Category Archives: US House of Representatives

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

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

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

“Hillary lied Americans died”…Citizen Wells

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

 

 

The devil in the details in the White House

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

“IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

__________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

More Here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

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 NewsMax.com”

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.

http://citizenwells.net

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:

Travelgate
Commercegate
Chinagate
Filegate
IRSgate
Trustgate

But no mention of Rapegate.

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

overview.

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:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/02/exclusive-roger-stone-touts-his-new-book-the-clintons-war-on-women/

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.”

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

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:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

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

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

 

 

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

“IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

__________

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

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

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

“INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Hillary Commercegate Chinagate role, First lady conceived scheme to sell seats on Dept of Commerce trade missions in exchange for political contributions, Compromised nation’s security, Theft of government resources for re-election bid

Hillary Commercegate Chinagate role, First lady conceived scheme to sell seats on Dept of Commerce trade missions in exchange for political contributions,  Compromised nation’s security, Theft of government resources for re-election bid

“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

“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.”…David Schippers

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

 

 

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

“IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

__________

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

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

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

“Through discovery in its civil lawsuit against the Clinton Commerce
Department, Judicial Watch also has found evidence that President
Clinton condoned and participated in a scheme, conceived by First Lady
Hillary Rodham Clinton and approved by the President, to sell seats on
U.S. Department of Commerce trade missions in exchange for political
contributions. Bribery is specifically highlighted in the U.S.
Constitution as an offense warranting impeachment.
In President Clinton’s push to sell taxpayer-financed government
services to raise money for his political operations, national security
likely was breached by his Commerce Department appointees and those
involved in his fundraising scheme, such as John Huang. While Judicial
Watch is at an interim stage of investigation in this sensitive area,
the breaches of national security uncovered at the Clinton Commerce
Department raise real questions of treasonous activities by the
President and members of his Administration.
To cover-up this illegal fundraising and likely national security
breaches, President Clinton’s top two staffers, then-Chief of Staff
Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta, ordered late
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to obstruct justice and defy federal Court
orders. The evidence also indicates that Secretary Brown personally
consulted with President Clinton in furtherance of this cover-up.
In addition to the illegal sale of taxpayer-financed services, such
as seats on government trade missions, for political contributions, the
President and Mrs. Clinton have illegally solicited and received monies
directly from private citizens and others. The creation and use of
legal defense funds is not only prohibited under federal law, but they
have proved to be a means whereby lobbyists, influence peddlers and
foreign powers have tried to influence the Administration, contrary to
U.S. national security interests.”

“part iii
COMMERCEGATE/CHINAGATE
Crimes and Other Offenses Relating to the Illegal Sale of U.S.
Department of Commerce Trade Mission Seats for Campaign Contributions
that Warrant Impeachment and Removal from Office of President Bill
Clinton”

“In January 1998, Judicial Watch uncovered a witness, Nolanda Butler
Hill, a close confidante and business partner of late Commerce
Secretary Brown, with whom Secretary Brown had shared key details about
the campaign-contributions-for-seats-on-trade-missions scheme, as well
as the Clinton Administration’s efforts to stonewall Judicial Watch’s
lawsuit. Secretary Brown had even shown important documents to Ms. Hill
that detailed this unlawful sale of taxpayer-financed government
services. With Ms. Hill’s uncontroverted testimony providing the
capstone to its investigation, Judicial Watch has proven beyond all
reasonable doubt that not only was the Clinton Administration engaged
in an unlawful scheme to sell seats on Commerce Department trade
missions in exchange for campaign contributions, but that a criminal
cover-up was ordered by President Clinton’s top aides to thwart
Judicial Watch’s Court-ordered investigation and to hide the
culpability of the President, Mrs. Clinton, the Clinton Administration
and the DNC for their use of Commerce Department trade missions as a
political fundraising vehicle.
Ms. Hill testified that then White House Chief of Staff Leon
Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered Commerce
Secretary Brown to defy Court orders and obstruct the Judicial Watch
suit until after the 1996 federal elections. Ms. Hill’s sworn testimony
implicated the President’s top staff members in obstruction of justice.
Ms. Hill also tied the sale of trade mission seats directly to
President Clinton. In both a sworn affidavit and Court testimony, Ms.
Hill explained that:

