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.””

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: