Category Archives: US House of Representatives

Jonathan Turley attacked over impeachment testimony, “threatening messages and demands that I be fired”, “not proven abuse of power”, “we are lowering impeachment standards”

Jonathan Turley attacked over impeachment testimony, “threatening messages and demands that I be fired”, “not proven abuse of power”, “we are lowering impeachment standards”

“a judge reaffirmed that Clinton committed perjury, a crime for which thousands of other citizens have been jailed. Yet the calls for showing that “no one is above the law” went silent with Clinton.”…Jonathan Turley

“it would be ‘very dangerous’ to the balance of powers not to hold Obama accountable for assuming powers ‘very similar’ to the ‘right of the king’ to essentially stand above the law.”…Jonathan Turley

“this is not how an American president should be impeached.”… Jonathan Turley

 

From The Hill.

By Jonathan Turley.

“Democrats offering passion over proof in Trump impeachment”

“In my testimony Wednesday, I lamented that, as in the impeachment of President Clinton from 1998 to 1999, there is an intense “rancor and rage” and “stifling intolerance” that blinds people to opposing views. My call for greater civility and dialogue may have been the least successful argument I made to the committee. Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from George Washington University for arguing that, while a case for impeachment can be made, it has not been made on this record.

Some of the most heated attacks came from Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee.”

“Notably, neither Swalwell nor Nadler allowed me to respond to those or any other attacks. It was then picked up eagerly by others, despite being a demonstrably false narrative.”

“That is precisely what I have said regarding Trump. You just need to prove abuse of power. My objection is not that you cannot impeach Trump for abuse of power but that this record is comparably thin compared to past impeachments and contains conflicts, contradictions, and gaps including various witnesses not subpoenaed. I suggested that Democrats drop the arbitrary schedule of a vote by the end of December and complete their case and this record before voting on any articles of impeachment. In my view, they have not proven abuse of power in this incomplete record.”

“As I said 21 years ago, a president can still be impeached for abuse of power without a crime, and that includes Trump. But that makes it more important to complete and strengthen the record of such an offense, as well as other possible offenses. I remain concerned that we are lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. Trump will not be our last president. What we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. These “agitated passions” will not be a substitute for proof in an impeachment. We currently have too much of the former and too little of the latter.”

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Jonathan Turley testimony on Trump impeachment, “this is not how an American president should be impeached.”, “legal case for impeachment…woefully inadequate,… dangerous”

Jonathan Turley testimony on Trump impeachment, “this is not how an American president should be impeached.”, “legal case for impeachment…woefully inadequate,… dangerous”

“this is not how an American president should be impeached.”…Impeachment legal expert Jonathan Turley

“Former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe as much as admitted the FBI’s intent to set up Mr. Flynn on a criminal false statement charge from the get-go.”…Attorney Sidney Powell November 4, 2019  

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October 23, 2019

 

From the Jonathan Turley testimony before the House impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

“I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevant
facts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and I have previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama. Second, I have been highly critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, I have repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter with the Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president. To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only
concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.7 That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and,
at times, bitterly divided.”

“A comparison of the current impeachment inquiry with the three prior presidential inquiries puts a few facts into sharp relief. First, this is a case without a clear criminal act and would be the first such case in history if the House proceeds without further evidence. In all three impeachment inquiries, the commission of criminal acts by Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton were clear and established. With Johnson, the House effectively created a trapdoor crime and Johnson knowingly jumped through it. The problem was that the law—the Tenure in Office Act—was presumptively unconstitutional and the impeachment was narrowly built around that dubious criminal act. With Nixon, there were a host of alleged criminal acts and dozens of officials who would be convicted of felonies. With Clinton, there was an act of perjury that even his supporters acknowledged was a felony, leaving them to argue that some felonies “do not
rise to the level” of an impeachment. Despite clear and established allegations of criminal acts committed by the president, narrow impeachments like Johnson and Clinton have fared badly. As will be discussed further below, the recently suggested criminal acts related to the Ukrainian controversy are worse off, being highly questionable from a legal standpoint and far from established from an evidentiary standpoint.”

“No, it is wrong because this is not how an American president should be
impeached. For two years, members of this Committee have declared that criminal and impeachable acts were established for everything from treason to conspiracy to obstruction. However, no action was taken to impeach. Suddenly, just a few weeks ago, the House announced it would begin an impeachment inquiry and push for a final vote in just a matter of weeks. To do so, the House Intelligence Committee declared that it would not subpoena a host of witnesses who have direct knowledge of any quid pro quo. Instead, it will proceed on a record composed of a relatively small number of witnesses with largely second-hand knowledge of the position. The only three direct conversations with President Trump do not contain a statement of a quid pro quo and two expressly
deny such a pre-condition.”

