DU approves of right wing Judicial Watch now? Seriously?

[MaggieD]

Last edited Thu Feb 25, 2016, 02:20 AM - Edit history (1)

Judicial Watch is 100% funded by the far right wing, with a mission to take Dems to civil court and try to smear them with innuendo. This is what was referred to earlier today as "federal judges subpoena's Clinton aide." It's a civil court case brought by a far right wing organization.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSMTZSAPEC2N0MQ10D

This has nothing to do with a crime. Nothing to do with the government. This is simply a right wing group doing their normal frivolous law suit.

Other crazy court cases this group have brought include:

- Faux IRS scandal
- Suing to require voter ID
- Suing over Benghazi
- Suing Obama over immigration executive orders
- Suing the Clinton's about Whitewater
- Suing to get pictures of dead bin Laden

... and 90 other lawsuits of similar shit to create faux scandals and bad press for Democrats. That's what they do.

Here is there current special project on Obama (details) - which they use to solicit donations.

This vitally important project is designed to:
##Expose Obama corruption, misconduct, and abuse
##Educate the American people with facts about what we discover; and
##Mobilize concerned Americans through our Citizen Bill of Grievances to demand accountability through the legal system from the Obama administration and the president himself!

To accomplish this, Judicial Watch is fighting the Obama crowd and their radical allies on critical issues including:
##Fighting the Obama administration’s efforts to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens by “administrative measures” and “prosecutorial discretion” that bypass Congress and the American people
##Initialize over 950 open record requests and filing over 90 lawsuits to protect the people’s right to know about what the Obama administration is up to

http://www.judicialwatch.org/

I've been a member here since 2001 and I can remember when anyone floating Judicial Watch crap would have been tombstoned in a heartbeat. Oh, DU, how far you have fallen. Sad.

ETA: More about Judicial Watch founder and head, Larry Klayman (from Southern Poverty Law Center - Extremist Watch)


About Larry 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. 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.”

In His Own Words
“This president is not a president of We the People; he’s a president of his people. … I do not advocate violent revolution; to the contrary … I call upon all of you 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.”
—Speech at an October 2013 rally on Capitol Hill during which Klayman called on the assembled crowd to “Occupy Washington”

“I am more than embarrassed and appalled as a Jew to see my own people at the forefront of a number of scandals now perpetrated by the Muslim-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, and his leftist Jewish government comrades and partners in crime.”
—2013 column for WorldNetDaily in which Klayman, a Jewish-born convert to Christianity, lamented the “Ethical Decline of Liberal Jewish Intelligentsia”

“This country belongs to us, not you. This land is our land! And, we will fight you will [sic] all legal means, including exercising our legitimate Second Amendment rights of self-defense, to end your tyranny and restore freedom to our shores!”
—2014 column for WorldNetDaily in which Klayman encouraged armed militiamen to take on “government goons” and oppose “modern-day despotism”

Background
Like many far-right figures who were children of the 1960s (including WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah and anti-Muslim activist David Horowitz), Klayman started out politically left of center. As a student at Emory Law School in 1976, he volunteered for Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign, “thinking that this seemingly honest peanut farmer and former Georgia governor would be right for the nation after the cesspool of the Nixon years.” He also worked for Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-Wash.), a hawk with a record of supporting civil rights legislation.

Klayman began his professional career in Washington as a prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) consumer affairs division. Upon discovering that “rather than being a friend of the people, the government was often their enemy,” he left and joined a private law firm – whose partners, he reflected in his pompous 2009 memoir Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment, “also proved to be weak and ethically compromised.” Klayman quit and opened his own practice, and began to shape the strategy that would make him famous. “An aggressive approach against the powers that be alone was not enough,” he wrote in Whores. “The government official or judge who was subject to making decisions based on politics or money would need to be held accountable. … Threats of legal action or, if the threats didn’t work, the actual filing of lawsuits against government personnel, were thus a means to coax them to do the right thing.”

Klayman found plenty of government officials to challenge. Convinced that the Clinton administration was up to its ears in conspiracies and corruption, he filed at least 18 lawsuits between 1992 and 2000 against the president, first lady, and other administration officials. In 1994, he founded Judicial Watch, an activist law firm that he conceived as a private Justice Department that would hold government to account. In this role, he deposed numerous high-ranking administration officials and forced the disclosure of thousands of pages of documents — but didn’t really prove much of anything. “It just never went anywhere, other than having to sit through endless depositions with no particular point to them,” former Clinton advisor James Carville told the Washington Post in 2014.

A federal judge who in 2010 finally dismissed the last of Klayman’s Clinton-era suits essentially agreed with Carville. “There’s no there there,” Judge Royce Lamberth wrote in his order dismissing an action centered around “Filegate,” a thoroughly debunked conservative conspiracy theory that claimed that agents of Hillary Clinton had improperly reviewed FBI files on political adversaries.

Though his endless lawsuits irritated many and produced few results, Klayman’s dogged attacks on the Clinton administration did earn him a place among the Clinton-hating conservative glitterati of the 1990s. As a member of the influential and secretive Council for National Policy, which lobbies for ultraconservative positions, he mingled with the likes of Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the anti-feminist Eagle Forum, and right-wing financier Richard Mellon Scaife. He also hooked up with Joseph Farah, the entrepreneurial journalist who founded WorldNetDaily, an ultraconservative, Muslim-bashing online newspaper specializing in antigovernment conspiracy theories and bizarre “facts” about God’s plan for America.

Thin-skinned and paranoid, Klayman has embraced and personalized more than his share of far-right conspiracy theories. He believes the 1995 bombing of Oklahoma City’s Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building by domestic terrorists was actually masterminded by deceased Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and “American neo-Nazis.” He bought into nearly every anti-Clinton conspiracy theory there was, pursuing at least one dead end in court long after Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, who was no friend of the Clintons, had exonerated the president and first lady. In Whores, Klayman went so far as to suggest that agents of the Clinton administration may have attempted to assassinate him. A Jewish-born convert to Christianity, he sees anti-Semitism everywhere — for instance, as the sole motive of a judge who ruled against him in what Klayman considered to be a slam-dunk case. At the same time, he rails against Jews who, he contends, have betrayed the tenets of their faith by voting Democratic or embracing broadly liberal positions. In a 2013 column for WorldNetDaily, he moaned that his heart “throb[s] in shame” over the crimes of “felonious liberal Jews” who have committed “the moral equivalent of ethical and religious bankruptcy” by aligning themselves with the Obama administration.

Klayman is a whole-hearted Islamophobe who sees violent and “stealth” jihad around every corner and under every bed. In 2013, he speculated that a tragic but accidental explosion at a Texas fertilizer plant might have been the work of Muslim saboteurs. He is also a leading light of the anti-Obama “birther” movement who, among other things, contends that the president is secretly Muslim.

........

In Whores, Klayman proudly described himself as part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” (his words and Hillary Clinton’s) that plotted to “remove [Bill Clinton] by whatever legal and ethical means were necessary.”

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/larry-klayman

[LexVegas]

1. Slash and burn.nt

[RobertEarl]

11. I am not opposed to the judicial system

I believe justice should be blind.