The First Lady conceived of the idea to sell the
trade mission seats in exchange for political contributions;
The President knew of and approved this scheme;
The Vice President participated in this scheme;
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown helped implement the
illegal fundraising operation out of the Clinton Commerce
Department;
Presidential White House aides Harold Ickes and (now
Labor Secretary) Alexis Herman helped orchestrate the sale of
the Commerce trade mission seats;
The President’s top fundraisers at the DNC and his
reselection campaign (Marvin Rosen and Terrence McAuliffe)
helped coordinate the selling of these taxpayer resources in
exchange for political contributions;
Presidential Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy
Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered the cover-up of these
activities; and
The President’s appointees at the Commerce
Department have committed perjury, destroyed and suppressed
evidence, and likely breached our nation’s security.”

“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)

Secretary 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 Hillary
Clinton.”(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.”

“Documents uncovered by congressional investigators demonstrate the
nexus of money, access and China at the Clinton Commerce Department:

A key ally [of Trie’s], according to the documents, was Jude
Kearney, a deputy assistant secretary in the Commerce
Department’s International Trade Administration.

In October 1993, Trie helped shepherd Kearney, a fellow
Arkansan, around China.

“It was very helpful to have someone around who knew the
ropes,” Kearney wrote Trie after the trip.

In June 1994, Kearney joined Trie’s business associates and
guests at a table at a Democratic National Committee fund-
raising dinner while Trie sat at Clinton’s table. That fall,
according to the documents, Kearney supported a request by Trie
to host a party for the participants on a U.S. trade mission to
China. Kearney said last year he couldn’t recall whether Trie
actually ever hosted the party. In February 1995, Trie sat at
first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s table at another Democratic
fund-raiser.

The documents show that in September 1995, Kearney asked the
U.S. Embassy in Beijing to invite Trie to events with Mrs.
Clinton during her trip to China. Upon Trie’s return to the
United States, he attended a White House dinner with other
large Democratic givers, including postal union leader Moe
Biller, Miramax Films co-chairman Harvey Weinstein and oil
executive Roger Tamraz, who was raising money for Democrats
while being wanted in Lebanon on bank fraud charges.”

“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.
The overwhelming evidence of President Clinton’s illegal activities
related to the Commerce trade mission sales are now before this
Congress. We respectfully request, in the context of expected
impeachment proceedings on other serious issues, that Congress consider
whether the actions of this President and his appointees in this matter
also warrant his impeachment and removal from office.(403)”

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

Full Evidentiary Record:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc3/html/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc3-7.htm

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Clinton Impeachment 101, 15 counts “events” presented October 5, 1998 by David Schippers Democrat to House Judiciary Committee, Possible felonies which may constitute grounds for impeachment inquiry, INS immigration naturalization investigation not included

Clinton Impeachment 101, 15 counts “events” presented October 5, 1998 by David Schippers Democrat to House Judiciary Committee, Possible felonies which may constitute grounds for impeachment inquiry, INS immigration naturalization investigation not included

“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

“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.”…David Schippers

“That business of Broaddrick being deemed inconclusive is not true. What actually happened is, I think, Starr decided not to follow up because once Lewinsky cooperated, they figured they had their impeachable offense and decided to concentrate on that.”…David Schippers

 

 

Too many people who have any awareness of the President Bill Clinton impeachment believe that it was about a Clinton dalliance with Monica Lewinsky in the White House.

This is far from the truth.

Many young Americans have no clue.

If you are getting your information from the mainstream media, especially the Orwellian Washington Post, you are definitely misinformed.

From the Washington Post June 28, 2016.

