Why the Anger? Obamanomics has Failed
Speaking truth to old-stream media bias.
In this day-and-age of infinitesimally short attention spans, we thought the following flowchart would provide today's Millennial voter a quick-and-dirty solution for making their decision come November...
Judicial Watch: Obama Administration Withholds Draft Whitewater Indictment of Hillary Clinton
MARCH 28, 2016
Cites 'Privacy' and 'Scintilla' of Public Interest in Material about Potential Clinton Crimes
Judicial Watch: Draft Indictment Bears on 'Mrs. Clinton's honesty, credibility, and trustworthiness … for the position she currently seeks.'
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it is asking a federal court to order the National Archives and Records Administration to release draft criminal indictments of Hillary Clinton. In its motion for summary judgment, the National Archives claimed that "the drafts involve a significant [Clinton] privacy interest that is not outweighed by any public interest…." In its March 11 opposition brief, Judicial Watch counters that allegedly "making false statements and withholding evidence from federal investigators bears on Mrs. Clinton's honesty, credibility, and trustworthiness … for the position she currently seeks," rendering the National Archives claim "neither serious nor credible."
These developments stem from an October 20, 2015, Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration (No. 15-cv-01740)) seeking:
All versions of indictments against Hillary Rodham Clinton, including but not limited to, Versions 1, 2, and 3 in box 2250 of the Hickman Ewing Attorney Files, the "HRC/_ Draft Indictment" in box 2256 of the Hickman Ewing Attorney Files, as well as any and all versions written by Deputy Independent Counsel Hickman Ewing, Jr. prior to September of 1996.
The draft indictments relate to allegations that Clinton provided false information and withheld evidence from federal investigators to conceal her involvement with the defunct Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, the collapse of which lead to multiple criminal convictions. Clinton provided legal representation to Madison Guaranty as an attorney at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas. Clinton's Rose Law Firm billing records, long sought by prosecutors, were found in the private quarters of the White House shortly after an important statute of limitations had expired.
In its motion for summary judgment, the National Archives confirmed that it has located the Clinton draft indictments, stating, "Included among the records of Mr. Starr and his successors are drafts of a proposed indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton." It adds, "Box 2250 contains a folder labeled 'Draft Indictment.' Box 2256 contains a folder labelled 'Hillary Rodham Clinton/Webster L. Hubbell Draft Indictment.' Multiple drafts of the proposed indictment of Mrs. Clinton were located by NARA [National Archives and Records Administration] within these folders."
The National Archives claims that Clinton's right to privacy supersedes the public interest concerning the draft indictments. It also claims that the release would violate grand jury secrecy protections and that Mrs. Clinton has 'a strong interest in not being associated unwarrantedly with alleged criminal activity.'
The National Archives asserts:
While there may be a scintilla of public interest in these documents since Mrs. Clinton is presently a Democratic presidential candidate, that fact alone is not a cognizable public interest under FOIA, as disclosure of the draft indictments would not shed light on what the government is up to.
Judicial Watch counters that the public interest in finding what Mrs. Clinton was up to in the White House is paramount:
[A]t the time Mrs. Clinton was being investigated by the independent counsel for making false statements and withholding evidence from federal investigators, she was First Lady of the United States. The alleged false statements and withholding of evidence also allegedly occurred while Mrs. Clinton was First Lady of the United States. The D.C. Circuit has found that, as First Lady of the United States, Mrs. Clinton was an officer of the United States, at least for purposes of the Federal Advisory Committee Act….
Obviously, making false statements and withholding evidence from federal investigators bears on Mrs. Clinton's honesty, credibility, and trustworthiness, not only as First Lady, but also in her subsequent government service as a U.S. Senator and U.S. Secretary of State and for the position she currently seeks … The Archives' assertions to the contrary are neither serious nor credible.
In its opposition brief, Judicial Watch also notes that when it comes to any grand jury secrecy, "there is no secrecy left to protect:"
Finally, enormous amounts of grand jury information about the independent counsel's investigation of the First Lady have already been made public and are widely available. The relevant section of the January 5, 2001 Final Report [by the independent counsel] – which, again, the D.C. Circuit approved for publication and which is readily available on the Government Publishing Office's website – cites to, references, or quotes testimony from at least 25 grand jury appearances by 21 witnesses between 1995 and 1998… Once published, independent counsel reports effectively eliminate grand jury secrecy. Similarly, the 206-page "Summary of Evidence" produced by the Archives to Judicial Watch pursuant to a separate FOIA request also discloses even more grand jury information.