If a judge says someone has a case, who they hell are we to take sides before justice is served?

Yet here we have Hillary folks telling is that Hillary should not be subject to the same justice as the rest of us? WTF?

[iAZZZo]

40. guess foia requests don't apply to them............

[RobertEarl]

65. She's the Queen, dammit!

Poor Hillary. Poor poor Hillary. She should never have to spend one second in court. Court is for us slaves!

[LisaM]

2. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

I noticed that too.

[mak3cats]

3. Oh, goody. You're back. (eom)

[Doctor_J]

9. I give it four days

[mak3cats]

116. LOL! (eom)

[pkdu]

4. Disgusting

[earthside]

5. Approve or not, they got their discovery ruling.

The court case proceeds.

Whether we talk about it or not here isn't going to change what is going on.

[MaggieD]

10. On a Democratic site I would expect the "talk" to be against this right wing group

.... not high fiving it.

Hopefully Bernie's supporters are not so naïve they don't realize this group would go after ANY Dem president.

[morningfog]

25. Obama has made it 7 years unscathed. Because he is not Hillary.

She is a walking scandal.

[MaggieD]

26. IRS, Benghazi

This group never succeeds. That's not the objective.

[morningfog]

34. Hillary just gives them so much to work with.

[MaggieD]

79. Obama too - they have 90 lawsuits against him

High five, huh?

[BlueCaliDem]

146. ...

[rpannier]

149. 90? I am rather surprised

Given the money they have
I'd have guessed they'd have at least 365
Surprised they aren't in every day filing something against the President

-Obama wore blue jeans in the Oval Office. This is clearly a violation of Article 7x to the 3rd power which didn't make it into the Constitution because the printer ran out of typeset, but they clearly wanted in the document.
That and the part where Justice Scalia could still have a vote after he died

[MaggieD]

155. Exactly

True story - they tried to sue to force Obama to be deported. He's a birther.

But DU loves the guy!

[sheshe2]

173. Yikes!

I am scared here. They jumped the shark!

[Fawke Em]

6. Where was this?

I saw an OP that said MSNBC was reporting movement on the Clinton investigation, but nothing about Judicial Watch with the exception that a Hillary supporter on the thread mentioned them and I still don't know why.

MSNBC isn't Judicial Watch.

[MaggieD]

8. MSNBC was reporting on the judical watch case

There is no other court case. As I noted on the OP with a link the "report" was about this civil court case by a right wing nut group.

[morningfog]

30. The poster said investigation and there are TWO others.

The FBI criminal investigation and the State IG investigation.

PLUS the spy agencies are saying she sent information marked classified via cut and paste.

[MaggieD]

36. Nope

Allow me to quote: "on MSNBC... Federal Judge orders Hillary's top aides to testify in Top Secret Email misuse"

[morningfog]

41. What the fuck are you even quoting? And why ignore the reality?

[MaggieD]

42. The post you claimed was about something else

You were wrong. You're welcome for the correction.

[morningfog]

49. That's not a quote in the post I referenced. Keep showing you ass.

Makes no difference to me.

And learn to quote. Use the words, give a cite and a link is even better.

[MaggieD]

51. But it's the on I AM referencing and its MY OP

[morningfog]

54. At least you are proud of your ignorance. I do give you that.

[MaggieD]

77. Oh please, I am willing to learn

Teach me oh master. LOL!

Here's reality. An extremist right wing group has brought their umpteenth frivolous lawsuit against a Dem. You guys seem happy about that. Which I find odd on a Democratic website.

[morningfog]

86. You have as strange a grasp on "happy" as you do the law.

This a serious and I have been predicting it for months.

I'm not happy to see one of only two dem candidates for president be so goddamned compromised.

And you keep ignoring (because it is very uncomfortable, I know) that a federal judge, a Bill Clinton appointee no less, made his decision based on the facts. Are you suggesting it's a conspiracy?

[asuhornets]

135. Do your own research...n/t

[morningfog]

136. Lol. I did. I scrolled up and read the post in question.

My research confirmed that the quote was not there.

[workinclasszero]

7. Links to reich wing slander sites are BS!!

They should be yanked, I dont know why they are allowed on a democratic party board.

[morningfog]

32. What about links to rulings by federal judges!?!??

[jeff47]

33. Yes. Right-wing sites like Google.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=885726

[beam me up scottie]

38. LMAO! I forgot about that!

[MaggieD]

46. Yes, that's me pointing out the BS supporters use of right wing web sites

And here I am doing it again.

[jeff47]

48. The specific right-wing web site you were pointing out was Google.

Do you still think Google is a right-wing web site?

[jeff47]

12. DU approves of candidates breaking the law now? Seriously?

While FOIA doesn't have criminal enforcement provisions, it's still the law. It required Clinton to turn over her emails when she stepped down. She didn't. It required Clinton to respond in a timely manner. She didn't.

Clinton breaking FOIA also lead to a fishing expedition by right-wing lunatics at Judicial Watch, and that fishing expedition has resulted in a Senate and FBI investigation. As well as Judicial Watch getting to continue their fishing expedition.

She's been through this in the 1990s. How could she have possibly learned absolutely nothing? Her stonewalling kept Starr's investigation alive until they found Lewinsky. And she's stonewalling again.

[MaggieD]

17. What law did she break?

And if she broke laws why hasn't she been arrested? LOL!

[jeff47]

23. Read the damn post. She broke FOIA.

And if she broke laws why hasn't she been arrested?

What part of "doesn't have criminal enforcement mechanisms" do you not understand?

[MaggieD]

50. She broke FOIA law? LOL!

In what way? That's novel. No one has even accused her of that. Maybe you should call Judicial Watch and put that bug in their ear. Perhaps they can convince someone to file a criminal case to match their civil case.

Oh, but wait - FOIA has nothing to do with criminal law. Dang.

[jeff47]

52. Guess I'll just copy-n-paste the post over and over again until you read it.

DU approves of candidates breaking the law now? Seriously?

While FOIA doesn't have criminal enforcement provisions, it's still the law. It required Clinton to turn over her emails when she stepped down. She didn't. It required Clinton to respond in a timely manner. She didn't.

Clinton breaking FOIA also lead to a fishing expedition by right-wing lunatics at Judicial Watch, and that fishing expedition has resulted in a Senate and FBI investigation. As well as Judicial Watch getting to continue their fishing expedition.

She's been through this in the 1990s. How could she have possibly learned absolutely nothing? Her stonewalling kept Starr's investigation alive until they found Lewinsky. And she's stonewalling again.

[morningfog]

72. Uh, Maggie. You're a little rusty. You may want to slow down, ease back into it.

You are making a fool of yourself.

The case in which the judge ruled today is a FOIA case. That is the issue.

[Purveyor]

125. +++snort+++

[Fumesucker]

13. And Harry Reid wants Obama to appoint a Republican to the SCOTUS

Yeah, everything is crazy.

[beam me up scottie]

14. Says the person who linked to progressivestoday.

But I'm sure you don't see the irony.

Besides, no one actually linked to Judicial Watch so it can't compare to your op.

[MaggieD]

16. Didn't care for that object lesson, huh?

LMAO. I still think it was genius.

[beam me up scottie]

18. It wasn't really because now you can't complain about right wing sources.

You're guilty of linking to them so your ginned up outrage about a non-existent link to JW is just so much sound and fury.

[MaggieD]

24. Prove it

I'll wait.

[beam me up scottie]

27. It's in your journal, perhaps you should have deleted it?

Besides if anyone wants to see your op they can Google your name and progressivestoday and it'll show up.

You're welcome!

[MaggieD]

31. Go get it.

Go get every right wing link I've ever posted and repost it here. Won't take you long. I'll wait.

[beam me up scottie]

35. No need, it's right there for all to see, it was quite the epic thread.

Even if you delete it from your journal Google and DU both have long memories.

[MaggieD]

37. Should be easy for you then

I'm still waiting.

[beam me up scottie]

44. Click on your journal, scroll down to the 2nd entry and WHOMP!

[MaggieD]

53. Well then see how easy it would be for you?

Go right ahead. I thought it was an epic way to show some extreme hypocrisy. The list of BS supporters reads like a who's who. Is there a reason you don't want to link to it?

[beam me up scottie]

59. The fact that you're not denying it along with it being on record is proof enough.

You linked to a racist tea party website in order to smear Jane Sanders, no amount of obfuscating will change the facts.

Or did you think progressivestoday was a progressive website?

[jeff47]

45. LMGTFY

http://bfy.tw/4RMq

[MaggieD]

56. LOL - yep, that was epic

Thanks!!!

[jeff47]

60. So....your right-wing web site is OK then?

Kind of an odd stance to take.

[MaggieD]

64. Did you not learn anything from the lesson I taught you?

Nothing? Really? I guess not, hence this post about DUers high fiving a right wing nut group like Judicial Watch.

[jeff47]

66. As opposed to high-fiving a right-wing web site like progressivestoday?

Last edited Thu Feb 25, 2016, 12:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Again, is the right-wing web site you cite OK?

Also, you have once again failed to read what you are replying to. I'm not BMUS.

[beam me up scottie]

63. Oh good, you do remember! I knew you would!

[MaggieD]

68. Oh yes, it was epic the way I lured you all in

.... to get you to diss a right wing site (about fucking time) only to then give you the same story from a local newspaper. You all were so embarrassed you had a melt. It was epic!!!

Now, back to Judicial Watch. Can you explain why any DUer would support an ultra right wing group like that? I am befuddled by it.

[beam me up scottie]

76. Actually you destroyed any credibility you might have had on the subject by posting that link.

You can pretend you did it to teach us a lesson but the fact is you wanted to smear Bernie's family so you linked to a right wing website. No one should link to those sites.

Now perhaps you can link to the thread where someone linked to Judicial Watch, I can't find it.

Surely you're not making this all up?

[MaggieD]

82. I don't think I did - lots of people loved me exposing the hypocrisy

I realize you didn't. But I really don't care about what you think.

[beam me up scottie]

88. You mean your own of course, and we did appreciate it very much but love is an exaggeration.

Now where's that thread that links to Judicial Watch, I want to alert on it.

[MaggieD]

92. It was alerted on already

Naturally the BS jury let it stand. That's why that kind of shit is posted here, where in the past it would have resulted in a PPR.

[beam me up scottie]

95. Well MSNBC is an acceptable source, unlike progressivestoday which you cited.

So again sound and fury.

[MaggieD]

98. The source for the story is Judicial Watch and it was about Judicial Watch's right wing lawsuit

Are you saying the OP did not know that, and that none of the folks responding knew that? In that case perhaps the lesson is that people should try to inform themselves better before getting giddy about something.

But in any case, thanks to this OP, they know better now.

[beam me up scottie]

100. MSNBC isn't anywhere near as reprehensible as linking to right wing websites like progressivestoday.

Last edited Thu Feb 25, 2016, 01:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Anyone linking to right wing websites should hang their heads in shame, I agree.

[MaggieD]

102. I take it you hold a bit of a grudge about being taught that lesson

So sorry. Not.

[beam me up scottie]

117. No actually I relish the idea of bringing it up in threads like this.

So that everyone who is OUTRAGED about right wing websites can see just who actually links to them.

[chervilant]

129. Just FYI:

On Wed Feb 24, 2016, 10:24 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I take it you hold a bit of a grudge about being taught that lesson
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1332311

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This disruptive insulting poster is back from a forced time out for one day and stirring shit, flame baiting and fighting. Insulting personal attack, rude, disruptive and inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 24, 2016, 10:35 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While definitely rude-ish its not unacceptable
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is far from the worst derisive and divisive stuff from this DUer. I cannot see a valid reason to hide this one rather sophomoric post. Be patient--it is highly likely this DUer will be on another time out soon.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: WTF is wrong w/people? DU rule #1 don't keep a fight going.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: She does not have a hide worthy post in this one so it is irrelevant what her
history is. Leave it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

You squeaked by this time.

[Bjorn Against]

119. Yes, many of us did love seeing you expose your own hypocrisy

[m-lekktor]

67. The right wing blogger known as "the gateway pundit" runs progressives today.

It's a site that "exposes" progressives.

[beam me up scottie]

71. It's a racist tea party website, have you seen what they say about Obama?

Not to mention the other bigoted hit pieces there, homophobia, sexism, anti-Semitism, you name it they publish it.

34 Hillary supporters rec'd that thread too.

[m-lekktor]

84. I just looked at the "about" part of the site! Nice to know though.

I usually am up on all these site but wasn't familiar with this one!

[beam me up scottie]

90. Several Hillary supporters have linked to it, along with Free Beacon and other right wing sites.

They even linked to Stormfront and tomatobubble if you can believe it.

[MaggieD]

103. LMAO!

[zappaman]

159. Yes, Sanders supporters would never link to Free Beacon, right?

[beam me up scottie]

171. STRAWMAN!

[zappaman]

196. Right.

"Several Hillary supporters have linked to it, along with Free Beacon"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511220950

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1298006

[beam me up scottie]

197. You do know what a strawman is, no? Here, maybe this will help explain the logical fallacy you used:

zappaman

159. Yes, Sanders supporters would never link to Free Beacon, right?

[Vattel]

111. To be fair to the racist tea party website,

they didn't smear Sanders as much as MaggieD did when in her title she claimed that Sanders "funneled" money to his relatives, as if the payments were made through some illicit, covert means.

[beam me up scottie]

114. That's true, it was a vile smear, especially against a candidate's family.

[jeff47]

21. Is Google still a right-wing site? (nt)

[Logical]

134. FFS, sure you did, you got owned! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Hypocrisy is high sacrament in the Church of Mags.

nt

[beam me up scottie]

22. Indeed.

This is quite entertaining.

[m-lekktor]

15. Using Judicial Watch as the excuse to ignore this event isn't gonna make it go away. nt

[MaggieD]

75. What event? A fishing expedition by a right wing nutball group?

That event?

[morningfog]

19. Take it up with the federal judge. You can't wish this away.

[SheenaR]

28. Yup

Right about the same time they started supporting David Brock

[Lucinda]

29. Any port in a storm when you are on a witch hunt!

Thanks for pointing it out.

[MaggieD]

39. You're welcome

Someone needed to.

[leveymg]

47. Let's attack the Federal Judge who granted discovery, too.

Come on, if attack the bearer of bad news is your game, let's be thorough about it. How about the FOIA and Federal Records statutes, those have to partisan inventions as well. And then there's Sec 793 of the Espionage Act, surely we can argue that was written just to get Hillary.

Please, continue dismissing and denying this until after she's nominated as the Democratic candidate so this comes to an ugly conclusion when its too late to field someone else. That would really show the Rightwing meanies not to mess with Hillary.

[MaggieD]

61. I will ignore like I do all this shit from right wingers

[leveymg]

73. Ignore is the last refuge. Enjoy.

[Todays_Illusion]

55. There is so much conservative stuff posted on DU they need a special forum to collect it in.

Then if someone wants to look at it fine they have a place.

[MaggieD]

58. For real

[workinclasszero]

57. Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judicial Watch is conservative and believes in limited government, individual liberty, the free market, traditional values, and a strong national defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

Its shameful that republican attack site material is allowed on DU

[MaggieD]

69. It really is beyond the pale

[workinclasszero]

74. Its a damn teabagger operation

and we have to get slapped in the face with this right wing hate garbage 100 times a day!

[beam me up scottie]

81. Where's the thread? I want to scold the poster for linking to Judicial Watch.

[SidDithers]

62. This week I've seen links to....

dailycaller and the Washington Free Beacon, so I'm not surprised that Judicial Watch is accepted.

Any port in a storm.

Sid

[MaggieD]

70. Just makes me shake my head

[beam me up scottie]

78. Where's the thread where someone linked to Judicial Watch?

[MaggieD]

87. They referenced the judical watch story

"breaking on MSNBC...." still on the front page. I am sure you can find it.

[beam me up scottie]

91. So no one actually cited Judicial Watch? Thanks for clearing that up.

MSNBC is an acceptable source so I doubt you'll get much sympathy.

[MaggieD]

96. The source for the story is Judicial Watch

Are you saying the OP did not know that, and that none of the folks responding knew that? In that case perhaps the lesson is that people should try to inform themselves better before getting giddy about something.

But in any case, thanks to this OP, they know better now.

[beam me up scottie]

99. You mean like learning about racist sites like progressivestoday before linking to them here?

Last edited Thu Feb 25, 2016, 01:03 AM - Edit history (1)

I agree, those posts should all be hidden and the people linking to them should be ashamed of giving them traffic and putting money in their pockets.

[MaggieD]

101. An object lesson for BS'ers on right wing sources certainly seems needed

So I thought I would give you folks another one today. You know as well as I do that we did not have this kind of nonsense in the past. I will continue bringing it up as long as BS supporters keep using them. Sorry. That's the way it is.

[beam me up scottie]

104. And did you learn a lesson after people told you it was a right wing site?

Last edited Thu Feb 25, 2016, 01:04 AM - Edit history (1)

I sure hope so, although from your posts here it doesn't seem like you think you did anything wrong. No one should link to those sites. If it was me I'd be too ashamed to criticize anyone else.

[MaggieD]

106. Link to it

Please. Show folks what you're talking about. I implore you!! LOL!

[beam me up scottie]

108. No need since it's in your journal like I said upthread.

[MaggieD]

113. Okay, well you've said that about 20 times now, and I think people SHOULD go read it

So if you won't link to it, I guess we are done with the subject. LOL!

[workinclasszero]

110. Me too and it makes me sick!

[morningfog]

139. No one cited judicial watch as a source. Don't be fooled.

[Lucinda]

80. Comments from the judge they found - forgive the Washington Times link!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/23/judge-threatens-subpoena-against-clinton-emails/


Judge suspects ‘bad faith’ from Obama administration on Hillary Clinton emails

"A federal judge questioned the Obama administration’s “good faith” in helping keep former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails secret for six years and said he may end up issuing a subpoena to force her to turn over her entire account to the government.

For now, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said he will grant limited discovery to Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that has sued to get a look at Mrs. Clinton’s emails..."


Lots more about his criticism of the Obama admin at the link.

[beam me up scottie]

83. Isn't he a Clinton appointee?

[Lucinda]

85. So? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

93. Well how right wing could he be if Clinton appointed him?

[Lucinda]

97. He could be very rw now. That was a long time ago. n/t

[MaggieD]

89. What has that got to do with anything?

This is about BSers loving them some right wing judicial watch lawsuits. Has nothing to do with who the judge was appointed by.

[beam me up scottie]

94. Except no one cited Judicial Watch, did they? MSNBC carried the story.

[MaggieD]

105. Except the MSNBC story was ABOUT Judicial Watch

As you know.

[beam me up scottie]

107. So MSNBC is out but linking to progressivestoday is okay?

[MaggieD]

109. Why won't you link to this post you keep talking about?

There must be a reason, right? LMAO!

[beam me up scottie]

112. No need since it's in your journal, did you forget?

[angrychair]

176. WOW

CRAP!! Please stop, you make my brain hurt.
There are very few originally sourced news organizations. Reuters is one of those few:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSMTZSAPEC2N0MQ10D

How about The Hill?
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/270447-judge-opens-door-to-new-stage-for-clinton-email-case

NPR?
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/23/467842675/federal-judge-greenlights-conservative-group-to-look-into-clinton-emails

Chicago Tribune?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-super-tuesday-huppke-20160224-story.html

Newsweek?
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-judge-aides-state-department-under-oath-2016-429710

Lebanon Daily News?
http://www.ldnews.com/story/opinion/2016/02/22/hillary-clintons-email-scandal-different/80560436/


There are more. Are these acceptable?

[beam me up scottie]

181. NICELY DONE!

[workinclasszero]

118. Oh now we hear from the Moonie Times

right wing organ of this POS cult leader: Sun Myung Moon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon#Politics
Main article: Washington Times

In 1982 The Washington Times was founded by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate associated with Moon which also owns newspapers in South Korea, Japan, and South America, as well as the news agency United Press International.[75]

The political views of The Washington Times have often been described as conservative.[76][77][78] The Times is read by Washington DC insiders (most of whom also read the more successful Washington Post), notably Ronald Reagan, but has never been a financial success.[79][80] By 2002 Moon had invested roughly $1.7 billion to support the Times,[81] which he called "the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world".[82]

[Lucinda]

120. Yep. And they were the only link I could find that was even covering it.

Says volumes.
And is also why I apologized for evening linking it. But it has comments from the judge who signed on to this mess, which also suggests he may have had a reason for moving on it.

[workinclasszero]

122. Right because its a republican black ops

trying to stop Hillary from getting the nomination. Just like that BS republican committee Hillary was dragged before last year and browbeaten for 12 hours straight.

They got nothing but lies and innuendo and its so sad that lots of democrats are helping them do their dirty work.