Read more:

https://www.scribd.com/document/438232920/Read-Turley-Testimony#from_embed

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Omar-ethics-complaint-07-22-19-1.pdf?D=1

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

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

President Trump you cannot negotiate with fools, Nancy Pelosi et al only care about their agenda not the country, Fund govt for another month, If no wall funding then use emergency powers

President Trump you cannot negotiate with fools, Nancy Pelosi et al only care about their agenda not the country, Fund govt for another month, If no wall funding then use emergency powers

“Democrat mantra: The end justifies the means.”…Citizen Wells

“The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have.”…Malcolm X

“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.”…Hillary Clinton, WABC 2003

 

President Trump, you have made your point with reasonable, rational citizens who care about the well being and safety of this country.

Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, et al only care about their wacko, leftist agenda.

With them and their wacko followers, the end justifies the means.

You cannot negotiate with fools.

You are accustomed to negotiating with rational people.

It will not work in this case.

I strongly urge you to take the high road, fund the government for another month, get the hard working average Americans, who are pawns in this tug of war struggle, paid and the work they do done, for the good of all Americans.

As Lindsey Graham and others have put forth, if there is no funding at the end of a month (or whatever term you decide on), use your emergency powers to protect our borders.

Take the high road and do what is right for the country. Protect the little people. That is why you were elected.

I believe I speak for millions of Americans.

Citizen Wells.

 

And here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

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

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

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

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

“Based upon my knowledge of her character and integrity, I can say without qualification that Dolly Kyle’s word is as solid as gold.”
“There is no doubt in my mind that every statement in this book is absolutely true and correct.”…David Schippers

 

Citizen journalism and activism. Crucial!

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

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

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

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

The answer was a resounding yes.

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

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

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

Do an internet search on “David Schippers interviews.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insight: How did the House Democratic leadership treat you?

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

Insight: And the Republicans?

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

Insight: Gingrich and Gephardt acting together?

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

Insight: What kind of damage did their leaks do?

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

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

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

Insight: Gingrich and Gephardt discredited the impeachment investigation?

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

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

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

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

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

Insight: Why did you get that response?

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

Insight: Why didn’t a single Democrat break?

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

Insight: Why did the senators ignore the facts?

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

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

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

Insight: Have we heard the end of Filegate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insight: What were the biggest obstacles?

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

Insight: So the Republicans helped cover up for Clinton?

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

Read more:

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

David Schippers interviewed by Sandy Rios of American Family Association.

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

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

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

“I.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

told Ms. Tripp that she would lie if called to

testify and tried to convince Ms. Tripp to do

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

2) Ms. Lewinsky attempted on several occasions to

get Ms. Tripp to contact the White House before

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

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

3) Ms. Lewinsky participated in preparing a false

and intentionally misleading affidavit to be

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

pp. 200-203).

4) Ms. Lewinsky provided a copy of the draft

affidavit to a third party for approval and

discussed changes calculated to mislead.

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

5) Ms. Lewinsky and the President talked by phone

on January 6, 1998, and agreed that she would

give false and misleading answers to questions

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

p. 197).

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

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

Conspirators intended to use the affidavit

to avoid Ms. Lewinsky’s giving a deposition.

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

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

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

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

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

President met at the White House and discussed

the subpoena she had received. Ms. Lewinsky

suggested that she conceal the gifts received

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

9) Shortly thereafter, the President’s personal

secretary, Betty Currie, picked up a box of

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

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

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

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

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

11) The President gave false answers to questions

contained in Interrogatories in the Jones case.

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

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

suggestion of a third party, deleted 50 draft

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

p. 13). She had already been subpoenaed in

the Jones case.

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

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

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

President gave false and misleading testimony

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

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

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

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

to give a false and misleading account of the

Lewinsky relationship if called to testify.

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

16) The President narrated elaborate detailed

false accounts of his relationship with Monica

Lewinsky to prospective witnesses with

the intention that those false accounts would

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

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

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

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

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

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

and misleading testimony under oath to a

federal grand jury on the following points:

his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, his testimony

in the January 17, 1998 deposition, his

conversations with various individuals and

his knowledge of Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit and its

falsity.”

Read more:

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

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

From Legacy Obituaries.

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

Read more:

https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/chicagotribune/obituary.aspx?n=david-phillip-schippers&pid=190355734&fhid=24620

From the Chicago SunTimes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-attorney-david-schippers-a-key-figure-in-bill-clinton-impeachment-dies/

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

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/