webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

judicial watch bak klayman

SEE MAIN

seems to be showing up in trump death spiral?

-=-=

an 11 26 DING DONG? DISBAR

On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld the disbarment of a prominent MAGA lawyer and right-wing judicial activist who has previously been accused of weaponizing the courts at the behest of President Donald Trump. Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman had appealed the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling last year, which imposed a two-year suspension on his law license, but the country’s highest court has maintained the punishment.

Klayman has been one of the foremost conservative legal activists since launching Judicial Watch in 1994, which has primarily targeted Democratic administrations and election officials to push a right-wing court agenda. Over the past decade, the organization and Klayman himself have played key roles in pushing Trump’s voter denial claims, targeting DEI policies and asserting MAGA conspiracy theories, and the group was found to be one of the top purveyors of false information regarding Covid.

Through it all, Klayman has been repeatedly sanctioned by various courts. He was banned for life from appearing before judges in California and New York due to his erratic in-court behavior. He’s previously been suspended for periods of 18 months by both the D.C. Court of Appeals and D.C. District Court over ethics concerns, and these previous disciplinary actions were taken into account by the Florida Supreme Court when it suspended him last November, ruling that he had broken ethical rules by representing a client for whom he developed romantic feelings. According to the Florida Supreme Court, “the record includes writings from Klayman in which he expressed to [a client] that his emotions had rendered him nonfunctional as a lawyer,” and the court also found that he'd engaged in “a pattern of misconduct,” “bad faith obstruction of disciplinary proceedings,” “submission of false evidence” and more, lending justification for a lengthy suspension. While he said at the time that he was “confident” the decision would be overturned, the U.S. Supreme Court has now upheld that disbarment.

The decision throws a wrench into a number of Klayman’s current cases. Most recently, Klayman has been representing MAGA influencer Laura Loomer in a defamation lawsuit against HBO and comedian Bill Maher. In September, he also filed suit against progressive influencer Hasan Piker seeking $150 million in damages under claims he’s incited violence against Jewish and Christian Zionists. Piker was quick to respond to the news of Klayman’s disbarment, posting, “Isn’t this the guy who was suing me for antisemitism for like a billion dollars?!” Many other courtwatchers celebrated the ruling. “This is a beautiful precedent,” declared one, adding, “More of this please.” And another summed up the sentiments among many, asserting, “Couldn’t have happened to a griftier guy.”

-=-=

Joseph E. DiGenova. peter s govt acct inst mercer

kinda schizophrenic? maybe that's why there's also Jud Confirm network. not anymore

new term: figleaf: FIRE hippie girlfriend theory; they trot out cheney secret task force as bona fides, non-partisan [what was the deal on that anomaly?]

see fitton and chris farrell, lots of conspiracy

klayman gone, oft cited by Bb and Dc

capt 12/16

html enddata-entry

tag

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/people/larry-klayman/

rww 823

far-right activist and legal gadflyLarry Klaymanannounced this month that a “citizen grand jury” had indicted President Joe Biden and members of his family, and that a “citizens’ judge” has handed down felony convictions after a “trial” in Boise, Idaho.

“BREAKING: The Bidens Convicted!” was the subject line of an August 24 email sent by Klayman’s group Freedom Watch to readers of the right-wing publication Human Events. Klayman has also talked about the Biden “conviction” in online videos, where he has also posted clips of “evidence” being presented to the fake judge in the fake trial.

Klayman said that “sentencing of the corrupt Biden plan” will be held August 29:{. “We will then commission established law enforcement and the military to take Biden and his son and his brother into custody if they don’t turn themselves in, and frankly, put them in the slammer,” he said in a}video:{posted on YouTube. He has promised future trials of public health official Anthony Fauci and other perceived enemies of the MAGA movement.}:

Klayman’s cosplay has no legal standing, but could inspire violent behavior from one of former President Donald Trump’s passionate supporters.Klayman denounced the “Marxian Jewish left” he said was persecuting Trump, calling for a “counterrevolution.” He called the judge in the Georgia indictment an “anti-white racist.” He said he believes that someone in Trump’s orbit will be harmed, which would set off Trump’s supporters.

Klayman’s escapades in the past have included a citizen grand jury that “convicted” then-President Barack Obama of fraud, and a failed rally at the White House that was meant to force Obama out of the White House.

Klayman is using his new version to raise money for Freedom Watch, a group he founded after falling out with the leaders of Judicial Watch, which he also founded.

Tags: Larry Klayman Civil War MAGA Freedom Watch

jANUARY 6, 2022 5:30 PM

AUGUST 13, 2021 5:32 PM

Right Wing Round-Up: Deal With It

JUNE 4, 2021 5:30 PM

Right Wing Bonus Tracks: Filled With Hypocrisy

APRIL 9, 2021 5:30 PM

Right Wing Bonus Tracks: The Party of Satan

APRIL 8, 2021 11:53 AM

Laura Loomer Contemplates Getting a ‘Nazi-Style Holocaust Tattoo’ to Symbolize Her ‘Digital Extermination’ on Social Media

APRIL 7, 2021 5:30 PM

Right Wing Bonus Tracks: Trigger Some Libs

MARCH 29, 2021 5:32 PM

Right Wing Round-Up: Something About a Prophet, Honor, and His Family

JANUARY 6, 2021 5:32 PM

Right Wing Round-Up: MAGA Insurrection

DECEMBER 23, 2020 5:30 PM

Right Wing Bonus Tracks: Godfather of the LGBTQ Mafia

DECEMBER 21, 2020 5:30 PM

Right Wing Bonus Tracks: Time to Move On

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-blame-it-on-the-blue-states/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-blame-it-on-the-blue-states/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-blame-it-on-the-blue-states/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-blame-it-on-the-blue-states/SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 5:32 PM

Right Wing Round-Up: Blame it on the Blue States

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-spiritual-death/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-spiritual-death/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-spiritual-death/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-spiritual-death/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-spiritual-death/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-spiritual-death/SEPTEMBER 02, 2020 5:30 PM

Right Wing Bonus Tracks: Spiritual Death

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-flamethrowers-and-explosives/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-flamethrowers-and-explosives/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-flamethrowers-and-explosives/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-flamethrowers-and-explosives/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-flamethrowers-and-explosives/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-flamethrowers-and-explosives/AUGUST 24, 2020 5:30 PM

Right Wing Bonus Tracks: Flamethrowers and Explosives

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-qanon-has-no-place-in-congress/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-qanon-has-no-place-in-congress/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-qanon-has-no-place-in-congress/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-qanon-has-no-place-in-congress/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-qanon-has-no-place-in-congress/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-qanon-has-no-place-in-congress/AUGUST 12, 2020 5:32 PM

Right Wing Round-Up: QAnon Has No Place in Congress?

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-reverse-slavery/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-reverse-slavery/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-reverse-slavery/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-reverse-slavery/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-reverse-slavery/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-reverse-slavery/JULY 06, 2020 5:30 PM

Right Wing Bonus Tracks: Reverse Slavery

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-unfit-for-office/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-unfit-for-office/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-unfit-for-office/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-unfit-for-office/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-unfit-for-office/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-unfit-for-office/JUNE 18, 2020 5:32 PM

Right Wing Round-Up: Unfit for Office

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-a-great-success-story/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-a-great-success-story/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-a-great-success-story/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-a-great-success-story/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-a-great-success-story/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-round-up-a-great-success-story/APRIL 30, 2020 5:33 PM

Right Wing Round-Up: A Great Success Story

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-20-trillion-ought-to-cover-it/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-20-trillion-ought-to-cover-it/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-20-trillion-ought-to-cover-it/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-20-trillion-ought-to-cover-it/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-20-trillion-ought-to-cover-it/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-20-trillion-ought-to-cover-it/MARCH 18, 2020 5:31 PM

Right Wing Bonus Tracks: $20 Trillion Ought to Cover It

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-demonic-democrats/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-demonic-democrats/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-demonic-democrats/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-demonic-democrats/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-demonic-democrats/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-demonic-democrats/MARCH 03, 2020 5:15 PM

Right Wing Bonus Tracks: Demonic Democrats

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-the-salvation-test/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-the-salvation-test/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-the-salvation-test/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-the-salvation-test/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-the-salvation-test/https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-the-salvation-test/JANUARY 06, 2020 5:32 PM

Right Wing Bonus Tracks: The Salvation Test

note victim, always reluctant, 1776

mma 922 law lic suspend dc chryon]

LARRY KLAYMAN (FOUNDER, JUDICIAL WATCH): Here's what we're talking about right now. It's a full-court press.It's not an insurrection, it's an inquisition by the left to destroy all opposition to their total takeover of this country.And the place they really are most interested in is destroying conservative lawyers who can't fight back in court. So where does that leave us? I don't want to see this. But we're headed into revolution. And that's why we're doing what we're doing. We're trying Biden beforecitizens' grand juriesand citizens' trials for thebribery from communist China, Ukraine, and Russia.

You can see that at our website at FreedomWatchUSA.org. We're trying Fauci, he talked about COVID-19. He's responsible for the death of 6 million people and counting worldwide. He gave the virus to the communist Chinese, the seeds of it, the SARS virus, with $3.7 million of grants from the Obama-Biden administration. So this is where we are.And I relish the fight because we're trying to do it peacefully and legally, but we are not far off. I mean, January 6 will look like a warm-up act. In fact, that wasn't violent. It was peaceful, by and large. A few people on either side, that's it. But next time it's going to be like the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789, in France. That's where,regrettably, wemaybe headed. And you, and I, and One America News, andothers are trying to prevent that, but it looks inevitable at this pointalmost.

ADDISON SMITH (HOST):Well, it's just, you know, when we don't have a justice system anymore. When we don't have a justice system in place that's actually impartial and that actually is protecting the civil liberties and the rights of both sides, where else can you turn to, Larry?Conservatives can't turn to the justice system anymore. They can't turn to lawyers like you for help because they're just going to suspend your license. They can't turn to Trump because Trump's getting raided and decimated by the FBI. So conservatives have nowhere to turn to. Our own justice system has betrayed us.