[Lucinda]

126. I think that they don't have a lot left, but hoping that somehow she will be indicted.

We have a lot of self proclaimed "Bernie only Dems" so I am not surprised they don't get the references. Maggie went out of her way to lay it out in the OP, and still they aren't listening.

Is it Super Tues yet? I'm getting weary.

[Thinkingabout]

115. I think the whole point was missed here, this is a right wing group, it is

important to recognize this is the same thinking as Rush and Sean, RW groups creating scandals without cause. RW sources are not reliable, it is crap. They will also attack Sanders with the same crap.

[Matariki]

121. You clearly don't understand FOIA or Open Record Laws

Which have not a damn thing to do with who is doing the requesting.

A person working for the government has an OBLIGATION to not use private email for government correspondence, which all needs to be retained for public record.

It's how we keep our government open and transparent and people accountable.

You don't get to pick and choose who this applies to because you like them or not. Or because you don't like the person requesting public records.

And apart from all that, this is going to be a huge albatross around Clinton's neck if she makes it to the general election.

[MaggieD]

124. They don't care about what they are requesting

Their only objective is to smear Democrats.

[Matariki]

127. It doesn't matter. FOIA exists for a good reason.

And NO politician should be doing things to circumvent their non-classified records being public.

And this WILL be an issue in the election and WILL impact Clinton's electability, as sure as you can say President Trump

[MaggieD]

128. Why aren't they suing Colin Powell and Condi Rice then?

Clinton turned over 55K emails. Powell and Rice preserved none.

[Matariki]

130. Did they use private email accounts?

And do you agree they should not have?

[MaggieD]

132. Yes and don't give a shit

I think Powell should have preserved the emails. But I don't care about a private account. I have a close relative that has worked for the State department for decades - their computer infrastructure is for shit. And don't forget - the state department servers were hacked. Clinton's server wasn't.

This is a whole bunch of right wing smear campaign. And it's sad to see Democrats give it a high five.

[Bjorn Against]

123. Oh Maggie, Maggie what have you done?

[NurseJackie]

131. Things are looking pretty bleak for Bernie, so I guess they just use whatever sources they can...

[MaggieD]

133. The desperation seem palpable

But still, giving a high five to right wing Judicial Watch seems like a new low to me. Just sad.

[morningfog]

140. No one used judicial watch. It's a figment meant to disrupt.

[JoeyT]

137. Well, we're defending

Henry Kissinger, and rolling out the "People are voting for X Democrat because they want free stuff!" meme.

Linking to crappy right wing blogs on a website is a drop in the bucket compared to people and ideas that have done real lasting damage.

[riversedge]

138. I have noticed it is now used with glee here on DU. That is WRONG

[morningfog]

141. Can you link to a post which used judicial watch as a source?

[MaggieD]

143. What so you can alert for a call out?

You know which one it is.

[morningfog]

145. You're making it up. I have not seen a single post

Use judicial watch as a source.

PM if you are afraid of an alert, although it's not a call out just to link to a post.

[MaggieD]

147. Where did I say anyone linked to Judicial Watch?

The OP is very clear. I am talking about the glee with which the right wing nut judicial watch frivolous lawsuit is being celebrated by BS supporters.

Any other right wing nut stuff you guys want to high five, or just that one?

[morningfog]

148. The Clinton appointed federal judge does not find it frivolous.

Are you calling the Honorable Justice Sullivan a right wing nut job?

[MaggieD]

151. I think he actually does, but that's not the point

Here is a bio of your latest hero:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Klayman

Larry Elliot Klayman (born July 20, 1951) is a politically conservative American public interest lawyer[1] and former Justice Department attorney who has been called a "Clinton nemesis"[2][3] for his dozens of lawsuits against the Bill Clinton administration in the 90s.[4][5][6] The founder of Judicial Watch[7][8] and the government watchdog group Freedom Watch,[9] he has brought legal action against former Vice President Dick Cheney,[10][11] President Barack Obama,[12][13] OPEC, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,[14] Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan....

Following Klayman's behavior in a 1992 trial in California federal court, Judge William Keller barred Klayman from his courtroom for life; five years later, in a separate case in New York, Klayman's behavior led then district judge Denny Chin to issue a lifetime ban on the attorney practicing law before him.[29] In his book Whores, Klayman gives a detailed account of his dealings with Keller and Chin, and claims that Keller acted "erratic" and was "obviously drunk" at the bench, and that Chin was "belligerent and disrespectful." He says they exemplify why judges should routinely undergo psychological testing.

In 2007, Klayman received a $25,000 retainer from a Daytona Beach woman facing criminal charges[30] and she accused him of not providing legal services in return. The Florida Bar Association mediated the matter and Klayman agreed to pay off a small portion within 90 days, but after the deadline lapsed he was reprimanded by the association.[31][32]

In 2014, Klayman agreed to be publicly censured by the D.C. bar. Klayman represented three individuals who had sued Judicial Watch, his former employer and client, but he failed to obtain Judicial Watch's consent to waive his conflict of interest. Klayman maintained that the bar "recognized there was no evidence of dishonesty or personal gain."[33]


Enjoy.

[morningfog]

154. The judge clearly sees that it is not frivolous.

Otherwise he would not have ruled as he did. This is a FOIA case. Producing the requested set of documents is the issue which he has ordered State to do. They had refused, now they are producing and this discovery is related to that. It's not frivolous just because you don't understand and don't like the outcome.

[MaggieD]

157. On what do you base that - this is a discovery motion

Also, this dude also sued to have Obama deported. High five to that, too?

[MaggieD]

158. Head of Judicial Watch Larry Klayman

Here's what the southern poverty law center says about him. This is the guy you are high fiving:

About Larry 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. 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.”

In His Own Words
“This president is not a president of We the People; he’s a president of his people. … I do not advocate violent revolution; to the contrary … I call upon all of you 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.”
—Speech at an October 2013 rally on Capitol Hill during which Klayman called on the assembled crowd to “Occupy Washington”

“I am more than embarrassed and appalled as a Jew to see my own people at the forefront of a number of scandals now perpetrated by the Muslim-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, and his leftist Jewish government comrades and partners in crime.”
—2013 column for WorldNetDaily in which Klayman, a Jewish-born convert to Christianity, lamented the “Ethical Decline of Liberal Jewish Intelligentsia”

“This country belongs to us, not you. This land is our land! And, we will fight you will [sic] all legal means, including exercising our legitimate Second Amendment rights of self-defense, to end your tyranny and restore freedom to our shores!”
—2014 column for WorldNetDaily in which Klayman encouraged armed militiamen to take on “government goons” and oppose “modern-day despotism”

Background
Like many far-right figures who were children of the 1960s (including WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah and anti-Muslim activist David Horowitz), Klayman started out politically left of center. As a student at Emory Law School in 1976, he volunteered for Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign, “thinking that this seemingly honest peanut farmer and former Georgia governor would be right for the nation after the cesspool of the Nixon years.” He also worked for Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-Wash.), a hawk with a record of supporting civil rights legislation.

