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????!?!??
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, she’s 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?