“Young women don’t care about Bill Clinton’s sexual misdeeds”

“For months, Trump has made a play for these supporters by attacking Clinton’s feminist bona fides. To do that, he has focused largely on her husband. Bill was famously involved in a White House sex scandal and has also been accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault. Trump has been hammering the point that those allegations make Bill Clinton an “abuser” and Hillary an “unbelievably nasty, mean enabler.” He posted a video to his Instagram account in which two of Clinton’s accusers detail their allegations. Then a voice comes in over a video of a laughing Hillary, asking, “Is Hillary really protecting women?””

Read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/28/young-women-dont-care-about-bill-clintons-sexual-misdeeds/?utm_term=.1cd4f7456dde

Contrast that with what you will read below.

David Schippers, a long time Democrat and 2 time voter for Bill Clinton conducted an investigation for the House Judiciary Committee. So his findings were hardly part of a right wing conspiracy.

In fact, if there was any conspiracy, it included Republicans and Democrats who did not want to get their hands dirty or remove Clinton from office.

Schippers found far more felonious and/or improper activity by Bill Clinton than what was presented. He was restricted by time constraints and limited to the immediate scandals presented to him.

 

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

My staff and I agreed that we needed to focus on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which appeared to be running out of control. By the time we came to the subject, investigations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and congressional committees had already indicated that the White House used the INS to further its political agenda. A blatant politicization of the agency took place during the 1996 presidential campaign when the White House pressured the INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program to grant citizenship to thousands of aliens that the White House counted as likely Democratic voters.”

http://cis.org/BookReview-InsideStoryClintonImpeachment

The impeachment committee barely touched the Clinton Rapegate scandals.

“Schippers, House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde’s personal pick to head the impeachment probe, promises to name names, including those of Republicans who killed his investigation in the crib and allowed Clinton to slip the noose on a whole host of allegations that have yet to be fully explained to the country.”

“Why Impeachment Failed
House Majority Counsel David Schippers Speaks Out

The House impeachment investigation into President Clinton’s alleged crimes was deliberately curtailed by congressional leaders who refused to consider key evidence beyond that which was already on the public record about the Monica Lewinsky scandal.”

“Schippers explained:

“Let me tell you, if we had a chance to put on a case, I would have put live witnesses before the committee. But the House leadership, and I’m not talking about Henry Hyde, they just killed us as far as time was concerned. I begged them to let me take it into this year.”

Schippers added, “Then I screamed for witnesses before the Senate. But there was nothing anybody could do to get those Senators to show any courage. They told us essentially, you’re not going to get 67 votes so why are you wasting our time.””

“Had these ominous accounts from Broaddrick and Willey been introduced into evidence, along with charges of suspected Clinton-connected intimidation of Elizabeth Ward-Gracen, Gennifer Flowers, Sally Perdue, Dolly Kyle Browning and others – would it have made a difference?

David Schippers remains skeptical, since he now doubts the Senate would have convicted Clinton under any circumstances. Still, congressional timidity ensured that the American people were kept in the dark about the totality of the evidence against their president.

And now, six weeks after Clinton’s acquittal, we can only guess how the press and the public might have reacted to an impeachment case built on compelling charges of mob-style thuggery, rather than lies and obstruction about consensual sex.””

Schippers’ book to reveal secret evidence against Clinton, Not a single US Senator reviewed secret impeachment evidence, Congressional leaders refused to consider key evidence beyond the public record about Monica Lewinsky, Newsmax August 7, 2000

Here are the 15 counts “events” that David Schippers presented to the House Judiciary Committee on October 5, 1998.

I.

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

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

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

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

II.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have aided, abetted, counseled, and procured Monica Lewinsky to file and caused to be filed a false affidavit in the case of Jones v. Clinton, et al., in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1623 and 2.

III.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have aided, abetted, counseled, and procured Monica Lewinsky in obstruction of justice when she executed and caused to be filed a false affidavit in the case of Jones v. Clinton, et al., with knowledge of the pending proceedings and with the intent to influence, obstruct or impede that proceeding in the due administration of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503 and 2.