Klayman began his professional career in Washington as a prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) consumer affairs division. Upon discovering that “rather than being a friend of the people, the government was often their enemy,” he left and joined a private law firm – whose partners, he reflected in his pompous 2009 memoir Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment, “also proved to be weak and ethically compromised.” Klayman quit and opened his own practice, and began to shape the strategy that would make him famous. “An aggressive approach against the powers that be alone was not enough,” he wrote in Whores. “The government official or judge who was subject to making decisions based on politics or money would need to be held accountable. … Threats of legal action or, if the threats didn’t work, the actual filing of lawsuits against government personnel, were thus a means to coax them to do the right thing.”

Klayman found plenty of government officials to challenge. Convinced that the Clinton administration was up to its ears in conspiracies and corruption, he filed at least 18 lawsuits between 1992 and 2000 against the president, first lady, and other administration officials. In 1994, he founded Judicial Watch, an activist law firm that he conceived as a private Justice Department that would hold government to account. In this role, he deposed numerous high-ranking administration officials and forced the disclosure of thousands of pages of documents — but didn’t really prove much of anything. “It just never went anywhere, other than having to sit through endless depositions with no particular point to them,” former Clinton advisor James Carville told the Washington Post in 2014.

A federal judge who in 2010 finally dismissed the last of Klayman’s Clinton-era suits essentially agreed with Carville. “There’s no there there,” Judge Royce Lamberth wrote in his order dismissing an action centered around “Filegate,” a thoroughly debunked conservative conspiracy theory that claimed that agents of Hillary Clinton had improperly reviewed FBI files on political adversaries.

Though his endless lawsuits irritated many and produced few results, Klayman’s dogged attacks on the Clinton administration did earn him a place among the Clinton-hating conservative glitterati of the 1990s. As a member of the influential and secretive Council for National Policy, which lobbies for ultraconservative positions, he mingled with the likes of Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the anti-feminist Eagle Forum, and right-wing financier Richard Mellon Scaife. He also hooked up with Joseph Farah, the entrepreneurial journalist who founded WorldNetDaily, an ultraconservative, Muslim-bashing online newspaper specializing in antigovernment conspiracy theories and bizarre “facts” about God’s plan for America.

Thin-skinned and paranoid, Klayman has embraced and personalized more than his share of far-right conspiracy theories. He believes the 1995 bombing of Oklahoma City’s Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building by domestic terrorists was actually masterminded by deceased Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and “American neo-Nazis.” He bought into nearly every anti-Clinton conspiracy theory there was, pursuing at least one dead end in court long after Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, who was no friend of the Clintons, had exonerated the president and first lady. In Whores, Klayman went so far as to suggest that agents of the Clinton administration may have attempted to assassinate him. A Jewish-born convert to Christianity, he sees anti-Semitism everywhere — for instance, as the sole motive of a judge who ruled against him in what Klayman considered to be a slam-dunk case. At the same time, he rails against Jews who, he contends, have betrayed the tenets of their faith by voting Democratic or embracing broadly liberal positions. In a 2013 column for WorldNetDaily, he moaned that his heart “throb[s] in shame” over the crimes of “felonious liberal Jews” who have committed “the moral equivalent of ethical and religious bankruptcy” by aligning themselves with the Obama administration.

Klayman is a whole-hearted Islamophobe who sees violent and “stealth” jihad around every corner and under every bed. In 2013, he speculated that a tragic but accidental explosion at a Texas fertilizer plant might have been the work of Muslim saboteurs. He is also a leading light of the anti-Obama “birther” movement who, among other things, contends that the president is secretly Muslim.
.....

In Whores, Klayman proudly described himself as part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” (his words and Hillary Clinton’s) that plotted to “remove [Bill Clinton] by whatever legal and ethical means were necessary.” But he was also an early adversary of Newt Gingrich, and brags about having been “one of the first” to demand that then-House Speaker Gingrich resign over a Clinton-era ethics scandal. In the 2000s, he filed numerous lawsuits challenging the administration of President George W. Bush and was a vocal critic of the USA PATRIOT Act, which significantly expanded the government’s ability to spy on American citizens. Reflecting on the Bush presidency in Whores, he wrote, “Having violated every known concept of civil rights for American citizens …W. did more for this country’s move to socialism than Marx or Mao could ever have done.”

More: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/larry-klayman

[morningfog]

161. He allowed the motion and agreed that the standard had been met.

This is a FOIA case. It is not complicated.

[MaggieD]

162. Here's your hero's work....

You might want to stop embarrassing yourself by supporting him.


About Larry Klayman From SPLC Extremist file.

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. 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.”

In His Own Words
“This president is not a president of We the People; he’s a president of his people. … I do not advocate violent revolution; to the contrary … I call upon all of you 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.”
—Speech at an October 2013 rally on Capitol Hill during which Klayman called on the assembled crowd to “Occupy Washington”

“I am more than embarrassed and appalled as a Jew to see my own people at the forefront of a number of scandals now perpetrated by the Muslim-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, and his leftist Jewish government comrades and partners in crime.”
—2013 column for WorldNetDaily in which Klayman, a Jewish-born convert to Christianity, lamented the “Ethical Decline of Liberal Jewish Intelligentsia”

“This country belongs to us, not you. This land is our land! And, we will fight you will [sic] all legal means, including exercising our legitimate Second Amendment rights of self-defense, to end your tyranny and restore freedom to our shores!”
—2014 column for WorldNetDaily in which Klayman encouraged armed militiamen to take on “government goons” and oppose “modern-day despotism”

Background
Like many far-right figures who were children of the 1960s (including WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah and anti-Muslim activist David Horowitz), Klayman started out politically left of center. As a student at Emory Law School in 1976, he volunteered for Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign, “thinking that this seemingly honest peanut farmer and former Georgia governor would be right for the nation after the cesspool of the Nixon years.” He also worked for Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-Wash.), a hawk with a record of supporting civil rights legislation.

Klayman began his professional career in Washington as a prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) consumer affairs division. Upon discovering that “rather than being a friend of the people, the government was often their enemy,” he left and joined a private law firm – whose partners, he reflected in his pompous 2009 memoir Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment, “also proved to be weak and ethically compromised.” Klayman quit and opened his own practice, and began to shape the strategy that would make him famous. “An aggressive approach against the powers that be alone was not enough,” he wrote in Whores. “The government official or judge who was subject to making decisions based on politics or money would need to be held accountable. … Threats of legal action or, if the threats didn’t work, the actual filing of lawsuits against government personnel, were thus a means to coax them to do the right thing.”

Klayman found plenty of government officials to challenge. Convinced that the Clinton administration was up to its ears in conspiracies and corruption, he filed at least 18 lawsuits between 1992 and 2000 against the president, first lady, and other administration officials. In 1994, he founded Judicial Watch, an activist law firm that he conceived as a private Justice Department that would hold government to account. In this role, he deposed numerous high-ranking administration officials and forced the disclosure of thousands of pages of documents — but didn’t really prove much of anything. “It just never went anywhere, other than having to sit through endless depositions with no particular point to them,” former Clinton advisor James Carville told the Washington Post in 2014.

A federal judge who in 2010 finally dismissed the last of Klayman’s Clinton-era suits essentially agreed with Carville. “There’s no there there,” Judge Royce Lamberth wrote in his order dismissing an action centered around “Filegate,” a thoroughly debunked conservative conspiracy theory that claimed that agents of Hillary Clinton had improperly reviewed FBI files on political adversaries.

