Skip to comments.Judges question public interest served by releasing drafts of unfiled Clinton indictment
Posted on 09/23/2017 3:40:32 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
By now, you know the news nuggets from Hillary Clintons new campaign memoir, What Happened. You know that she blames herselWASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group) A skeptical panel of appellate judges questioned why drafts of an unfiled indictment against Hillary Clinton should be made public Friday, more than 20 years after prosecutors opted not to pursue charges against the then-first lady. At issue are drafts of an indictment prepared by the Office of the Independent Counsel investigating Hillary and President Bill Clintons role in events surrounding the Whitewater Development Corporation in Arkansas in the 1980s. Publicly released reports establish that prosecutors believed Hillary Clinton's answers under oath to questions regarding her involvement were false and that charges were considered.f for the most shocking upset in American political history, while indicting (in varying degrees of anger and exasperation) Bernie Sanders, James Comey, the New York Times, racism, cable news, sexism and Russia as co-conspirators.
You know that she was shellshocked for weeks after Election Day, turning to friends, yoga, inspirational homilies, her family and chardonnay, to ease herself back into the world.
But the real headline to come out of this booka far more engaging read than the pablum-rich account of her years as secretary of state, Hard Choicesis that she has definitively answered the question that has been asked about her for more than a quarter-century: Who is she?
(Excerpt) Read more at wjla.com ...
The real problem is why wasn’t she indictied.
Because most voters younger than 40 years old, do not know anything about bill and hillary... they should know who she is, if hillary is not going to go home and retire for good.
I, an American taxpayer, want to know why “ENRON” was brought to trial for illegal commercial endeavors, but Hillary Clinton has not????!?!??
Correct, If this hag wants to be out there and in the lime light than put all of her sorry despicable filthy ass out there for the world to see.
Certainly it’s a far greater public interest than was releasing Jack Ryan’s divorce records.
History demands disclosure about the events and the people involved.
Why does he need to establish that? If it was a Trump draft they would be handing it out in stacks on street corners...
The question of the document release is a legal one, not a political one.
Ergo, the answer is a legal also.
The papers must be released as they were produced with taxpayer funds, do not involve national security, and cannot as a matter of law, be libellous.
the final paragraphs after EXTENSIVE info on court cases:
In court Friday, Orfanedes suggested the documents would help the public determine whether prosecutors “pulled their punches because it was the president’s wife.”
Judge Silberman questioned whether it would be “grotesquely unfair” to Clinton to publicize allegations that were never formally made, but Orfanedes said the reports already released make clear that prosecutors believed her statements were untrue.
U.S. Attorney Nicolas Riley acknowledged circumstances might exist where the release of a draft indictment is justified, but he insisted this is not such a case.
“There is a public interest,” he said. “It is outweighed by the privacy interest.”
According to Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, though, this is exactly the kind of exceptional case that necessitates releasing the documents.
Mrs. Clinton was the spouse of a president, a top government official, a senator, a two-time presidential candidate, shes still in politics, he said in an interview. What special counsels do, what independent counsels do is still of great public interest. How top government officials engage and how they are treated by prosecutors is of great public interest.
The Judicial Watch position rests primarily on the voluminous evidence from the Whitewater investigation that has already been made public, including names of dozens of grand jury witnesses and the substance of their testimony. In Orfanedes’ view, the details of Clinton’s alleged misconduct are already widely known, so there is no privacy interest left to violate.
What public interest is served by our own government protecting Hillary Clinton and hiding her true history from US citizens?
Our elected government representatives and hired bureaucrats owe their allegiance to all the citizens of the USA, not just Hillary Clinton.
What “privacy rights” does a person under investigation have? Hopefully, none.
By the way, the murky reasoning shows Silberman would have been a poor choice to be Supreme Court justice?
Dear Tom Fitton,
Please provide the robed shills with arguments they might find compelling, such as:
“Clearing Hillary Rodham’s good name is the most important public purpose conceivable by the minds of men/women/LGBTQ/Binaries,non-Binaries, and the voting dead. Only racist white supremacists and neo-nazis would question that fact (it’s not just an opinion!). Release of these draft indictments allows the public to see that they were nothing but a political attack by the Great Right Wing Conspiracy, easily refuted and put to rest. Keeping the indictments secret empowers white supremacists, neo-nazis (i.e., Republicans/Russians) to defame Hillary Rodham as a lifetime fraud and liar who skated because of political connections, partisan judges, etc.”
The whole Russia investigation is predicated on a democrat concocted, unsubstantiated dossier. Yet results of an actual investigation of HRC need to be suppressed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.