KLAYMAN: Well, it's not true in all the states, by the way. I mean, D.C. and New York are the exceptions, OK? They're highly leftist, they're borderline socialist-communist, I mean, actually they're socialist for sure, borderline communist in their approach. But yes, this is an attempt across the board. And it's not gonna stop me from filing cases, I still can do it even in my own personal capacity. But the country needs to understand that we are at war. Biden declared war on us a few weeks ago. MAGA, you know, Make America Great Again. We are white domestic terrorists. That's what we are, white male domestic terrorists, primarily. Women can be domestic terrorists, too, in his estimation.But he has declared war. And we have not declared war on him.It reminds me of the days leading up and the actual day itself of July 4, 1776. Our Founding Fathers did not declare war on the king. They simply said we're going our own way. We've had it. When in the course of human events, I'm paraphrasing from the Declaration of Independence, the sovereign no longer represents the people. The people have a right under the laws of nature and nature's god, not the law of the state, not the law of the king, to alter or abolish that government and to form a new government by and for the people with equal rights for everyone in pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. That's the Declaration of Independence.

...

Do you think we can survive another two years with Joe Biden? We're already on our knees. We're on our back, gasping for air. This guy has destroyed the country in just two years.So consequently, we need to form a new government. Take immunity away from judges. Take immunity away from federal government officials. Make them accountable to the rule of law.Give the American people more standing to bring lawsuits in honest courts. Elect judges, don't appoint them. Now they're appointed through legalized bribes called campaign contributions. Is it no wonder that even Trump's own judges are throwing the January 6 protesters in prison?

...

It takes a counter-revolution. Wake up America.Wake up America. If you care about your kids, grandkids, future generations as our Founding Fathers did, get up off the couch if you're retired, stop counting yourshekels,your money, and [SEND IT TO US AT] join us at FreedomWatchUSA.org. Or if you're middle-aged or young, you're going to have no country left. You almost have no country left right now. So we're trying to do it in the peaceful and legal way. The American people own our legal system, not the political hacks on the federal bench and some bar disciplinary counsels and other places in this country. We will rise up, and with God's divine providence, we will prevail as our Founding Fathers did.

==

DECEMBER 3, 2018

Larry Klayman Likens Jerome Corsi to Jesus and the Founding Fathers

Last week,ardentright-wingconspiracytheoristandprominent birtherJerome Corsiannouncedthat he had retained the legal services ofright-wing attorneyandequallyardentconspiracytheoristLarry Klayman to represent him inhis battleagainst Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Corsi has said he expects to be indicted by Mueller, and says he was offered aplea deal, which he says he rejected. Instead, Corsi has filed acriminal complaintagainst the special counsel.

“Jerry Corsi is really standing in there, not for himself,” Klayman said, “but also for the American people. He’s doing that in the mold of our Founding Fathers. He’s risking his life because he believes in this country and he will not be ramrodded and coerced into testifying falsely.”

Klayman predicted that after Muller files his report, Democrats in the House of Representatives will use it to file articles of impeachment against Trump in order to “grind this country to a halt” and prevent Trump from carrying out his duties, which Klayman said “is going to destroy this country.”

Klayman said that this effort can already be seen in the guilty plea entered by “this little creep” Michael Cohen for lying to Congress about Trump’s ties to Russia, which he said is now preventing Trump “from doing all that he wants to do” because he is being hamstrung by concerns about optics and his political future.

“He shouldn’t back off,” Klayman said. “His instincts are great. I love this president. Go for the fences. Don’t worry about it. Do what you have to do and let the rest of them be dammed. And that’s what Jerry Corsi is saying, ‘Be dammed. I’m gonna take this up the line legally, I’m not going to be railroaded into a plea agreement’ … This is not something that you can turn the other cheek on. Jesus wouldn’t have turned the other cheek. He told Pontius Pilate to go stick it. He wasn’t going to lie that he wasn’t the Son of God. He told him to take a hike.”

9 22

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

Klayman is a pathologically litigious attorney and professional gadfly notorious for suing everyone from Iran’s Supreme Leader to his own mother. He has spent years denouncing Barack Obama as a crypto-Communist Muslim, convening meaningless “citizens grand juries,” and railing against an endless list of enemies.

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 entitled “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, “Mounting Government Tyranny Furthers Revolution,” in which Klayman encouraged armed militiamen to take on “government goons” and oppose “modern-day despotism”

“No other Muslim has done as much, particularly given his power as president of the United States, to further Allah’s goal of a Christian and Jew-free world.”

—2015 column for WorldNetDaily, “Muslim of the Year,” in which Klayman again claims President Obama is secretly a Muslim and not a natural born U.S. citizen

“[T]he Islamic religion and Muslim culture is [sic] simply not compatible with a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values and roots. To the extent they can be kept out of this country, this must be done. We are at war with Islam.”

—2016 column for WorldNetDaily, “America’s Sheriff Goes Before Supremes on Amnesty,” in which Klayman discusses legal proceedings he’s begun with Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio

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 Carvilletold 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.”

Klayman’s Bush-era lawsuits did not make the headlines, and at some point in the early 2000s, he broke with Judicial Watch and struck out on his own, competing as a 2004 candidate for the U.S. Senate in Florida’s Republican primary. Though he promised to shrink the government, push for America’s withdrawal from the United Nations, and demand “the immediate removal of Cuba dictator-in-chief Fidel Castro — by force if necessary,” Klayman lost the primary.His reputation also took a hit when the left-leaning Nation magazine suggested that he might have violated campaign finance law by soliciting a loan from the direct-mail outfit that assisted with his campaign.

Having failed in a run for public office that he’d hoped would set him up to challenge Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential race, Klayman returned to private practice. Though he involved himself in the case of Terry Schiavo — a woman in a persistent vegetative state who became a cause célèbre for the Christian Right, which fought to prolong her life by artificial means — and founded Freedom Watch as a sort of successor to Judicial Watch (which he sued in the mid-2000s), Klayman appeared to be fading into obscurity. Until 2008, that is, when the election of Barack Obama, America’s first black president, put the wind back into his sails.

Klayman quickly became a leading proponent of various “birther” conspiracy theories, claiming that Obama was constitutionally ineligible for office because he is somehow not a “natural born citizen.” In 2011, acting on behalf of publisher and friend Joseph Farah, who runs WorldNetDaily, Klayman sued Esquire magazine for more than $120 million over a satirical piece claiming that Farah had decided to destroy 200,000 copies he published of Jerome Corsi’s Where’s The Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President, which was about to go on sale when the president released his birth certificate. That suit was dismissed in June 2012. He also represented two far-right politicians (the Constitution Party’s Virgil Goode and Alabama GOP leader Hugh McInnish) who launched a failed effort in Alabama state court to have Obama removed from the 2012 ballot.

Throughout Obama’s first term, Klayman continued to file the sort of grandiose, unwinnable lawsuits that had made him famous in the 1990s. He sued OPEC, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and the country of Iran, seeking in that last case damages of $10 trillion. In 2011, he represented gay-hating celebrity preacher Bradlee Dean in a $50 million defamation suit against MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and another reporter, which ended with a court ordering Dean to reimburse his opponents for nearly $25,000 in legal fees. The same year, naming himself as plaintiff, he sued Facebook and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, for failing to act quickly enough on requests to take down pages posted by Palestinian militants that called for the destruction of Israel and Jews worldwide. In 2012, a judge found the defendants were shielded from liability under the Communications Decency Act.

Given his particular obsession with the supposed dangerousness of the Obama administration — and the supposed illegitimacy of Obama himself — the fact that the president made it back onto the ballot in 2012 seems to have been some kind of tipping point for Klayman. In a rambling manifesto published in April of that year, Klayman claimed to have the power to impanel “citizens’ grand juries” and indict perceived enemies of the American people. Citing the Magna Carta, Marbury vs Madison (the 1803 case which established that the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say over laws’ constitutionality), and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s 1992 opinion in United States v. Williams, Klayman concluded: “Although the customary practice for summoning a federal grand jury is by a court … the [Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] does not preclude citizens from exercising their own rights to impanel grand juries under the Constitution. … [A]nd if a true bill of indictment results, the courts are technically required to commence proceedings and the executive branch to enforce the court’s edicts.”

Using language and logic reminiscent of that put forth by antigovernment “sovereign citizens” groups (which have long claimed the right to convene their own private grand juries, hold trials in pretend courtrooms, and mete out justice according to their own rules), Klayman continued, “if the courts refuse and the executive branch does not carry out its duties by, for instance, arresting the criminally accused, Americans do have a right to make ‘citizens arrests,’ hold trials and legally mete out punishment in their own right.” Though decades of failed sovereign citizens’ grand juries have amply illustrated that no such right exists, Klayman pressed ahead with his ridiculous scheme. On Sept. 18, 2013, 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.”

The president failed to turn himself him, and less than a month later, on Oct. 13, 2013, Klayman appeared on the steps of Washington, D.C.’s World War II Memorial and called on the assembled crowd to “wage a second American nonviolent revolution, to use civil disobedience, and to demand that this president leave town … put the Koran down and … come out with his hands up.” Obama’s “last chance,” he said, would come on Nov. 19, when Klayman’s newly formed “Reclaim America Now Coalition” would descend on Washington’s LaFayette Park and refuse to leave until the president resigned.

Klayman predicted that at least 2 million people would attend the Nov. 19 kickoff. In the event, only about 100 people — 1/20,000th the promised number — made it to the rally, which featured speeches by a raft of far-right bigwigs who had aligned with Klayman and his Reclaim America effort. Coalition members included Jihad Watch, an anti-Muslim hate group whose director, Robert Spencer, believes that Islam is an inherently violent religion and that multiculturalism is an anti-Christian conspiracy to destroy the West; You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International, an anti-gay “ministry” and hate group whose leader, Bradlee Dean, has argued that it is moral to execute LGBT people; Ride for the Constitution, a shadowy coterie of truckers who made news in October with plans to jam Washington, D.C., roads until their demands, which included the president’s impeachment, were met; Gun Owners of America, a pro-militia group that has been described as “eight lanes to the right of the NRA”; and a bevy of other extremist organizations united by their loathing of America’s 44th president.

Though he was dead wrong about the popularity of his peaceful revolution, Klayman, like the proverbial stopped clock, does manage to be right, or at least possibly right, every once in a while. In 2013, he won a landmark victory against the National Security Agency, whose systematic tracking of Americans’ phone records recently had been revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Federal Judge Richard J. Leon agreed with Klayman that the agency’s metadata collection program was “almost certainly” illegal under the Fourth Amendment. Leon stayed his decision so the government could file an appeal, and other federal judges later ruled differently in a number of similar challenges, so the question of the program’s legality will likely not be resolved for some time. Despite these and other limitations, the New York Timeseditorial board described the ruling as “an enormous symbolic victory for opponents of the bulk-collection program, and a reminder of the importance of the adversarial process.”