Though his endless lawsuits irritated many and produced few results, Klayman’s dogged attacks on the Clinton administration did earn him a place among the Clinton-hating conservative glitterati of the 1990s. As a member of the influential and secretive Council for National Policy, which lobbies for ultraconservative positions, he mingled with the likes of Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the anti-feminist Eagle Forum, and right-wing financier Richard Mellon Scaife. He also hooked up with Joseph Farah, the entrepreneurial journalist who founded WorldNetDaily, an ultraconservative, Muslim-bashing online newspaper specializing in antigovernment conspiracy theories and bizarre “facts” about God’s plan for America.

Thin-skinned and paranoid, Klayman has embraced and personalized more than his share of far-right conspiracy theories. He believes the 1995 bombing of Oklahoma City’s Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building by domestic terrorists was actually masterminded by deceased Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and “American neo-Nazis.” He bought into nearly every anti-Clinton conspiracy theory there was, pursuing at least one dead end in court long after Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, who was no friend of the Clintons, had exonerated the president and first lady. In Whores, Klayman went so far as to suggest that agents of the Clinton administration may have attempted to assassinate him. A Jewish-born convert to Christianity, he sees anti-Semitism everywhere — for instance, as the sole motive of a judge who ruled against him in what Klayman considered to be a slam-dunk case. At the same time, he rails against Jews who, he contends, have betrayed the tenets of their faith by voting Democratic or embracing broadly liberal positions. In a 2013 column for WorldNetDaily, he moaned that his heart “throb[s] in shame” over the crimes of “felonious liberal Jews” who have committed “the moral equivalent of ethical and religious bankruptcy” by aligning themselves with the Obama administration.

Klayman is a whole-hearted Islamophobe who sees violent and “stealth” jihad around every corner and under every bed. In 2013, he speculated that a tragic but accidental explosion at a Texas fertilizer plant might have been the work of Muslim saboteurs. He is also a leading light of the anti-Obama “birther” movement who, among other things, contends that the president is secretly Muslim.

Yet in spite of his relentless attacks on Democrats (and even Republicans who don’t meet his definition of “conservative”), affinity for far-right conspiracy theories, and cozy relationship with leading members of the political right, Klayman defies easy political categorization. He is an admirer of Ralph Nader, a progressive activist best known for his devotion to consumer protection and environmental causes — and also of the late Howard Phillips, a principal architect of the American religious right and co-founder of the far-right Constitution Party, whose members wish to “restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.”

In Whores, Klayman proudly described himself as part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” (his words and Hillary Clinton’s) that plotted to “remove [Bill Clinton] by whatever legal and ethical means were necessary.” But he was also an early adversary of Newt Gingrich, and brags about having been “one of the first” to demand that then-House Speaker Gingrich resign over a Clinton-era ethics scandal. In the 2000s, he filed numerous lawsuits challenging the administration of President George W. Bush and was a vocal critic of the USA PATRIOT Act, which significantly expanded the government’s ability to spy on American citizens. Reflecting on the Bush presidency in Whores, he wrote, “Having violated every known concept of civil rights for American citizens …W. did more for this country’s move to socialism than Marx or Mao could ever have done.”

[morningfog]

163. Is Justice Sullivan a right wing nut job? Easy question.

[MaggieD]

164. He may be - other judges have dismissed the exact same ridiculous shit

"Last month, one of Sullivan’s colleagues, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, dismissed lawsuits brought by Judicial Watch and the Cause of Action Institute that sought to force the government to take more aggressive steps to recover Clinton’s deleted emails under the Federal Records Act.

Plaintiffs “cannot sue to force the recovery of records that they hope or imagine might exist,” Boasberg wrote Jan. 11, adding that, to date, recovery efforts by the State Department and the National Archives under that law “cannot in any way be described as a dereliction of duty.”

Larry Klayman just sues and sues until he gets the judge he wants. His last suit against Bill went on for 14 years.

[morningfog]

165. Different suit, different facts. This is a Clinton appointee.

He's no right winger. You just don't understand the law.

[MaggieD]

168. Which lawsuits has Klayman ever won?

Larry Klayman has never filed a legitimate fucking lawsuit in his life. Show me one he has won.

[morningfog]

177. Which also has nothing to do with the Hon. Sullivan's ruling.

[MaggieD]

180. Has everything to do with it

He sued Bill Clinton for 14 years straight and didn't win that one either.

[morningfog]

182. You just do not understand how the legal system works.

That's fine.

[MaggieD]

184. I understand it just fine

I understand this looney right wing nutball has been able to keep bullshit lawsuits going based on ridiculous motions for 14 years at a time without ever winning.

This is no different. He has 90 lawsuits going against Obama right now.

[Cha]

170. Results of your jury, Maggie..

Here's your hero's work....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1333199

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Insulting and rude.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 24, 2016, 08:41 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: no. stop it. stop alert stalking people. stop it. stop it. stop it. there's is nothing insulting or rude in this post. It's a cut and paste what is rude about that?!??! not liking what someone posts doesn't make it insulting and rude. This is ridiculous. leave it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Larry Klayman is the scum of the earth. Kudos to MaggieD for posting this.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is nothing more "insulting and rude" than a lame alert with a lamer explanation.

Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Pointing out klayman's resume is insulting and rude? You'll have to get a grip alerters. Facts can be posted on DU.. and just because you don't like them is no Excuse for you to run to the alert button and Censor Maggie or anyone else.

It's the BS fans who are doing this. Hillary fans get alerted for posts like this and BS posters get alerted for abusing the terms of Service.

I've seen enough of them to know. Thank you, Skinner!
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Some day I will see a hide worthy alert again I just know it.

[MaggieD]

174. LOL - not even a good try!

Thanks, Cha!

[Cha]

175. Not even.

[Egnever]

186. Full disclosure

I am 7

[Cha]

189. I'm #6, Egnever.. I know #4, too.

What a kickass jury!

[MisterP]

142. no, just if they stonewall the system

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-subpoena/
JW's the one doing the legwork so doubtless they're going to appear in the articles

[MaggieD]

144. Thanks for proving my point - that was handy

LOL!

[Warren DeMontague]

150. Hillary likes the FBI when they're trying to break into everyone's iphone to catch pot smokers

but I guess when they're investigating other stuff, it's totes different.

[MaggieD]

152. The right wing lawsuit has nothing to do with the FBI

[Warren DeMontague]

153. "FBI's Hillary Clinton Investigation Not Letting Up"

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/267269-fbis-clinton-investigation-not-letting-up

[morningfog]

156. Yes. This is a FOIA request. The FBI is conducting a criminal investigation.

[ellennelle]

166. yes, maggie

that means there are 2 legal investigations/cases going on in which hillary is tangled.

whether they're being pursued frivolously with ill intent or not, this baggage is not a healthy thing for the dems going forward.

why is this such a difficult fact to grasp? why is there so much resistance to accepting the larger implications?

especially for the party, given your relentless hyperventilation here about dems supposedly 'high-fiving' rightwingnut sources or whatever.

where does your loyalty really lie, exactly? can you extend your concerns beyond this personality to the party, and for that matter, to the country at large?

this is serious stuff. it merits more deeply and broadly considered analysis than you seem to be willing to give it.

