HILLARY SOLIDIFIES DELEGATE LEAD: BARELY ESCAPES CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

WHY DOES LARRY KLAYMAN HAVE SUCH A HARD-ON FOR CLINTON?



I don’t know how to explain it, why Larry Klayman and his organization, Judicial Watch, can’t seem to shift their avowed focus of unearthing judicial misconduct among government officials away from just one government official: Hillary Clinton.  Back in the 1990’s when he formed Judicial Watch, former U.S. prosecutor Klayman sued the Bill Clinton Administration no less than 18 times.    That’s right – 18 times.  That’s over two cases per year during the eight year Clinton Administration.  None of the eighteen lawsuits resulted in a single criminal charge against anyone, but that doesn’t mean that Klayman has given up.  No, indeed.  It’s Judicial Watch that has been leading the charge to uncover the “truth” about Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server while she was Secretary of State or her traitorous actions during the Benghazi attacks.  And just to let you know how deeply Klayman is about uncovering any and all wrongdoing by Clinton – both Bill and Hillary – he’s stuck to his guns.  The last one of his 18 William Jefferson Clinton lawsuits was dismissed in 2010 by Federal Judge,  Royce Lamberth. Lambert’s opinion:    “There’s no “there,” there, Judge Royce Lamberth wrote in his order dismissing an action centered around “FileGate,” a thoroughly debunked conservative conspiracy fantasy that claimed that agents of Hillary Clinton had improperly reviewed FBI files on political adversaries.


That hard-on I referenced above that Klayman seems to have for Hillary?  (Did she reject his sexual advances while she was First Lady?) Well, it’s the same guy and his same organization who’s responsible for the latest Clinton scandal – Hillary, this time around – over her e-mails.  Here’s what the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say about Klayman:

Larry Klayman is a pathologically litigious attorney and professional gadfly notorious for suing everyone from Iran’s Supreme Leader to his own mother. A former U.S. prosecutor who made a name for himself in the 1990s by suing the Clinton administration no less than 18 times, Klayman seems to have been driven over the edge by the 2008 election of Barack Obama.

Look, why Klayman might have sued both the Iranian Supreme leader and his mother, is kind of beyond me.  I have no idea how these two cases might somehow rest logically in his mind.  But, let’s assume that this is a bit of self-serving exaggeration on behalf of the SPLC, you know, to attract attention to itself and its website.  But here are a few more choice words they have re: Larry Klayman. 

“Today, acting as a sort of unofficial ombudsman of “We the People,” he spends much of his energy fomenting “nonviolent” revolution and trying to prove that President Barack Obama is a crypto-Communist Muslim who is constitutionally ineligible for office. Klayman, who styles himself a “citizens’ prosecutor,” has also taken to convening legally meaningless “citizens grand juries” that issue “indictments” of figures such as President Obama and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. In 2013, he appeared on the steps of Washington, D.C.’s World War II Memorial and, invoking Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Polish revolutionary Lech Walesa, called on an adoring crowd to “wage a second American nonviolent revolution, to use civil disobedience, and to demand that this president leave town, to put the Koran down, to get up off his knees, and to figuratively come out with his hands up.”


Hmmmmm.  Not someone who seems all that much rational and totally sane.  But, hey, that’s just my opinion.  Rush feels exactly the same way as Klayman. 

Here's the Southern Poverty Law Center's article about LARRY KLAYMAN

Again, surely there is a bit of exaggeration here.   But back when Hillary declared that there was a “vast right wing conspiracy’ out get hubby Bill, we laughed til we cried.  I mean not only was it funny that there could be such a thing as a “vast right wing conspiracy” but, hell, how bloody paranoid we thought.  Come on, we said, there’s no such thing as some conservative organizations out to get Clinton or Democrats.  How stupid.  How amusing.  Amazingly enough, though, we weren’t laughing quite so hard when President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for receiving a voluntarily given blow job in the White House six years later.  Ken Starr took a long, long time amassing evidence to prove that Bill Clinton had, indeed, received a voluntary blow job in the White House.  And lots of pubic money, too. 