Klayman clearly considers himself morally superior to most mortals. Stressing this point in Whores, he bragged that, as a child, he cried when a vending machine returned too much change. But in recent years, the sanctimonious conspiracist has begun to fall afoul of the law himself. The Florida bar publicly reprimanded him in 2011, and in June 2013, the Phoenix New Times reported that the Arizona State Bar was investigating him, possibly in connection with reports that he had misled the court about an administrative matter related to his appearance in a lawsuit against citizens attempting to recall Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County’s immigrant-hating, Obama-bashing sheriff. Also in 2013, New Times published excerpts from an Ohio appellate court ruling that found Klayman had “inappropriately touched” his own children.

Despite these setbacks, Klayman remains as gung-ho as ever, and apparently unconcerned about maintaining what little respect he gained via his initial victory against the NSA. Though Klayman’s “won-lost record in public interest cases is incalculably terrible,” as the Washington Post pointed out in 2014, the veteran gadfly in 2014 signed on to represent Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, whose refusal to pay over $1 million in grazing fees led to a dangerous standoff between Bureau of Land Management officials and armed militiamen in April of that year. Describing the standoff as the start of a “full-scale revolution” in an April 2014 WorldNetDaily column, Klayman placed himself, as ever, on the front lines of an imaginary battle between “patriots” and the forces of evil. “We the People have now risen up and we intend to remove you legally from office. This country belongs to us, not you. This land is our land!” he wrote. “And, we will fight you with all legal means, including exercising our legitimate Second Amendment rights of self-defense, to end your tyranny and restore freedom to our shores!”

Though Klayman may have tried to represent Cliven Bundy following the standoff at his Nevada ranch, he was not allowed to. Nor was he allowed to join Bundy’s legal team following the rancher’s arrest in 2016. (After several of the Cliven’s sons staged an armed occupation of a wildlife refuge near Burns, Ore., the Bundy patriarch was arrested and charged with a litany of crimes, all relating to the 2014 standoff.) Klayman volunteered his services to Bundy, but Gloria Navarro, Nevada’s chief federal judge, issued a statement saying that she would not allow Klayman to enter the case until he provided her with documentation that a disciplinary proceeding against him in Washington, D.C., had returned a favorable resolution.

==

looks like russiagate BS

https://thehill.com/people/larry-klayman/ 9 22

thehill klayman p1

All Latest Larry Klayman News

    NATIONAL SECURITY

Ex-NSA head asks court to toss out lawsuit

BY JULIAN HATTEM

02/19/16

    DEFENSE

Administration denies playing ‘shell game’ with spy programs

BY JULIAN HATTEM

02/12/16

    COURT BATTLES

Obama’s gun orders hit with first lawsuit

BY TIM DEVANEY

01/19/16

    NATIONAL SECURITY

Judge dismisses racketeering case against Clintons

BY JULIAN HATTEM

08/11/15

    NATIONAL SECURITY

Judge asked to seize USB flash drive containing Hillary Clinton’s email

BY JULIAN HATTEM

08/06/15

    NATIONAL SECURITY

Obama, Congress sued over Iran deal

BY JULIAN HATTEM

07/23/15

    NATIONAL SECURITY

Court ruling on NSA spying can’t wait, activist says

BY JULIAN HATTEM

05/27/15

conservative legal activist Larry Klaymanis suing President Obama and members of Congress over a deal on Iran’s nuclear program that he claims flies in the face of the Constitution.

The lawsuit, Klayman says, aims to block both the treaty and the “unconstitutional” law that Congress passed to guarantee a review of the multinational nuclear accord.

{mosads}The White House and Congress “gave away, abrogated and undermined [Klayman’s] constitutional rights, putting him in danger, including the protections inherent in the Constitution requiring a two-thirds vote to ratify a treaty,” he said in the lawsuit. 

Under the Constitution, two-thirds of the Senate needs to approve any international treaty signed by the president.

But there will be no such vote on the Iran deal, which sets restrictions on the country’s nuclear activity over the next decade in exchange for the rolling back of sanctions on its oil and financial sectors. 

The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA), which lawmakers passed earlier this year to give them oversight of the deal, violates the Constitution “by changing the method and radically altering the requirements by which treaties are ratified, who ratifies treaties, and the voting requirements to do so,” Klayman alleges in his lawsuit.

“As a result, INARA is unconstitutional, invalid, and void,” he added.

The constitutional argument has become popular among some conservatives, who feel that Congress sold them out by passing the Iran review bill, which allows lawmakers to pass a resolution for or against the deal, or to do nothing.

However, the definition of a treaty is tricky, and presidents have tended to have the power to declare whether an agreement is a formal treaty or not. Lawmakers have insisted that the passage of the Iran review bill actually gave them leverage in the White House’s negotiations.

In addition to Obama, Klayman — a Florida resident — also names Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Fla.) in the lawsuit.

Rubio, a 2016 contender and critic of the Iran deal, said Thursday that Obama’s successor could unilaterally kill the agreement.

Klayman has a long history of aggressively filing lawsuits, which have occasionally become a thorn in the side of political officials.

For instance, a lawsuit of his against the National Security Agency succeeded in having a top federal court declare a controversial spying program illegal earlier this year.

TAGSIRANLARRY KLAYMAN

    COURT BATTLES

Court hears challenge to Obama’s immigration actions

BY LYDIA WHEELER

05/04/15 1:10 PM ET

    TECHNOLOGY

Court skeptical of seizing Clinton’s server

BY JULIAN HATTEM

04/02/15 11:56 AM ET

    NEWS

Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails

BY JESSE BYRNES

03/25/15 10:23 AM ET

    TECHNOLOGY

NSA phone program faces key court test

BY JULIAN HATTEM

11/02/14 8:00 AM ET

    TECHNOLOGY

Facebook wins case over anti-Jewish page

BY JULIAN HATTEM

06/13/14 11:52 AM ET

    TECHNOLOGY

High court won’t take up NSA case

BY JULIAN HATTEM

04/07/14 11:08 AM ET

    NEWS

DOJ files motion to block release of NSA info

BY REBECCA SHABAD

01/08/14 10:25 PM ET

freedomwatch repost wapo?!

Thomas, wife of Supreme Court justice, says she attended Jan. 6 'Stop the Steal' rally before Capitol attack

By Mariana Alfaro

Washington Post

March 14, 2022

Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, for the first time has publicly acknowledged that she participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, "Stop the Steal" rally on the Ellipse that preceded the storming of the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob, raising questions about the impartiality of her husband's work.

In an interview with the conservative Washington Free Beacon that was published Monday, Thomas, who goes by Ginni, said she was part of the crowd that gathered on the Ellipse that morning to support President Donald Trump. Trump was claiming falsely that widespread voter fraud had delivered the presidency to Democrat Joe Biden — a falsehood he continues to repeat.

Thomas said she was at the rally for a short time, got cold and went home before Trump took the stage at noon that day.

Continue Reading.....

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/03/24/judicial-watch-investigator-supported-covid-research-anti-vaccine-former-trump-official

no lnx

senior Judicial Watch investigator William Marshall twice donated to a GiveSendGo campaign for “Covid Research” started by an anti-vaccine former Trump administration official linked to the Canadian and U.S. trucker convoys, according to Hatewatch’s review of a leaked donation list.

The donations are further evidence of support by the staff of Judicial Watch, which claims to be a nonpartisan watchdog organization, for hard-right causes that became mainstream during the Trump administration. Hatewatch previously reported Judicial Watch’s director of investigations, Christopher Farrell, paid dues to the pro-Trump, antigovernment extremist Oath Keepers.

[Convoy protest

Trucks that are part of a trucker convoy to protest COVID-19 vaccine mandates for cross-border truck drivers are seen on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Jan. 28, 2022. (Photo by Reuters/Patrick Doyle)]

Marshall supported Dr. Paul Alexander, a Canadian with a doctorate in health research methodologies, who worked as a senior science adviser to the former assistant secretary for public affairs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during Trump’s term.

The donation list comes from the February GiveSendGo leak. GiveSendGo is a Christian crowdfunding site favored by the hard right. Siblings Heather Wilson and Jacob Wells launched the site in 2014.

Transparency journalism collective DDoSecrets shared over 5GB of the leaked data with Hatewatch.

Marshall did not respond to Hatewatch’s request for comment.

COVID research

Alexander espouses pro-infection, anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine viewpoints. During his time at HHS, he wrote to his superiors that “infants, kids, teens, young people, young adults, middle aged with no conditions” should be exposed to the virus due to their “zero to little risk” of serious consequences, Politico reported.

He continued: “We want them infected.”

Alexander held the position from April to September 2020. Alexander is also a prominent supporter of the anti-vaccine mandate trucker convoys that attempt to shut down major metropolitan areas in Canada and the U.S.

Alexander titled the GiveSendGo campaign “COVID research stipend support” and wrote to potential supporters that children “must not under any circumstance” receive COVID “vaccines for they could be severely harmed given the harms already emerging from adults and teens.”

There is no data showing significant harm from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. These two are the most widely used in the U.S. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine could cause blood clots in rare circumstances.

Marshall first donated $50 to Alexander’s campaign on Oct. 28, 2021. “God bless, Paul,” he wrote in the comments. Marshall donated $50 again on Dec. 22, 2021. “Paul, keep up the fight. A very Merry Christmas to you and your family. God bless you all. Bill,” he commented.

According to the documents shared by DDoSecrets, Marshall used his Judicial Watch email to sign up for GiveSendGo. The email was listed for both donations.

Alexander has raised over $37,500 through the campaign. The donation database lists Alexander’s own name and email address as the first to donate $100 on Oct. 27, 2021. The donator praised Alexander for “standing up for humanity, and for maintaining scientific integrity,” adding: “Your actions have saved lives, and when the Criminal Covid Enterprise is finally brought to justice in Nuremburg 2.0 trials [a reference to the trials where prosecutors convicted Nazis for their atrocities], you will be largely to thank. Thank you for protecting the children … thank you for telling the truth!”

Alexander denied to Hatewatch he made this donation himself. “I may have donated 1 or 5 $ to me to test how it worked but never 100$,” Alexander wrote in an email response.

Alexander also disavowed any ties to hard-right individuals or organizations but welcomed questioning of the science on vaccine safety and efficacy. He said the Politico report mischaracterized his support for Trump, and that he “would have worked for [former President Barack] Obama and even now for [President Joe] Biden if I could help them.”