[MaggieD]

169. Dream on

Bernie is not going to win - you know that right? LOL!

No, this is not serious stuff, this is right wing bullshit.

[ellennelle]

160. good lord, like a broken record here

so i have to ask, are you suggesting that we ignore what is happening?

look, these judicial watch and citizens united et al. cretin groups make me puke. have personally defended hillary against them over and over and over and over again, for almost a quarter century. damn tired of it, i am.

and you are absolutely right that there is generally no there there; it's more about nuisance lawsuits to make the headlines and cast asparagus (could not resist that one) on her credibility, etc. no question there; that is their bread and butter.

so far, i think we're on the same page. but here is where we might diverge: regardless of their nefarious intentions, and regardless of hillary's ultimate legal clearance (assuming such), there is just no getting around the frikkin' albatross this places around the neck of the dems' campaigns, not just for prez in the GE, but down ticket.

this point is NOT something we can afford to ignore. i'm reminded of how furious i was with jon edwards - and his wife - that they knew of his time bomb, and still pursued his campaign, fully aware of what it could mean if he won either the nomination or the WH.

i am not saying hillary is guilty of anything, but here's what sticks in my craw. for all the years i have defended her - and bill - for all manner of accusations at varying levels of gravity and questionableness, i have become increasingly distressed at just how close to that legal edge the both of them tend to waltz. they do not seem to quite grasp the importance of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.

even assuming all the legal matters are totally legit, the fact that questions can be raised, and a judge will allow cases to go forward, is just so goddam unnecessary. getting that close to the edge is not respecting the spirit of the law, it's being too clever by half in working the letter of the law.

and forget about the legal matters (tho it does appear her assistant, ms. weiner - who actually seems wonderful, for all i know - was paid in three highly conflicting roles while hillary was SoS; this is so not cool, and she knew this, or damn well should have known). aside from all that, i am frankly flabbergasted she would even consider taking so much money for speeches on wall street. that she would accept funding from all those polluters and corporate bottom feeders and bloodsuckers and then equivocate about keystone and the TPP. that she would spend winter holidays with kissinger of all people, year after year (emails show they were pretty chummy). that she would influence as SoS a raise in minimum wage in haiti because a donor to the clinton foundation did not like it. i could go on....

my concern is, did she believe she would not be called out on this stuff? did she feel it would be hunky dory with the voters she would be courting this year? did she delude herself that the 'vast rightwing conspiracy' would not jump on any of it?

that right there is what simply floors me, that she could not show better judgment on these matters. which was the issue on which i fell off the fence into obama's backyard 8 years ago. her campaign immediately went off the rails as soon as it looked like she was no longer inevitable. she hooked up with mark penn, of all people, and he's now on board again, and i smelled it a couple debates back when she came out swinging with that 'artful smear' sneer, even before his name was announced. that was the guy who told her to channel margaret thatcher in 08, ferchrissake.

this is just so NOT what i want in the WH. too much scandal history, right or not, real or not. too much casual loosey goosey with the rules, like they don't apply to her. too much wiffle waffle on issues that are so important, like TPP and keystone and the goddam criminal banks.

sheez. so sorry. had to get this off my chest. i just do not get why you supporters of her, with all due respect, sincerely, why is all this stuff of concern so ok with you?

just boggles my mind. i have issues with obama's decisions in several matters, but i can understand the logic of most of them (TPP, not at all). but i have to say, i'd vote for him again in a heartbeat given half a chance, as i trust his character and demeanor.

sadly - and i mean this, i DO wish i was wrong here - hillary's record speaks too loudly and insistently against consistent character or measured demeanor.

bernie comes closer to those criteria. plus, he's beholden to no one but the voters. clear and easy choice.

[MaggieD]

167. Larry Klayman has sued every damn Dem he can think of

Sued to deport Obama. Sued Justice Kagan. Vowed to pursue the Clinton's forever. Sued Bill Clinton for 14 years straight. Sued to stop a mosque from being built. Sued to make Terry Shiavo stay on life support. Sued Rachael Maddow.

In 2013 he held a “citizens grand jury” in Ocala, Fla., found President Obama guilty of “defraud[ing]…the American people into electing an illegal person for the Office of President of the United States, “sentenced” the president to 10 years imprisonment, and demanded that he “forthwith surrender himself into the custody of the American people and the people of Florida.”

He's a fucking nut. So yeah, you should ignore fucking right wing nuts. IMO.

[Matariki]

172. Thanks for talking sense Ellennelle

in a thread full of nattering nonsense.

[beam me up scottie]

178. ^^^THIS^^^

You should make that into an op!

[Matariki]

179. Agreeing w/ Beam Me Up Scottie - this needs to be it's own OP

passionate writing!

[MaggieD]

183. Yes, this is complete right wing bullshit

And of course you should ignore it. Everybody in the world should ignore that right wing nut job Larry Klayman.

Can you think of any of his other nutty shit you would take seriously? Love to hear what. Do tell.

[morningfog]

185. Do you think Justice Sullivan nutty shit too?

You must. He made the ruling and you think it is frivolous and nutty. So justice Sullivan must be too, don't you agree?

[MaggieD]

187. Have no idea - it's not relevant

Doesn't change the fact that this is right wing bullshit. Obviously you do not understand how this nutty group operates in court. This shit has been thrown out over and over. And he just makes a new motion, a new suit, a new judge. That's how he sued Bill under the same case for 14 years.

Or maybe you just like right wing bullshit if it's directed at Clinton. Might that be it? I gotta say, I've been involved in Dem politics for 38 years and DU is the very first place I've ever heard anyone defend Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch. It's a new low for DU, IMO.

[morningfog]

188. Lol. No one is defending judicial watch. And the judge's ruling is most relevant.

You are clueless as to how judges operate, obviously.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

190. If it's BS then why turn a FOIA request into a legal fight in the middle of an election year?

That screams A) political malpractice, B) consciousness of guilt or C) both A and B

If there's no there, there, then just satisfy the damn FOIA request and get this out of the headlines. There's no FOIA exception for "because RWers!"

Frankly, the level of political incompetence should be disqualifying even if -- especially if -- nothing illegal transpired.

[MaggieD]

191. The FOIA is to the State Department - not Clinton

The fishing expedition subpoena is because they are trying to prove Clinton used a non governmental email address to deliberately avoid future FOIA requests. Which is moronic since a) 90% of the email went to .gov addresses, and b) she gave State all her work emails.

These nutballs also think they are entitled to her non-work emails as well.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

192. The (Bill) Clinton-appointed judge would appear to disagree with you.

[MaggieD]

193. Disagree with me on what?

[Gothmog]

194. Larry Klayman is an idiot

Klayman is a really nasty conservative idiot

[bigtree]

195. Bernie folks here absolutely do

...some here even going as far as praising Klayman's past assault on Pres. Clinton.