Only Andrew Johnson was accorded this same honor back in 1868 following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and basically as the result of a Congressional war over how to treat the former Confederate states and whether or not to accord former slaves human rights.  Now, don’t get me wrong, here, Bill Clinton was found to have “committed perjury” during his Grand Jury testimony (“I did not have sexual relations with that women” “it depends on what the definition of “is” is.”) so, hey, I suppose lying about a blow job ranks right up there with the issue of whether or not Congress would pass legislation giving citizenship rights to 4 million former slaves and whether or not public monies could be used to assist those 4 million former slaves to shed the chains of slavery.  (Both did indeed succeed but only after Johnson was impeached because he would not support these efforts.)  But you know me, radical liberal that I am, I’m just not all that sure that Clinton’s blow job is up there in the importance scale when it comes to the lives of 4 million Americans who had Zip, Undo, Zero rights under the Constitution.  Hey, forgive me if you think I’m pro Black or something but it’s my addled brained, insane belief that “All Men Are Created Equal And Endowed By Their Creator And Endowed With Certain Unalienable Rights, That Among These Are Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit of Happiness.” Sure, you can argue with this humane concept but you can’t argue that it is not one of what we call America’s promise to the world, as diminished as such a sentiment might be today with Donald Trump running around proclaiming that all Muslims should be deported.  (WTF?)  

The impetus for the Clinton Benghazi and E-Mail SCANDALS? Well let’s just say that it’s the same impetus as in the 1990’s scandals called Whitewater Gate, White House File Gate, Jenifer Flowers Gate, Travel Gate, Arkansas State Trooper Gate, Paula Jones Gate, Vince Foster Murder Gate (this one resurfaced on Brietbart late last year) and God knows how many other “scandals” and “criminal acts” were alleged – spearheaded by pathologically litigious Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch – over the years.  So let me ask you, if all those “crimes” have resulted in not a single legal action against Bill or Hillary back in the 1990’s, why on earth would you have a nano-second’s credence to today’s Hillary crimes?

You need to ask yourself just two questions:

ONE: Why is it that Hillary has been subjected to public hearings, searing condemnation, law suits and public approbation for the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi while George Bush has not been touched for the deaths of 4,486 American service men and women in Iraq, a war that was initiated based on a monstrous lie? 

TWO: If Hillary Clinton is being investigated by the FBI for committing the crime of using a private e-mail server, why isn’t former Secretary of State, Colin Powell (and other Federal Agency Heads) being investigated by the FBI since he has publicly admitted that he did the exact same thing? 

If you can answer both of these questions logically and in clear conscience, then let me know.  I can’t.  By the way, a quick look through Judicial Watch’s web site, fails to reveal any movement in either of these questions.  I suppose it might be a tad indelicate to wonder why, given that Judicial Watch’s motto is “Because No One Is Above The Law” why such admitted malfeasance has gone un-litigated by them.    

Check it out for yourself:  here’s the link: JUDICIAL WATCH

In case you were wondering here’s some of the topics on Judicial Watch’s home page:










Judicial Watch is a non-profit, charitable 501(c) 3 organization who is tax exempt and whose donations to the organization are tax deductible.   They are supposed to be non-partisan.  But their home page tells a very different story.

PS: You can read all about the vast array of criminal activity by Hillary Clinton here:


On the other hand, over here in the real world, despite over two decades of trying, Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch, WND or anyone else for that matter has never compiled sufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing to result in any legal charges from any source, at any time whatsoever against Hillary Clinton.  And so far, this includes the FBI. 

As Hillary said back in 1992 there was a vast right ring conspiracy out to get her and Bill.  And today, in 2016, it appears to me that - call it not-so-vast, not-so-right-wingy, not so conspiratorial maybe – there are still folks out there who seem to have dedicated their lives to destroying Hillary Clinton.  Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch among them. 

So do not be taken in by this crap.  Why?  Because it’s exactly so much BULLSHIT!

Please let all the anti-Hillary rumors, innuendo, slander, hit pieces, and over-the-top “news” reporting charges and allegations die the swift death these lies deserve.   You are much smarter than the vast right wing conservative conspiracists give you credit for.

And, in closing, I am a huge fan of Bernie Sanders.  Like no one else (Hillary included) he has articulated what those of us to the left of Hitler see as the continuing faults of American politics, policy and economics we have been subjected to for over thirty years.  On the other hand I am equally enraged over the absolutely false, denigrating and wholly specious claims of malfeasance and wrongdoing that Hillary Clinton has been subjected to for over twenty years now.  Don’t fall for it.  It’s a BIG LIE!


Have A Good Day Everyone!



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

REAL LIFE STORY OR REAL LIFE HOAX?

HOW THE PORTRAYAL OF LIBERAL AMERICANS BY THE RIGHT WING MEDIA REFERENCES THE JIM CROW MOVEMENT

AMERICA’S BIG BLACK DICK CONUNDRUM