GiveSendGo became a favorite for the hard right after hosting a fundraiser for Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was lionized by the hard right after he killed Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz during Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, which he testified at trial he did in self-defense. A jury acquitted Rittenhouse of murder and attempted murder charges in November 2021.

Extremist connections

Though it claims to be nonpartisan, Judicial Watch pushes conspiracy theories that adhere with the hard right. The nonprofit has targeted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a frequent target of hard-right conspiracy theories. Judicial Watch recently sued federal agencies for links to former State Secretary Hillary Clinton’s alleged spying campaign against Trump.

Marshall also led Judicial Watch’s reports on Clinton’s emails. He discussed in Judicial Watch videos his request for former Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s emails, and he alleged scandals in which he claimed Clinton was involved. Marshall also said the Department of Justice under Obama gave Clinton special treatment during an investigation into her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.

Clinton’s emails have played a major role in hard-right conspiratorial thought, including alleged Clinton misconduct. According to several conspiracies, the evidence of Clinton’s misconduct was contained in emails that Clinton deleted. Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman has promoted some of these conspiracy theories.

Marshall regularly appeared on anti-Muslim extremist and conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney’s podcast in 2018 and 2019. He discussed the politicization of intelligence agencies and former FBI director James Comey’s alleged misconduct as part of the Justice Department under former President Barack Obama.

The podcasts came amid a broad, right-wing attempt to discredit federal agencies as they investigated former President Donald Trump’s contacts with Russia before the 2016 presidential election.

The hard right and conspiracy theorists call the agencies and bureaucrats the “deep state.” The deep state is an integral part of broad, unfounded theories that D.C. insiders worked to spy on and undermine Trump.

Judicial Watch has partnered with hard-right figures including former Trump adviser Steve Bannon. The nonprofit has no known partnership with the Oath Keepers or the anti-Muslim Center for Security Policy, which Gaffney founded.

But Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton was a member of Groundswell,a conservative activist group of which Gaffney was also a member.

Fitton, too, rails against deep state “spying” on Trump.

Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, started Groundswell in 2013. The activists planned a “30-front war” to push hard-line conservative policies and appointments in the federal government.

The group focuses on anti-immigration, anti-abortion and anti-gun control issues, as well as numerous other issues the hard right has taken up.

By 2019, Groundswell pushed Trump to purge the deep state from his administration, Axios reported. Groundswell curated a deep state hit list and delivered it to Trump while he was president, according to the report.

Groundswell held weekly meetings at Judicial Watch offices, according to Axios and The New York Times.

Fizzling convoys

The trucker protests began in the Canadian capital, Ottawa, in January. Organizations tied to the Canadian hard right, including the Maverick Party and the People’s Party of Canada, organized protests in Ottawa. Thousands of truckers disrupted international travel and commerce by blocking ports and crossings on the U.S.-Canada border to protest vaccine mandates and lockdowns.

Alexander told Hatewatch he was unaware of these connections and he “does not stand” for hateful rhetoric or supremacy.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared Canada’s first national public order emergency to end the protests on Feb. 14.

The Canadian protest inspired right-wing organizers, including individuals with extremist ties and ideologies in the U.S. Thousands protested COVID-19 mandates in Washington, D.C., beginning on Jan. 23.

The protests continued, and Alexander was reportedly present at a protest at the National Mall on Jan. 27, where he expressed anti-lockdown views.

Organizers across the U.S. called for truckers to descend on D.C. to block traffic in the capital. The convoys failed to cause major disruptions, in part due to unclear plans, D.C.’s traffic laws and regular traffic.

The U.S. convoy faced increased scrutiny after main organizer Mike Landis invited onstage a man that called for truckers to “take ... back” Black Lives Matter Plaza in D.C., where protesters painted “Black Lives Matter” on 16th Street during the nationwide protests following the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020.

Organizers have disavowed the man’s comments. Alexander told Hatewatch the speaker had “gone rogue” and was not “properly vetted.”

Marshall has not publicly spoken about the trucker convoys, and his name does not appear in the main donation list for the Canadian trucker protests that raised over $540,000. Personal connections between Marshall and Alexander – if there are any – remain unclear.

ggl 9 22

https://www.freedomwatchusa.org/klayman-good-for-ginni-thomas-wife-of-justice-clarence-thom

Klayman: Good for Ginni Thomas Wife of Justice Clarence Thomas!

https://www.freedomwatchusa.org› klayman-good-for-gi...

Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court justice, says she attended Jan. 6 'Stop the Steal' rally before Capitol attack By Mariana Alfaro Washington Post March ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/comments?storyUrl=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/ethics-panel-of-dc-bar-seeks-to-suspend-conservative-attorney-larry-klayman-for-33-months/2019/07/24/24d3bfd2-ad55-11e9-8e77-03b30bc29f64_story.html

0 - The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com› comments › 2019/07/24

No information is available for this page.

Learn why

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/03/24/judicial-watch-investigator-supported-covid-research-anti-vaccine-former-trump-official

Judicial Watch Investigator Supported 'COVID Research' of ...

https://www.splcenter.org› hatewatch › 2022/03/24 › j...

Mar 24, 2022 —Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman has promoted some of these conspiracy ... Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice ...

https://archive.triblive.com/aande/books/working-class-background-serves-trafford-native-well-for-his-new-novel/

Working-class background serves Trafford native well for his ...

https://archive.triblive.com› aande › books › working-...

Virginia 'Ginni' Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, arrives to. MADISON, Wis. — The wife of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas ...

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/KaganThomasRecusalMemorandum.pdf

In the Supreme Court of the United States - AWS

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com› uploads › 2012/04

PDF

by J THOMAS —Common Cause, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' failure to disclose income ... Larry Klayman, Supremes flip We the People 'the bird'—Exclusive: Larry ...

https://thehill.com/people/larry-klayman/

Larry Klayman | The Hill | Page 1

https://thehill.com› people › larry-klayman

Ginni Thomas pressured Wisconsin ... Federal judge rules New York can ... Democrats see opening to take down ... Biden giving political prime-time .

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a33933/the-cafe-welcomes-an-old-friend/

Here's Some Stupid For Lunch - Esquire

https://www.esquire.com› news-politics › politics › news

Mar 26, 2015 —In a statement, Klayman cast his lawsuit as "the first and only hard-hitting case to ... Ginni Thomas Sent So Many Emails to Overturn 2020.

https://abovethelaw.com/2020/03/nutbag-lawyer-larry-klayman-files-20-trillion-suit-against-china-for-coronavirus-bioweapon/

Nutbag Lawyer Larry Klayman Files $20 Trillion Suit Against ...

https://abovethelaw.com› 2020/03 › nutbag-lawyer-lar...

Mar 19, 2020 —Klayman's theory that the Institute created the disease as an illegal bioweapon and accidentally unleashed it, killing tens of thousands of ...

https://epgn.com/category/opinion/creep-of-the-week/page/19/?filter_by=random_posts

Creep of the Week Archives - Page 19 of 26

https://epgn.com› Opinion › Creep of the Week

Creep of the Week: Ginni and Clarence Thomas ... Creep of the Week: Larry Klayman · D'Anne Witkowski - October 20, 2016 2:07 pm 0.

https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/34274743-4f82-451b-bef0-03e1b469c0da/power-consequence

Power & Consequence Podcast on Amazon Music

https://music.amazon.com› podcasts › power-conseque...

(Texts Show Ginni Thomas's Embrace of Conspiracy Theories - New York Times 3/26/22) 8. ... (Freedom Watch's Larry Klayman on Obama and the Quran) 9.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121170&page=1

no lnx

Inside the Council for National Policy

By Marc J. Ambinder

W A S H I N G T O N, May 2, 2002 -- When Steve Baldwin, the executive director of an organization with the stale-as-old-bread name of the Council for National Policy, boasts that "we control everything in the world," he is only half-kidding.

Half-kidding, because the council doesn't really control the world. The staff of about eight, working in a modern office building in Fairfax, Va., isn't even enough for a real full-court basketball game.

But also half-serious because the council has deservedly attained the reputation for conceiving and promoting the ideas of many who in fact do want to control everything in the world.

For many liberals, the 22-year-old council is very dangerous and dangerously secretive, and has fueled conspiratorial antipathy. The group wants to be the conservative version of the Council on Foreign Relations, but to some, CNP members — among the brightest lights of the hard right — are up to no good.

The CNP meets this weekend at a Washington location known to fewer insiders than the identity of the vice president's undisclosed chunk of bedrock.

Look for them if you're at a ritzy hotel in Tyson's Corner, Va.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is the headliner. White House counsel Alberto Gonzales will speak, as will Timothy Goeglein, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison. There have been no public announcements, and there won't be. The 500 or so members will hear private, unvarnished presentations.

White House spokeswoman Anne Womack said Gonzales' remarks would not be released. The CNP's bylaws keep out the press and prevent disclosure of the transcribed proceedings — unless all the speakers give their assent. Few do.

In a 2000 filing with the Internal Revenue Service, the CNP says it holds "educational conferences and seminars for national leaders in the field of business, government, religion and academia." It says it produces a weekly newsletter keeping members abreast of developments, and a biyearly collection of speeches. Executive Director Morton Blackwell was paid a little more than $70,000. The organization took in more than $732,000.

Baldwin said he doesn't get many calls from the press. But he's happy to answer some basic questions.

Of the group's reputation, he said, "There's a lot of stuff out there claiming we're a lot more than we are."

What they are — or rather, what sway they hold — is a source of some dispute.

In 1999, candidate George W. Bush spoke before a closed-press CNP session in San Antonio. His speech, contemporaneously described as a typical mid-campaign ministration to conservatives, was recorded on audio tape.

(Depending on whose account you believe, Bush promised to appoint only anti-abortion-rights judges to the Supreme Court, or he stuck to his campaign "strict constructionist" phrase. Or he took a tough stance against gays and lesbians, or maybe he didn't).

The media and center-left activist groups urged the group and Bush's presidential campaign to release the tape of his remarks. The CNP, citing its bylaws that restrict access to speeches, declined. So did the Bush campaign, citing the CNP.

Shortly thereafter, magisterial conservatives pronounced the allegedly moderate younger Bush fit for the mantle of Republican leadership.

The two events might not be connected. But since none of the participants would say what Bush said, the CNP's kingmaking role mushroomed in the mind's eye, at least to the Democratic National Committee, which urged release of the tapes.