In response to a separate Judicial Watch FOIA investigation, the National Archives released 246 pages of previously undisclosed Office of Independent Counsel internal memos revealing extensive details about the investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton for possible criminal charges involving her involvement with Madison Guaranty, including the infamous Whitewater/Castle Grande land transaction. The memos are "statements of the case" against Hillary Clinton and Webster Lee "Webb" Hubbell, Hillary Clinton's former law partner and former Associate Attorney General in the Clinton Justice Department. Ultimately, the memos show that prosecutors declined to prosecute Clinton because of the difficulty of persuading a jury to convict a public figure as widely known as Clinton.
"It is absurd for the Obama administration to argue that Hillary Clinton's privacy would keep a draft indictment from the American public," said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. "One can't help but conclude that the Obama administration is doing a political favor for Hillary Clinton at the expense of the public's right to know about whether prosecutors believed she may have committed federal crimes."
Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one's country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in "blow back" or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.
The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called "conservatives" responded with the usual "How dare he?" Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush "kept us safe." I can assure you that President Bush didn't keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn't our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?
And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve? I don't see that, but I am not a Wilsonian and used to, at least, be a conservative. I have these strange ideas that my government ought to act in America's interests instead of the rest of the world's interests. I wish conservatives could understand how galling it was to have a fat, rich, career politician who has never once risked his life for this country lecture those of us who have about how George Bush kept us safe.
Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America's interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem. Trump was right to say that we need to stop letting more Muslims into the country or, at least, examine the issue. And like when he said the obvious about Iraq, the first people to condemn him and deny the obvious were conservatives. Somehow, being conservative now means denying the obvious and saying idiotic fantasies like "Islam is the religion of peace," or "Our war is not with Islam." Uh, sorry but no it is not, and yes it is. And if getting a president who at least understands that means voting for Trump, then I guess I am not a conservative.
Fourth, I really do not care that Donald Trump is vulgar, combative, and uncivil and I would encourage you not to care as well. I would love to have our political discourse be what it was even thirty years ago and something better than what it is today. But the fact is the Democratic Party is never going to return to that and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. Over the last 15 years, I have watched the then-chairman of the DNC say the idea that President Bush knew about 9-11 and let it happen was a "serious position held by many people," watched the vice president tell a black audience that Republicans would return them to slavery if they could, watched Harry Reid say Mitt Romney was a tax cheat without any reason to believe it was true, and seen an endless amount of appalling behavior on the part of the Democrats which is too long to list here and which I am sure you are aware. And now you tell me that I should reject Trump because he is uncivil and mean to his opponents? Is that some kind of a joke? This is not the time for civility or to worry about it in our candidates.
Fifth, I do not care that Donald Trump is in favor of big government. That is certainly not a virtue but it is not a meaningful vice since the same can be said of every single Republican in the race. I am sorry but the "we are just one more Republican victory from small government" card is maxed out. We are not getting small government no matter who wins. So Trump being big government is a wash.
Sixth, Trump offers at least the chance that he might act in the American interest instead of the world's interest or in the blind pursuit of some fantasy ideological goals. There is more to economic policy than cutting taxes, sham free trade agreements, and hollow appeals to "cutting government" and the free market. Trump may not be good, but he at least understands that. In contrast, the rest of the GOP and everyone in Washington or the media who calls themselves a conservative has no understanding of this.
Rubio would be — as Laura Ingram pointed out this week — nothing but a repeat of the Bush 43 administration with more blood and treasure spent on the fantasy that acting in other people's interests indirectly helps ours. Cruz might be somewhat better, but it is unclear whethe...
And in tonight's debate (the 23781st we believe), Trump destroys Romney with his response to the first question:
"He was a failed candidate. He should have beaten President Obama very easily,"
"He failed miserably. And it was an embarrassment to everybody, including the Republican Party."
"So I don't take that. And I guess obviously he wants to be relevant. He wants to be back in the game."
Make America Great Again – The Movement
Great supporter created grassroots video