify
Mrs. Foster and the President are not consistent with the evidence. No one called Mrs. Foster the evening the note was discovered and President Clinton was not told about the note’s existence until after Mrs. Clinton met with Bernard Nussbaum and Steve Neuwirth. Mr. Nussbaum and Mr. Neuwirth had been tasked with studying the executive privilege issue at 2:30 p.m. Susan Thomases and Bob Barnett also were in the residence that afternoon at approximately 3 p.m.

· The Foster note most likely was not a ‘‘suicide’’ note but rather a note in preparation for resigning or in the event that Foster was asked to resign or take the fall for the problems generated by the firings and related matters.43”
“WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS ENGAGED IN A PATTERN OF DELAY, DECEIT
AND OBSTRUCTION OVER THE COURSE OF 3 YEARS OF INVESTIGATIONS
INTO THE TRAVEL OFFICE AND MATTERS RELATED TO VINCENT
FOSTER’S DEATH

· The GAO’s investigation was delayed for months by document production delays. Ultimately GAO did not receive all
documents relevant to its inquiry including: the Vince Foster Travel Office file, the White House Management Review interview notes, documents related to the TRM efforts to obtain GSA contracts and the Watkins ‘‘soul cleansing’’ memo. A GAO representative noted that the level of cooperation that it received from the White House was not conducive to properly
conducting GAO’s work.47

· The ‘‘Watkins memo’’ was responsive to numerous document requests and was inappropriately withheld by David Watkins,
Matthew Moore and Patsy Thomasson. All three had hard copies and/or computer copies of the memo and were made aware
of the various document requests and subpoenas to which it would have been responsive.

· In responding to a Public Integrity request for documents regarding Harry Thomason, Matthew Moore wrote an April 4,
1994 memo to Neil Eggleston stating: ‘‘I know of no documents in my possession, or ever in my possession, responsive to the request.’’ This was false. The Watkins memo clearly was responsive to this request. At or around this time, Moore removed the Watkins memo from his computer and provided a disk copy to Watkins as he left the White House. However,
Moore maintained his own copy of the disk which included several previous drafts of the memo.

· The White House withheld documents from the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility including the
Vince Foster Travel Office file, the White House Management Review interview notes and the Watkins ‘‘soul cleansing
memo.’’ OPR Counsel Michael Shaheen found the White House’s lack of cooperation ‘‘unprecedented’’ in his 20 year
Government career.

· White House stonewalling forced the Public Integrity Section at the Justice Department to acknowledge it had no confidence that the White House had faithfully produced all documents ‘‘relating to the Thomason allegations.’’ While Section Chief Lee Radek noted that the ‘‘integrity of our review is entirely dependent upon securing all relevant documents,’’ he did not obtain all relevant documents: notably the complete Vince Foster Travel Office notebook and the Watkins ‘‘soul cleansing’’ memo, as well as more than 120 items over which the White House claimed executive privilege. The Justice Department quietly acceded to this inappropriate invocation of privilege.
One of the key items that it did not receive was a White House Counsel’s Office memo demonstrating that the Counsel’s office did believe there was a case to be made that Harry Thomason was a special Government employee.48

· Bernard Nussbaum obstructed the FBI investigation into the discovery of the Foster note as well as numerous other investigations, including congressional investigations, by failing to timely inform anyone in law enforcement, the White House, or Congress about the Vince Foster Travel Office notebook that he had secreted in Nussbaum’s office by July 22, 1993.

· An FBI investigation was ordered on July 28, 1993 by Philip Heymann, the day after the note was turned over to the Park
Police after the 30-hour delay in informing law enforcement authorities. Heymann instructed David Margolis to be ‘‘very
aggressive’’ in the investigation.

· Nussbaum failed to inform those tasked with overseeing document production to both the Justice Department and the
GAO that he was secreting a relevant document in his office. Nevertheless, once he informed Neil Eggleston in May 1994,
Eggleston also failed to turn over the documents to the Public Integrity Section in a timely and responsive manner.

· Neil Eggleston and Cliff Sloan, at Nussbaum’s direction, delayed the production of documents relating to the criminal investigation of Harry Thomason and Darnell Martens to the Public Integrity section and ultimately denied all such documents to GAO.

Citizen Wells letter and warning to Edward Snowden, Do not return to Obama Justice Department controlled US, Avoid America until Obama leaves White House, There is no justice with Obama, One North Carolinian to another

Citizen Wells letter and warning to Edward Snowden, Do not return to Obama Justice Department controlled US, Avoid America until Obama leaves White House, There is no justice with Obama, One North Carolinian to another

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

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

 

Citizen Wells to Edward Snowden.

I will make this short and sweet.

As one North Carolinian to another.

Truth seeker to truth seeker.

Under no circumstances should you return to the US as long as Obama is in the White House.

It was scary enough before Obama took control of the White House and Justice Department in January 2009.

The bias in US courts of all levels in 2008 was surprising and scary.

I will not burden you with details but there are plenty on this site.

However, the fact that numerous Justice Department attorneys assisted Obama with keeping his records hidden should be enough to frighten you.

Scan this website for court and Justice Department references.

If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me.

At your service Wells.

God bless.