Partly because so little was known about CNP, the hubbub died down.

The CNP Against Liberalism

The CNP describes itself as a counterweight against liberal domination of the American agenda.

That countering is heavy and silent, in part because few people, outside its members, seem to know what the group is, what it does, how it raises money, and how interlocked it has become in the matrix of conservative activism.

Conservative, it clearly is.

Unlike other groups that meet in darkened chambers, the CNP doesn't seem to favor, as a matter of policy and choice of guests, one-worlders, secular humanists, or multicultural multilateralists.

According to one of its most prominent members (who asked that his name not be used), the CNP is simply and nothing but a self-selected, conservative counterweight to the influential center-left establishment.

Panel topics at this year's convention hew to the CNP's world view, but Baldwin, who wouldn't give specifics, said they reflected many different vantage points.

"We'll probably discuss some of the hot issues that are relevant today. The Middle East … We'll have a number of speakers from different perspectives. We're not of all one like mind when it comes to what's going on there."

He continued: "Worldwide terrorism. Campaign finance reform. Generally, we kind of mirror what's going on in society. We pride ourselves on being relevant and timely, so that members want to come to our meetings."

Still, the group's shadowy reputation deters some high-profile figures from speaking before it — those who directly influence policy.

For example: A knowledgeable person lists former CIA Director James Woolsey as a Friday night speaker and says that on Saturday, Reagan defense official Frank Gaffney will debate former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan about Israel.

The cavalcade of "formers" resembles nothing more formidable than a Fox News prime-time guest lineup.

In the 1990s, social issues tended to dominate the panels, and guests tended to be talking heads who were plugged in to policy circles, rather than operating from within them.

The concoction of federalism, economic growth, social traditionalism, religious activism and anti-secularism goes down well among members because it is spiced with disdain for a common enemy: the creeping influence of political and philosophical liberalism.

Many current and former members politely said they would prefer not to speak on the organization's behalf. Those who did respond to telephone and e-mail messages declined to talk about their interest in the organization. More than a dozen did not respond at all.

"Obviously, membership would imply that there is a commonality, so that goes without saying," said Alvin Williams, CEO of a political action committee that promotes black conservatives. "I don't think it is anything threatening at all."

He declined to elaborate.

Darla St. Martin, associate executive director of the National Right to Life, would only say, "Since everyone else is so skeptical [about speaking], I don't think I should."

Even Judicial Watch's Larry Klayman, the watchdog and open government proponent, would not comment, a spokesman said. His busy schedule — four depositions in two days — precluded a short telephone interview.

Gary Bauer, the former presidential candidate and ubiquitous media presence, asked a spokesman to decline a request for an interview about the CNP, citing the group's long-standing policy against press publicity.

Judging by its 1998 membership roster, which was obtained by a secular watchdog group called the Institute for First Amendment Studies and posted on its Web site, the New Right's many colors are represented, but there are few, if any, neo-conservatives, Republican moderates and libertarians.

Selective name dropping doesn't juice up a conspiracy. The evidence that the CNP is an axis of nefarity is slim. Conservative groups are quick to point out that liberal watchdogs like Common Cause have a great influence in public policy debates, and, for instance, a direct hand in writing the campaign-finance legislation.

A New Force in the Age of Reagan

But even CNP backers claim that the liberal establishment has nothing comparable — no central gathering of its powerful members.

The idea for CNP gestated since the late 1960s, when the American Right, aiming for more cake, desired a vigorous voice to influence policy and elite opinion at the margins. Intellectuals it had, but practical policy seminars were missing. The Moral Majority flashed into being after Roe vs. Wade, but it was oriented toward Middle America, not to not-liberal Washington power-brokers.

CNP was conceived in 1981 by at least five fathers, including the Rev. Tim LaHaye, an evangelical preacher who was then the head of the Moral Majority. (LaHaye is the co-author of the popular Left Behind series that predicts and subsequently depicts the Apocalypse). Nelson Baker Hunt, billionaire son of billionaire oilman H.L. Hunt (connected to both the John Birch Society and to Ronald Reagan's political network), businessman and one-time murder suspect T. Cullen Davis, and wealthy John Bircher William Cies provided the seed money.

Top Republicans were quickly recruited to fill in the gaps; hard-right thinkers met up with sympathetic politicians. And suddenly, the right had a counterpart to liberal policy groups. Christian activist Paul Weyrich took responsibility for bringing together the best minds of conservatism, and his imprint on the group's mission is unmistakable: It provided a forum for religiously engaged conservative Christians to influence the geography of American political power.

At its first meeting in May of 1981, the CNP gave an award to Reagan budget guru David Stockman, strategized about judicial appointments, and reveled in its newness.

Since then, at thrice-yearly conventions, the CNP has functioned as a sausage factory for conservative ideas of a particular goût: strong affirmations of military power, Christian heritage, traditional values, and leave-us-alone-get-off-our-backs legislation. That red meat is seasoned by groups like David Keene's American Conservative Union, researched and vetted by conservative policy groups, chewed on and tested at statewide activist meetings.

There's no denying their influence: Money is transferred from benefactor to worthy cause. Aspirants meet benefactors.

The CNP helped Christian conservatives take control of the Republican state party apparati in Southern and Midwestern states. It helped to spread word about the infamous "Clinton Chronicles" videotapes that linked the president to a host of crimes in Arkansas.

But the CNP is one factory among many. It stands out nowadays because it prefers not to stand out.

Unlike, say, the Heritage Foundation, which has a media studio in its headquarters, or the American Enterprise Institute, which publishes journals, the CNP is content to operate in the alleyways of downtown Washington. Part of what keeps it so healthy, according to current members, is the same penchant for secrecy that drives outsiders crazy.

As then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton prepared to tell NBC News' Katie Couric that her husband was a victim of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy," a senior Clinton adviser asked Skipp Porteous, then the head of a secular watchdog group, for information on the CNP. Porteous' conclusions — "that this is a group that has the ideology, the money and the political backing to cause social change in the United States" — became a part of the White House litany.

Such talk is an apparition, members say. Much ado about nothing.

CNP will forever be nothing more than a "comfortable place" for like-minded folks to brainstorm, one member said.

"What they decided at one point was that people will simply feel more at ease," said another member, Balint Vazsonyi, who joined the group in 1997. "It's certainly not for a political reason. The views discussed here are among those you see on the television or when you open a newspaper."

Vazsonyi, a concert pianist who writes a column syndicated by Knight-Ridder, said CNP gave him a chance to meet people who shared his views.

"I knew very, very few people in the political world. I knew lots of musicians, but nobody in politics. Then someone said to me, 'There's a place for people who are and have been interested in what you're interested in, and you might like to be known by them.'

"That," he said, "was really the hook."

Quiet — Just the Way They Like It

CNP may simply be press-shy because of traditional qualms about the establishment media's secular, often politically liberal perspective, and because "they attribute things that individual members may do to us," Baldwin says.

The London Guardian linked arch-conservative gun-rights activist Larry Pratt with Attorney General John Aschroft by saying "the two men know each another from a secretive but highly influential right-wing religious group called the Council for National Policy."

More recently, when California gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon disclosed his campaign's contributors, The Associated Press made sure to note that four members of CNP had donated to Simon's campaign — as if conservatives donating to conservatives was worthy of a news story all its own. (Simon's father, the former treasury secretary, was a CNP member).

Other CNP press leaks have been less the product of liberal media snooping than of internal jockeying. When James Dobson, president of Focus on the Family, told a CNP gathering in 1998 that he was thinking of withdrawing support for the Republican Party, rival conservative leaders made sure the national media got word of the speech.

The CNP remains obscure. Experienced Washingtonians often mistake them for another organization, the liberal Center for National Policy. The Washington Times reported Jan. 23 that Sen. John Kerry spoke to the Council for National Policy about AWNR drilling, when, in fact, the Massachusetts Democrat spoke to the Center for National Policy, a very different organization. Both the Council and Center are not to be confused with the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Or the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Porteous' group, The Institute for First Amendment Studies, posted the CNP's roster on its Web site and managed to slip past security at several CNP meetings throughout the 1990s and soon published details notes of the proceedings.

If their summaries are reliable — and the IFAS swears they are — the from-the-fly-on-the-wall thrill and the occasional agitated quotation for Democratic opposition research files do little to sustain the belief that the CNP is ruling America behind those French doors of the Fairfax hotel conference rooms.

"There's nothing wrong with what they are doing," Porteous said. "It's just that they're ultraconservative and a lot of people don't agree with that."

"I don't think they are out there pounding their chests," said Joel Kaplan, a Syracuse University journalism professor who has studied CNP's ties to conservative projects. "But I don't think that they're hiding either."

12 21 joe rogan pelosi head witch coming for you // war on xian, anti-gubmint take your guns

On One America News Network, three champions of right-wing media -- former Trump strategist Steve Bannon, Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe, and acquitted vigilante gunman Kyle Rittenhouse -- have become focal points ofOAN’s take on a traditional conservative victim complex. 

Conservative media have inculcated deep fear of persecution in millions of people, claiming social media companies enforcing their policies against misinformation and calls for violence is like the Holocaust, an antisemitic mass shooting by a far-right conspiracy theorist is a generic attack on all “people of faith,” the FBI investigating threats against school board members is a sign that parents who oppose critical race theory will be treated as “domestic terrorists,” and (an annual favorite) there's a war on Christmas and those who celebrate. 

Now, OAN wants the same audience to know that if the Democrats can politically persecute Bannon, O’Keefe, and Rittenhouse, they will get you next. 

Bannon surrendered himself to an arrest warrant for contempt of Congress after refusing to comply with a subpoena from the House’s January 6 investigation. O’Keefe’s home was searched by the FBI as part of an investigation into a diary allegedly stolen from President Joe Biden’s daughter. And Rittenhouse was acquitted of multiple murder charges at trial after he shot three Black Lives Matter protesters, killing two and alleging self-defense. 

On OAN, all three men are simply conservative patriots being politically persecuted by Democrats.

OAN’s attitude toward the legal predicaments of these three men mirrors a common refrain from right-wing media during the many investigations of the Trump administration: If they can do this to him, they can do this to you. And like with Donald Trump before them, there’s infinitesimally little to suggest that Bannon, O’Keefe, and Rittenhouse are simply being persecuted for their conservative politics, and even less to suggest that random conservatives should fear government persecution simply because of their beliefs. 

