Beware of "Judicial Watch"

Everyone who looks into the activities of the Clintons and their foundation knows how they enriched themselves.

“Further suspicions of a quid pro quo also have surfaced because while the CFIUS deliberations were taking place, people who stood to profit from Uranium One sale donated more than $2.6 million to the Clinton Foundation and an investment bank with connections to the Russian government paid former president Bill Clinton $500,000 to deliver a speech more than his usual fee. Even before the sale was under consideration the Clinton Foundation received $31.3 million in donations from one person, Frank Giustra, who stood to benefit from the sale. Some of the donations were not properly disclosed at the time. Bill Clinton also helped Guistra, who was once owned a company that merged with Uranium One, secure valuable uranium mining rights in Kazakhstan.” Memo undercuts Hillary story on controversial Russian uranium deal, Clinton foundation, by Raphael Williams, 8/24/16.
http://circa.com/politics/election-...-russian-uranium-moves-were-bad-for-us-europe

$500,000.00 for one speech to the Clintons directly, and over $33 million to their foundation which supported key operatives and donors in their political machine when they were out of government and sometimes even while they were in government. This is called a "quid pro quo".

 

Do you have a problem with Circa or the link?

 

"Lean". Try out this New York Times article. Here's a few excerpts:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/judicial-watch-hillary-clinton.html?_r=1

Judicial Watch’s strategy is simple: Carpet-bomb the federal courts with Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. A vast majority are dismissed.

Suing the government, repeatedly, is an expensive proposition; Judicial Watch has an annual budget of about $35 million that pays for close to 50 employees — a mix of lawyers, investigators and fund-raisers.

Litigiousness is in the organization’s DNA: Its founder, Larry Klayman, once sued his mother.

In 2009, Judicial Watch sued to prevent Clinton from becoming secretary of state, claiming that an obscure clause in the Constitution prevented former members of Congress who voted to increase the salary of a government position from being appointed to that position.


Judicial Watch is a polarizing group, even among advocates for greater government transparency. Critics accuse it of weaponizing the Freedom of Information Act for political purposes. They argue that its unending barrage of lawsuits does more harm than good by draining federal resources, tying up the courts and wasting public servants’ time.The Freedom of Information Act “is a legitimate tool for government transparency, but it’s possible to abuse it,” said Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists. “There is a question about whether they are enriching or distorting political discourse.”

And the pending federal action against Trump University for defrauding students? Mr. Fitton, whose organization has filed about 300 lawsuits against the Obama administration, described it as “ambulance chasing.”

And the biggest joke of all, which makes their entire existence a lie, similar to FOX New's "Fair and Balanced":

It describes itself as a “nonpartisan educational foundation"

 

I wouldn't exactly call them alt right either. At least not originally. Originally, they were an anti Clinton smear operation disguised with a semi noble name.

But your characterization of them as being open is as dishonest as they are. And they certainly do not hold a candle to the ACLU, which actually does promote freedom and democratic values.

You won't see the ACLU shopping fake news about non existant ISIS terrorist training camps in Mexico. Alas, that is the sort of tin foil hat right wing crazy stuff the Judicial Watch increasingly promotes.

 

You should also note that one of the reasons that they appear to waste their money on so many FOIA requests and lawsuits that they know will get summarily dismissed, is that they use these actions as part of publicity campaigns in right wing media. Fill a lawsuit (no matter how frivolous) and the press release will get repeated by every right wing blog from NewsMax to PJ Media, often accompanies by a ranting right wing screed. Then it will get promoted on bulliten boards like this one and pushed on social media. IF it's big enough, it will get the talk radio pitch and someone from JW will get a sit down on Fox Noise.

After that, the audience moves on to the next manufactured outrage, and the story gets forgotten. Nobody is paying attention when the suit gets dismissed.

This tactic is actually widely used by the right. It was the core of the anti ACORN campaign, and it was the strategy that Rove and Gonzales were intending to use when they started planting political operators in US Attorney's offices.

 

Yes in a word

 

IOW, you did not want to read the article.

 

Contributions to a FOUNDATION do not enrich the people who run that foundation so stop lying.

And being paid for speeches is not at all uncommon

 

How disingenuous of you. $500,000.00 for 1 speech is very "uncommon" even for The Clintons - and you know it.

The Clinton Foundation operated as a political slush fund for the Clintons and their corrupt political machine at the expense of the vulnerable and oppressed all over the world.

The Scam: 1. Promise to help the poor and oppressed 2. Take the money. 3. Deliver even more Hell on earth 4. run

“The company, InnoVida, manufactured fiber composite panels that could be used to build homes and other buildings without cement, steel or wood, he said. Prosecutors said Osorio defrauded investors from 2007 to 2010, exaggerating the company’s finances twenty-fold and pocketing millions of dollars to fund a lavish lifestyle. Osorio used more than $8 million of investors’ money to pay for a mansion in Miami Beach, a Maserati and a Colorado mountain retreat home, prosecutors said.” Huffington Post, Claudio Osorio Sentenced To 12-1/2 Years For Haiti Homes Fraud, By Zachary Fagenson, Reuters, 09/18/2013.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/claudio-osorio-_n_3951146.html

The Clintons and their foundation took money for the poor and gave it to themselves and their millionaire cronies. This how what passes for the modern "Left" rolls now.