IV.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have engaged in misprision of Monica Lewinsky’s felonies of submitting a false affidavit and of obstructing the due administration of justice both by taking affirmative steps to conceal those felonies, and by failing to disclose the felonies though under a constitutional and statutory duty to do so, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 4.

V.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have testified falsely under oath in his deposition in Jones v. Clinton, et al. on January 17, 1998 regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1623.

VI.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have given false testimony under oath before the federal grand jury on August 17, 1998 concerning his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1623.

VII.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have given false testimony under oath in his deposition given in Jones v. Clinton, et al. on January 17, 1998 regarding his statement that he could not recall being alone with Monica Lewinsky and regarding his minimizing the number of gifts that they had exchanged in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1623.

VIII.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have testified falsely under oath in his deposition given in Jones v. Clinton on January 17, 1998, concerning conversations with Monica Lewinsky about her involvement in the Jones case, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1623.

IX.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have endeavored to obstruct justice by engaging in a pattern of activity calculated to conceal evidence from the judicial proceedings inJones v. Clinton, et al., regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503.

X.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have endeavored to obstruct justice in the case of Jones v. Clinton, et al., by agreeing with Monica Lewinsky on a cover story about their relationship, by causing a false affidavit to be filed by Ms. Lewinsky and by giving false and misleading testimony in the deposition given on January 17, 1998, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503.

XI.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Monica Lewinsky to obtain a job in New York City at a time when she would have given evidence adverse to Mr. Clinton if she told the truth in the case of Jones v. Clinton, et al., in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503 and 1512.

XII.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have testified falsely under oath in his deposition given in Jones v. Clinton, et al. on January 17, 1998, concerning his conversations with Vernon Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1623.

XIII.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have endeavored to obstruct justice and engage in witness tampering in attempting to coach and influence the testimony of Betty Currie before the grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512.

XIV.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have engaged in witness tampering by coaching prospective witnesses and by narrating elaborate detailed false accounts of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky as if those stories were true, intending that the witnesses believe the story and testify to it before a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512.

XV.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have given false testimony under oath before the federal grand jury on August 17, 1998 concerning his knowledge of the contents of Monica Lewinsky’s affidavit and his knowledge of remarks made in his presence by his counsel in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1623.

Full Report:

David P. Schippers results of analysis and review House Judiciary Committee, October 5, 1998, There exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which in turn may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry, 15 counts

“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

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

From the David Schippers report to the House Judiciary Committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DEPOSITION TAPE #1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

“GRAND JURY TESTIMONY

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

That statement itself is false in many particulars.

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

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

“ABUSE OF POWER

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

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

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

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

“C. Sidney Blumenthal

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

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

Listen to this on January 31:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a few brief quotations:

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

That is because:

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

Finally,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full report:

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

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

As Mr. Schippers stated:

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

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

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

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

Rapegate and Juanita Broaddrick rape and coverup.

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

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

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

The Jane Doe Case Files — Part 1, Paula Jones’ Investigators Reveal their Secrets, Other victims like Juanita Broaddrick, House Judiciary Committee congressmen horrified and nauseated, 209 witnesses contacted, NewsMax February 24, 1999

Each of us can make a difference.

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

From David Schippers report:

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

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

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

 

 

 

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously Hillary Clinton was posturing herself for the 2008 election.

Appearing to care about the immigration problem and national security.

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

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

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

From David Schippers October 2000.

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

In his new 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:

http://cis.org/BookReview-InsideStoryClintonImpeachment

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

I clicked on the link and it had been scrubbed.

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

Isn’t that interesting.

The House Judiciary website.

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

Coincidence?

Mathematically highly improbable.

From Rosemary Jenks’ testimony:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2,573 were still being processed by the FBI.

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

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

Read more:

https://www.scribd.com/document/322152630/Rosemary-Jenks-testimony-before-the-Immigration-and-Claims-Subcommittee-of-the-Committee-on-the-Judiciary-of-the-U-S-House-of-Representatives-April-3

From David Schippers and his book:

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

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

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

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/