The conservative media industry runs on grievance, fear, and victimhood, and OAN is using these three men to churn up even more resentment.

Steve Bannon

James O’Keefe

Kyle Rittenhouse

no lnx

A new lawsuit accuses East Aurora political consultant Michael R. Caputo of serving as a public mouthpiece for indicted Republican politico Roger Stone, who is under a federal gag order barring him from discussing the criminal case against him.

In an unusual courtroom clash of conservative figures, conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi and Freedom Watch founder Larry Klayman sued Caputo and Stone in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia earlier this month, accusing Caputo of defamation.

It's all because of what Caputo had to say on MSNBC last month about special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election. There, Caputo speculated that Corsi will testify against Stoneat his upcoming trial on charges that Stone tried to get and share emails from WikiLeaks that would damage Democrat Hillary Clinton's campaign.

"The Mueller team finds himself at the end of the hallway at the end of this entire game and they're staring at Jerry Corsi, who believes the most wild conspiracies in the world," Caputo said on "The Beat with Ari Melber" on March 29. "Dozens of years of Yale law school education and they end at the freak show tent."

But Corsi isn't mad enough to sue just because Caputo called him part of a "freak show." Corsi and Klayman, his lawyer, allege that Stone enlisted Caputo to serve as his media surrogate – in violation of the gag order barring Stone and his associates from speaking out about his case.

In addition to filing a lawsuit, Corso and Klayman delivered a statement to U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is presiding over Stone's case,to accuse Caputo and Stone of breaking Jackson's order that Stone remain silent and avoid media appearances.

"Stone is employing surrogates, specifically in this instance his longtime associate Michael Caputo, to continue to smear and defame Dr. Corsi and his counsel Larry Klayman, while directly violating this court's February 19 'gag' order," Klayman wrote in the statement.

Caputo referred all questions on the matter to his attorney, Dennis C. Vacco.

"I think it's a publicity stunt more than anything," Vacco said, noting that neither Caputo nor Stone have been served with the court papers Klayman filed. "So from our perspective, the litigation has not commenced."

Asked about the lawsuit's specific allegations – that Caputo acted as Stone's mouthpiece and then slandered Corsi – Vacco said: "From our perspective, the allegations contained in the complaint are are frivolous."

The case seems to be an extension of one that Corsi and Klayman filed against Stone in U.S. District Court in D.C. in February.

According to Corsi's complaint in that case, "even before Defendant Stone was indicted, he began a public relations campaign in this district, nationally and internationally to smear, intimidate and threaten Plaintiff Corsi, a material witness in the 'Russian Collusion' investigation."

The Corsi/Klayman clash with Stone and Caputo marks another unusual chapter in the lives of four men with unusual political careers.

Corsi is best known as the co-author of "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," a widely criticized book that included questionable allegations about then-Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee. Corsi then went on to play a prominent role in the "birther" movement that inaccurately said then-President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

Klayman founded Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, right-wing organizations that filed repeated lawsuits against President Bill Clinton and later Hillary Clinton on issues ranging from the president's alleged affairs to his wife's role in the 2012 terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Stone has a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back and a long-standing close relationship with President Trump.

And Caputo is an East Aurora political consultant and sometimes radio show host with a colorful history that includes a period of time working in Russia during its 1990s experiment with democracy and serving for a time on Donald Trump's 2016 campaign staff. Mueller's investigators interviewed Caputo as part of their probe, which ended without any charges against him.

Mueller report comes as relief to Caputo

https://www.csldf.org/2017/02/10/new-allegations-noaa-scientists-theyre-incorrect/

No lnx graf

New Allegations Against NOAA Scientists — And Why They’re Incorrect

February 10, 2017 By Lauren Kurtz

Judicial Watch, a conservative group, has used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to sue for the privileged email correspondence of nine climate scientists employed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). On January 27, 2017, the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) filed a brief in the District of Columbia federal District Court urging the court to protect the communications between these scientists.

Why Do These Emails Matter?

In 2013, a leaked draftof an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report stated that the rate of global warming had slowed between 1998 and 2012. Though the final report stated that “trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends,” climate contrarians latched onto the idea of a“pause” in warming to bolster their position: If global warming has stopped, there is no need to curb fossil fuel use or take any other action to combat climate change.

The hiatus was rebutted in 2015 when Thomas Karl and his colleagues at NOAA published a paper in Science based on updated, more accurate data that demonstrated that there was no pause in global warming. In fact, warming from 2000 to 2015 was at least as great if not greater than that of the last half of the 20th century.

Other researchers have corroborated Karl et al.’s conclusions. Most recently, a 2017 Science Advances study by Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth, validated Karl et al.’s findings using independent data from satellites, buoys and free-floating Argo floats, and reached the same conclusions about the rate of global warming.

[

Global land/ocean temperature records from NOAA, NASA, Berkeley Earth, Hadley/UAE, and Cowtan and Way show no detectable sign of a “pause” in warming through to the present. Note that the old (pre-Karl et al.) NOAA temperature record is only available through the end of 2014.]

Soon after Karl et al. published their study, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology — who disputes the scientific consensus on climate change — subpoenaed the scientists’ documents and communications. He alleged that NOAA had readjusted historical temperature readings to suit the Obama administration’s political agenda, that the scientists had engaged in “suspicious” behavior, and that this had “broad national implications.”

NOAA supplied some documents to Smith, but refused to turn over the scientists’ confidential email correspondence.

In late 2015, Judicial Watch sued for the scientists’ emails under the Freedom of Information Act, a law designed to ensure transparency in government. Judicial Watch states it “is investigating how NOAA collects and disseminates climate data that is used in determining global climate change.”

The controversy over the Karl et al. study flared up again in early February 2017 when the Daily Mail published an article by David Rose — who has often inaccurately written about climate science — based on a blog post by retired NOAA scientist John Bates, who maintained that the study authors failed to disclose critical information about their data. Rose claimed that the authors exaggerated the rate of global warming and that the study was rushed into publication to sway the Paris Climate Accords. (Incidentally, Bates was administratively admonished and relieved of a supervisory position at NOAA at a time when Karl was in a leadership role; Bates denies that his complaints were driven by any animus.)

At a February 7 House Science committee hearing, “Making the Environmental Protection Agency Great Again,” Smith again attacked NOAA,accusing it of “falsifying data to justify a partisan agenda.” Conservative media outlets have seized on the Daily Mail story, using it as ammunition in their fight against climate science.

Bates, however, has since said in an interview with E&E News, “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.”

Irish Climate and Research Unit’s Peter Thorne, who worked on the underlying material for the Karl study but left NOAA before it was published, defended the study. “At no point was any pressure brought to bear to make any scientific or technical choices. It was insisted that best practices be followed throughout.”

CSLDF’s Involvement in the Case

CSLDF filed the brief in support of the NOAA scientists because we’re committed to safeguarding the confidentiality of communications between researchers. FOIA requests for scientists’ emails may ostensibly be made in order to verify research, but they can result in hindering research or intimidating scientists into downplaying risks or not publicly discussing their research.

These FOIA requests usually seek preliminary drafts, private critiques from other researchers, and the personal documents and email correspondence of scientists rather than the data, methodologies, or research results of scientific studies, which might help clarify or evaluate the science itself.

FOIA contains nine exemptions designed to protect certain categories of government records from indiscriminate release. Under Exemption 5, there is a deliberative process privilege for federal employees, including federal scientists, which allows them to withhold deliberative communications within or between federal agencies.

The purpose of this privilege is to encourage frank discussions between colleagues, protect against premature disclosure of proposed actions before they are finalized, and prevent public confusion that might result from the disclosure of proposals that were discarded and had no relation to the final decision.

What Happens Next?

Judicial Watch is scheduled to file its first legal brief to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by February 20. Additional briefs from the plaintiff and defendant are due in March and April; the NOAA scientists’ emails are being defended by the Department of Justice and the Department of Commerce (NOAA’s parent agency).

CSLDF is committed to protecting the scientific endeavor, especially defending scientists from legal attacks; we will continue to participate in and monitor this lawsuit.

— Renee Cho is a blogger for the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

==

jw fbk posts

https://www.facebook.com/JudicialWatch/posts/10154464575211943?comment_id=10154471842866943&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D

scrape fbk

President Donald J. Trump

Government Official

NRA - National Rifle Association of America

Nonprofit Organization

Tucker Carlson

Public Figure

Dan Bongino

Public Figure

Patriots United

Newspaper

Jim Jordan

Government Official

Diamond And Silk

Public Figure

Ben Shapiro

News Personality

Greg Gutfeld

News Personality

Dinesh D'Souza

Public Figure

Donald J. Trump

Political Candidate

NumbersUSA

Nonprofit Organization

Pages Liked by This Page

Cause of Action Institute

Media Research Center

Fox News

==

chris farrell red dir judicial watch

...Bates:Our borders, particularly the Southern border, have been very porous, long before the Obama Administration. However there has been news that it is not just illegal migrants seeking economic opportunity in America that they can't find in Mexico. Is there a concern now that some of these migrants are actually not Mexican or Latin American at all? And, in fact they might possibly be Islamic terrorists?

Farrell:  It is not a concern, it's a fact. The illustration of this is the case of Tampico, Mexico, a large commercial port on the Gulf of Mexico with a huge amount of freighter traffic and commercial shipping. On those vessels arrive persons from the Middle East, North Africa, and Southwest Asia, many of them are Islamists. They arrive in the Port of Tampico for $1,500 a head. Mohammad becomes Manuel. $1,500 later that person has authentic, legitimate Mexican identity papers, birth certificates, and  drivers’ licenses.This would be all of the documentation they would need to establish their identity and take on a new life in Mexico. They are then moved through a series of camps. We know locations of three camps. We have heard from various sources that there are upwards of seven camps in the interior of Mexico where these folks receive language training, clothing, cultural history and mannerisms to help them integrate and appear Mexican. To live, breathe, walk, talk, and act as though they are natives of Mexico. From there they move north to our Southern border and into the United States. The example I use is one raindrop in an ocean of humanity washing up on our Southern shore. However, what is concerning is that this happens with some regularity and frequency. It is organized, deliberate and poses an enormous security threat to our country.

Bates:Does the Administration know this is happening? Clearly if Judicial Watch knows the Administration must know.

...