 

ADL and SPLC – Dumped from the FBI website…finally ...
www.veteranstoday.com/2014/03/30/adl-and-splc-dumped-from-the-fbi...
They are the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. ... ADL/SPLC agenda of condemning bias ... FBI might remove the ADL/SPLC from their ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

Southern Poverty Law Center in Bed With Extremists
www.aim.org/aim-column/southern-poverty-law-center-in-bed-with...
Accuracy in Media. Work ... knows better than to smear organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, ... McVeigh was working with the FBI (because you cannot ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

Shocker: FBI dumps Southern Poverty Law Center as “hate ...
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/03/shocker-fbi-dumps-southern...
“Shocker: FBI dumps Southern Poverty Law Center as ‘hate ... Just because the FBI pulled the links ... FBI dumps Southern Poverty Law Center as “hate crime ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

The Left's Orwellian Censorship Campaign - CNS News
www.cnsnews.com/blog/j-matt-barber/lefts-orwellian-censorship-campaign
... desperate act of the left-wing, ... The Left's Orwellian Censorship Campaign. By J. Matt Barber ... (MMFA); the Southern Poverty Law Center ...

Of course you reject every word printed above. The fact is that the SPLC is no longer the group it started out to be. The placement of Progressive Leftists within the Organization and massive funding by Soros have negated any good the SPLC has done in the past.

 

nothing to bring, they have zero credibility. Anybody who wishes to defend them or reference them also has zero.

The SLPC should list themselves first and in BOLD on the hate group list.

 

Yeah, we've all heard the rhetoric. How about backing it up, with some facts?

 

All are typical Right-Wing outlets. I will give the Wealthy ALT Right one thing - they have an in-depth heavily financed media misinformation plan. They have backup organizations for the backup organizations. Perhaps you could offer a more balanced reputable source.

 

Yes, they're either right or left wing outlets. If you query Media Matters or Slate they brag about how good the SPLC is. If you query the FBI they'll say they no longer use the SPLC as a reference. Which means that the SPLC no longer can be trusted to be truthful or reliable. SPLC accepts funding from Soros groups and is an Alt-Left member of Progressive Marxist Democrats.

 

[QUOTE="Media_Truth, post: 1067348042, member: 732 we've all heard the rhetoric. How about backing it up, with some facts?[/QUOTE]

complete absolute 100% waste of time, I don't need to prove that water is wet., if you doubt me then prove otherwise or move on.

 

Please don't forget Stink Progress.

 

complete absolute 100% waste of time, I don't need to prove that water is wet., if you doubt me then prove otherwise or move on.[/QUOTE]
Yea...you make a claim...you have to prove it

 

Beware of "Judicial Watch"

It's not a biased left wing outlet.

 

Yea...you make a claim...you have to prove it[/QUOTE]

not really.

1) its a discussion forum, not a court of law
2) its the OPINION subsection of above mentioned DISCUSSION FORUM, and once more... this is not a court of law.
3) I don't give a dam if you disagree.

In Summary:

 

not really.

1) its a discussion forum, not a court of law
2) its the OPINION subsection of above mentioned DISCUSSION FORUM, and once more... this is not a court of law.
3) I don't give a dam if you disagree.

In Summary:

[/QUOTE]
Fine. Since you can't substantiate our posts we'll make note of that and then ignore them...as well as any conservative that sounds like you

 

Cheney a "moderate republican"? Who are you trying to kid?

Um, Cheney is far to the right.

The light at the end of the tunnel is Ron Paul lighting his own farts.

Romney is (still) a loser.

 

Clinton could have complied with the FOIA requests, but she didn't, which is why she was sued, and it was through those lawsuits that it was discovered she deleted some 33,000 e-mails.

 

Fine. Since you can't substantiate our posts we'll make note of that and then ignore them...as well as any conservative that sounds like you[/QUOTE]

Thank god! I thought you'd never go away.

 

I just wanted to thank OP for this thread. I had heard of Judicial Watch, but not looked that hard into their work. I have now, and from a classical liberal/libertarian perspective, they are doing OUTSTANDING work in addressing the massive waste, fraud, and incompetence of our federal government. This is far from a partisan group, certainly not far RW, and anyone who is interested in ethical government at all levels, Democrat or Republican or whatever, should support this fine organization.

Of COURSE the union label GOONS of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex HATE it because it shines a beacon right on their favorite money holes and graft troughs. Hence all the over the top lie narratives trying to distort their good work of keeping government honest.

I may even become a donor/supporter of theirs due to this very thread, maybe offer pro bono legal work and time.

 

Judicial Watch has uncovered so much through FOIA lawsuits.