==

==

https://www.mediamatters.org/trump-impeachment-inquiry/its-own-precedent-fox-should-ban-joe-digenova

after a year that has seen Fox News battered by advertiser boycotts over the bigoted language common to its programming, the network's parent company held Thursday’s annual shareholder meetings embroiled in a new controversy over over the regurgitation of vile anti-Semitic tropes on its airwaves.

If Fox had actual standards like a normal news outlet, it would already have announced a permanent ban on future appearances by Joe diGenova, a Republican lawyer and frequent guest on pro-Trump Fox programs, in light of his Wednesday night interview.

During an appearance on Fox Business’Lou Dobbs Tonight alongside his wife and legal partner Victoria Toensing, diGenova downplayed impeachment inquiry testimony that day from State Department diplomat George Kent by arguing that Kent is a pawn of George Soros, a Jewish billionaire whose support of U.S. progressive causes and foreign anti-corruption, pro-democracy efforts has made him the frequent target of conspiracy theories steeped in**anti-Semitic trope**s. 

According to diGenova’s bonkers, evidence-free theory, “Soros controls a very large part of the career foreign service of the United States State Department,” has “corrupted FBI officials,” and is seeking to “run Ukraine” using that influence over the U.S. government to benefit his business interests. 

DiGenova’s comments, suggesting that the Jewish financier is a shadowy puppet master controlling vast swaths of the federal government for his own dark purposes, are “right out of the propaganda mills of Hungary’s Viktor Orban and other rightist anti-Semitic movements in Eastern Europe,” as Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall noted. Indeed, they are so reprehensible that Fox has previously ruled that such remarks earn a lifetime ban from the network’s platform. 

WhenJudicial Watch research director Chris Farrellsaid the “Soros-occupied State Department”had funded caravans of Central American migrants during an October 2018 appearance on Dobbs’ program, the networkcondemnedhis “rhetoric” and said he would not be invited back. (Dobbs himself did not react to Farrell’s statement and in factunderminedthe network’s response; he has hisown recordof anti-Semitic Soros smears.)

In the wake of diGenova’s comments, Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt called on Fox to “hold the same standard” on diGenova as on Farrell.

But Fox has done no such thing. That may reflect how Fox punishments tend to be based on a sliding scale reflecting both the level of criticism the network is receiving and the relative importance of the perpetrator. And diGenova’s role as a key player in the Sean Hannity Extended Universe of pro-Trump conspiracy theorists grants him a great deal of protection.

Farrell’s comments caused a firestorm for Fox because they drew attention in the wake of a murderous rampage at a Pittsburgh synagogue by a white supremacist who was obsessed with the idea that Jews were behind the caravans. 

Farrell’s relatively low status as a sometimes guest made the calculus easy for Fox: By cutting him loose, the network’s PR team could head off the subject and forestall niggling questions about the Soros conspiracy theory’s pervasiveness on its airwaves. Meanwhile, pro-Trump hosts like Dobbs and Hannity could simply slot in Farrell’s Judicial Watch boss, Fox regular Tom Fitton, for future segments. 

By contrast, diGenova is essential to Fox’s conspiracy theory machine. He and Toensing were deeply enmeshed in Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s scheme to help Trump’s reelection by running a shadow foreign policy effort in Ukraine. They have employed or been employed by leading players in the plot to smear Joe Biden and undermine the intelligence community's findings that Russia interfered in our 2016 election, all while making dozens of appearances on Fox News and Fox Business to detail the ins and outs of the twisted narrative they helped assemble (diGenova alone has made at least 65 appearances this year, according to Media Matters research).

Indeed, the best argument that diGenova didn’t engage in anti-Jewish animus on Wednesday is that he was simply acting in the interests of his client Dmitry Firtash, a Ukrainian oligarch with ties to Russian organized crime. Firtash, who retained diGenova and Toensing to prevent his extradition to the United States on bribery charges, has clashed with Ukrainian anti-corruption organizations supported by Soros. 

Of course, that’s simply another reason Fox shouldn’t allow diGenova on its airwaves: He has an irreconcilable conflict of interest on the topics he discusses -- one that he hid from the network’s audience.

The network’s latest failure to take action hammers home the reality that there are no real rules at Fox.

==

https://www.mediamatters.org/judicial-watch/right-wing-media-tries-smear-former-ukraine-ambassador-marie-yovanovitch

no lnx vid many

Right-wing media tries to smear former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch

Despite grave Judicial Watch allegations about a “surveillance” campaign from right-wing figures, the facts so far point to mere tracking of a pro-Trump disinformation campaign

WRITTEN BY COURTNEY HAGLE

RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM BRENDAN KARET & ANDREW LAWRENCE

PUBLISHED 10/17/19 10:31 AM EDT

Representatives of right-wing group Judicial Watch have been claiming during appearances on conservative media shows that former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was “spying” on media figures close to President Donald Trump by monitoring public statements they made on social media regarding Ukraine.

Judicial Watch is alleging that Yovanovitch -- who recently testified to House impeachment investigators that Trump pressured the State Department to remove her over baseless allegations -- was “basically running a war room” by monitoring public statements regarding Ukraine made by figures in right-wing media like Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs, Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and Donald Trump, Jr. The list also includes former Obama ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. Judicial Watch also claims that the searches were looking for the following keywords: “Biden,” “Giuliani,” “Soros,” and “Yovanovitch.”

That Yovanovich would monitor public statements made by public figures is unsurprising given her recent testimony claiming that Giuliani had been criticizing her in the months before her ousting, and the people she allegedly monitored are connected to the smear campaign Giuliani was waging. He had accused her of privately criticizing the president and trying to protect the interests of Biden and his son Hunter, who served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. The smear included accusations that Soros was funding a conspiracy to hurt Trump’s presidency and elect Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

Yovanovich said she was “incredulous” about her removal and that it was based on “unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives” -- claims that have been promoted publicly by conservative media figures.

The Washington Post reported that George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state responsible for Ukraine, became concerned around October 2018 that Yovanovitch was the target of a “classic disinformation operation.” NBC News indicated that the State Department was concerned over the effort to oust Yovanovich, reporting that the agency “attempted to ring alarm bells” regarding Giuliani’s efforts to smear her:

The documents also show that Giuliani, through conservative writer John Solomon’s columns in The Hill, attempted to tie former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch to the liberal donor George Soros as part of a massive conspiracy to take down Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and help Hillary Clinton win the 2016 election.

...

When State Department officials saw the disinformation campaign, they attempted to ring alarm bells and strategized to correct the record, the documents show.

Yovanovitch, who has over 30 years of experience in foreign diplomacy, further testified that, as The Washington Post put it, “under Trump’s leadership, U.S. foreign policy has been compromised by self-interested actors who have badly demoralized and depleted America’s diplomatic corps.” The testimony of White House aide Fiona Hill confirmed Yovanovitch’s depiction of foreign policy under the Trump administration.

Still, Judicial Watch is attempting to push the narrative that Yovanovitch nefariously spied on Trump allies among right-wing media, appearing on the radio shows of Sebastian Gorka and Sean Hannity and Fox Business host Lou Dobbs’ prime-time show to spread the message. Some Fox News figures responded with paranoia regarding their own conversations.

Judicial Watch also shared its report on Twitter, announcing that it is “investigating if prominent conservative figures/journalists & persons [with ties] to @realDonaldTrump were unlawfully monitored by the State Dept in Ukraine at the request of ousted U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, an Obama appointee.”

Fox & Friends hosted Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, who repeated that his “sourcing tells us that she was asking that folks like Rudy Giuliani, Don Trump Jr., a whole list of your colleagues there at Fox, be monitored on certain phrases.” Co-host Steve Doocy invited Fitton to “go ahead and speculate for a second” about Yovanovitch’s motives, to which Fitton replied, “It looks an awful lot like an enemy’s list to me.” Doocy noted that Yovanovitch is “keeping an eye on television, of all things,” and he called it “particularly disturbing that, you know, somebody in the federal government would be tracking people on TV.”

Video file

CitationFrom the October 16 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends

STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): So what are you thinking [Yovanovitch] may have done?

TOM FITTON (PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL WATCH): Well, our sourcing tells us that she was asking that folks like Rudy Giuliani, Don Trump Jr., a whole list of your colleagues there at Fox, be monitored on certain phrases. And this is around March of this year. Biden, Giuliani, Soros and her own name, Yovanovitch. So the problem is that it's not legal for the State Department to do that type of monitoring, certainly overseas, of American citizens. And it may have been only social media posts but they still can't be tracking American citizens' activities like that. The project was so big, they sought help from D.C. and that's when someone in D.C. said hold on a sec. You can't be doing this. It's not legal.

DOOCY: And of course she testified behind closed doors, and the way they have set it up is that's all supposed to be confidential. It's supposed to be secret. And yet somehow not so secret to some newspapers.

FITTON: Yeah. The selective leaks of the secret star chamber type testimony is really deplorable, to use a turn of phrase. And I would like to see her full transcript so we can figure out whether members of Congress questioned her about this issue. You know, the State Department is aware of this, guys. And it's about time we get a fuller explanation as to why this ambassador, a career civil service person who had been placed as ambassador by President Obama, was so concerned about Biden and Ukraine and George Soros, who controversially was involved in Ukraine as well through his Open Society funding and foundations. Why were they monitoring the president's lawyer and his son?

DOOCY: Sure. And keeping an eye on people on television of all things. And I know you filed a Freedom of Information Act request so perhaps you will get the answer to it. But just, you know, go ahead and speculate for a second. Connect some dots. Why would she want to do that?

FITTON: Well, you know, it looks an awful lot like an enemy's list to me. And when you are concerned about an issue, you start searching on the terms you are concerned about. Biden, Ukraine, Soros. What was going on in March? What was it about those subjects that our ambassador was tasking her staff with tracking the social media postings of these figures, contrary to law and in a way such that people in Washington said you can't do it and you have to stop. There are issues here that are not just about why they were tracking it, but whether the rights of those being targeted were violated as a result.

DOOCY: And it's particularly disturbing that, you know, somebody in the federal government would be tracking people on TV.

FITTON: Well yeah I mean, it is social media posts. But look, you know, any of your viewers and you, Steve, do you want the government creating a file on you based on what your social media postings are? No, you don't. And sure enough the law doesn't allow it.

DOOCY: It does not.

On America First with Sebastian Gorka, Judicial Watch’s Chris Farrell described Yovanovitch as an “absolute Obama partisan.” Farrell claimed that Judicial Watch has “very reliable information” that the State Department was “basically running a war room” by “documenting, capturing, archiving all the statements, publications, tweets, social media, anything that those folks put out was ordered to be compiled and monitored.” Farrell did not reveal what the reliable information was. He then claimed Yovanovitch’s action amounted to an “abuse of power” and he described it as a “political operative using their government position as leverage against their political opponents.”

On Gorka's radio show, Chris Farrell claims Yovanovitch was monitoring journalists

OCTOBER 11, 2019

Audio file

CitationFrom the October 11 edition of Salem Radio Networks' America First with Sebastian Gorka:

CHRIS FARRELL (JUDICIAL WATCH): Well, this is an ambassador, Maria -- I'm going to get her name incorrect -- Yovanovitch, I believe it is pronounced, although I am subject to Ukrainian slash Russian checks -- the -- who the -- an absolute Obama partisan, she's unabashedly so. She's complicit in this Schiff show trial, and the reason I say that is because her secret testimony is already in the hands of The New York Times and that of the internet all over, so, so much for the highly classified, confidential, behind closed doors testimony.

SEBASTIAN GORKA (HOST): Right.

FARRELL: When the New York Times is out peddling it five minutes after she goes in the door. Look, she had the Obama administration's back. She had Joe Biden's back, because we have very reliable information that she was conducting a, or had directed elements, bureaus within the State Department, to conduct a monitoring mission of about a dozen or so people that -- who were either close to the president or were reporters, editorial writers, perhaps even television and radio hosts who were identified as being close to President Trump.

And they were basically running a war room. They were documenting, capturing, archiving all the statements, publications, tweets, social media, anything that those folks put out was ordered to be compiled and monitored.

And at some point, somebody in the State Department said, “Hey wait a minute, those are US persons, you can't do that.” The State Department can't run a monitoring mission, a media war room on U.S. persons, particularly when they're targeting those persons and then using key words like “Biden" and “Soros" and “Ukraine" and “Giuliani" of all names.

And so, we're very interested in this, and yesterday, as we are wont to do, we filed a Freedom Of Information Act request with the State Department with some very specific language, looking for what the dear ambassador was up to and what those bureaus and departments and agencies within the State Department were doing with respect to this monitoring mission.

GORKA: So Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, recalled by President Trump, who tasked the State Department to monitor U.S. persons, journalists, that handful of names she asked to be monitored, did any of those include radio hosts that you've worked with in the past, Chris Farrell?

FARRELL: I have reason to believe that that's so, and, you know, when we nail down some additional details -- of course, when we also nail down some of the documentation from the State Department, your listening audience can rest assured that we will make it widely known across the land that this sort of unlawful activity, once we document it, that it was going on -- because you want to talk about an abuse of power, and a political operative using their government position as leverage against their political opponents, you're talking about the definition of corruption.

GORKA: So, let's be clear here, I don't want to sound didactic and like a pedant, but an ambassador running a foreign mission is there with a very specific job to do. They are the president's representative, an ambassador is the president's representative to that government, and runs that mission to establish and maintain the bilateral relations between the United States and that country, as long as they are running that embassy. Have you ever seen, in your professional history, the national security establishment or at Judicial Watch, an ambassador ever -- ever task Foggy Bottom, ever task the State Department to monitor the work, to monitor the statements, to monitor the activities of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, Chris Farrell?

FARRELL: No, it's -- in fact, it's the polar opposite of what they should be doing. I mean, normally they're very busy checking the foreign press, and certainly the nation they're representative of, for anything that may be of interest in the, you know, to the United States, to our national interest, to our defense, to our political advantage. The lens of the telescope, or the microscope, is supposed to be turned around the other way.

But in this case, you know, it appears that bureaus in the State Department, like the Global Engagement Center, which has a kind of a weird Orwellian title --

GORKA: the GEC.

FARRELL: -- that they were running this sort of information operation, this -- but a collection one, not a -- not putting forth the position of the U.S. and advancing our goals and objectives, but instead, flipping it around and carefully tracking the comments, the tweets, the writings, the reporting of U.S. persons -- but in particular, not just with respect to Ukraine, but on this very controversial hornet's nest we've found ourselves in now, with respect to the Bidens, Mr. Giuliani's investigations, and the other thing I found curious was the involvement of Mr. Soros --

GORKA: Chris, can -- Chris, can you hold it right there on that cliffhanger? Can you stay with us for one more segment?

FARRELL: Sure. Certainly.

GORKA: Alright, the name has been mentioned. Media Matters, are you watching? Are you typing away? We mentioned George Soros, so wake up, because I want to see that transcript when we're done with the next segment, with Judicial Watch's Chris Farrell.

On Tucker Carlson Tonight, Fox correspondent Trace Gallagher reported on Judicial Watch's story, who claimed that the reporting comes after “news reports that Yovanovitch had an anti-Trump bias.”

Video file

CitationFrom the October 16 edition of Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight:

TUCKER CARLSON(HOST): America's former ambassador to Ukraine may have ordered government personnel to monitor journalists and allies of President Trump. Our chief breaking news correspondent Trace Gallagher has the latest on this breaking story.

TRACE GALLAGHER: Hi, Tucker. Yeah, at the center of this is Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine appointed by Obama and ousted by President Trump. Yovanovitch made headlines last week when she testified before the House Intel committee as part of the Democrats impeachment inquiry. Now, two sources with close knowledge of the situation confirmed to Tucker Carlson Tonight that in the spring of 2019 the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine requested that several journalists and people close to President Trump have their social media accounts monitored.

This happened following news reports that Yovanovitch had an anti-Trump bias. The list includes 13 people including our own Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Lou Dobbs, as well as Fox News contributor's Sara Carter and Dan Bongino along with Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump Jr. According to the sources, the monitoring lasted for at least a few days before stopping, because the State Department is not allowed to conduct this sort of monitoring of U.S. citizens obviously.

The conservative government watchdog Judicial Watch has now filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the State Department. seeking, quoting here, "Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the monitoring of any U.S.-based journalists, reporter, or media commentator by any employee or office of the Department of State between January 1, 2019, and the present." Judicial Watch says they have information that indicated Yovanovitch directly ordered subordinates to target this list of people, Tucker.

CARLSON: Shocking story, I would say. Trace Gallagher, thank you.

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs listed a string of conservative media figures Judicial Watch claims were being monitored, noting that “yours truly” was included. Dobbs concluded that the monitoring is “unlawful.”

Video file

CitationFrom the October 14 edition of Fox Business' Lou Dobbs Tonight

LOU DOBBS (HOST):A number of journalists, including myself have, well, when they asked the -- one ambassador to Ukraine, the ousted U.S. ambassador, Marie Yovanovich, had asked that we be monitored. Judicial Watch discovering all of that and uncovering our names today, including Fox News hosts Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Fox News contributors John Solomon, Sara Carter, Dan Bongino, and yours truly. Others may have been targeted, including Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani, Sebastian Gorka.

The list goes on, and the -- well, the entire extent we don't know, but we do know this -- it would be unlawful to have done so, and we can't wait to hear which of my fascinating conversations may have been heard as a result. Not really that fascinating, but I had to say that.

Later in the same show, Dobbs repeated that Yovanovitch was “talking about monitoring me and surveilling me.” He asserted that he “take[s] that sort of as a badge of honor honestly” but expressed concern for his colleagues “who are less courageous than me.” His guest Ed Rollins agreed that the story is “absolutely unbelievable.”

Video file

CitationFrom the October 14 edition of Fox Business' Lou Dobbs Tonight

ED ROLLINS(FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR): I’ve watched all day today people saying the president fired this ambassador, how outrageous. Every ambassador can be fired by the president. They are hired by the president, they are appointed by a president. If she was bad-mouthing the president as people said she was, she should be fired.

LOU DOBBS (HOST): You know what she was doing is -- as terrible as that is -- I mean, she was talking about monitoring me and surveilling me? I mean, I take that sort of as a badge of honor honestly, but my colleagues who are less courageous than me, you know, I feel badly for Sean Hannity, for example, who might be intimidated by such a thing. I'm kidding. I’m kidding.

ED ROLLINS: Certainly you are not intimidated, and if they wanted to know what you want to think, you have five hours a week on here and three times a day on Salem Radio. So, anybody who wants to know what you are thinking, saying, it's right there out in the public, and it's always very smart.

...

DOBBS: It's just amazing. Sean Hannity, John Solomon, I mean, the foremost reporting on this spygate has been coming from John Solomon, and Sean Hannity, and Sara Carter. It's crazy what she was doing.

ROLLINS: Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable, and the public is going to know, and at the end of the day here, this thing is going to -- you know, again, they may put the 218 votes up tomorrow and impeach him, but they’re not going to basically put any evidence forward that he should get -- put out of office.

On his radio show, Fox host Sean Hannity claimed that if true, the monitoring is a “constitutional violation” that “would be something that you would expect in a third-world banana republic.” He added that Judicial Watch’s reporting shows Yovanovitch may have “violated laws and government regulations by ordering subordinates to target certain U.S. persons,” suggesting at times that the State Department was listening in on personal conversations.

Sean Hannity Tom Fitton surveillance claim

OCTOBER 15, 2019

Sean Hannity

Audio file

CitationFrom the October 15 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:

SEAN HANNITY (HOST):Well everybody starts sending me this tweet by our friend Tom Fitton over at Judicial Watch, and then I'm looking at the piece that they put out, an investigation that they're involved in, to find out if this Ukraine ambassador ordered State Department officials to monitor journalists and friends of the president, or people that are outspoken in terms of the president. In other words, illegal surveillance perhaps took place, I can't say for sure that this did. Certain figures in the media and elsewhere, private conversations that are being held between private citizens were being monitored, in an effort to find out information that could hurt Donald Trump -- that would be a constitutional violation. That would be something that you would expect in a third-world banana republic.

…

Judicial Watch has obtained some information indicating that this ambassador may have violated laws and government regulations by ordering subordinates to target certain U.S. persons, using State Department resources, and apparently, reportedly ordered the monitoring keyed to the following terms: “Biden," “Giuliani," “Soros," “Yovanovitch." And Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom Of Information Act request with the State Department, and continue to gather facts. All right, I want to stay very clear of anything that is not factual here, Tom Fitton.

TOM FITTON (PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL WATCH): That's right.

HANNITY: I've read the piece. Do we know this happened for a certainty? We don't know yet.

FITTON: Well, our sources say it did, and so the concern is, and this is the process, is that the government, and certainly the government abroad, our representatives abroad, can't use government resources to track even the public communications, like tweets or public comments by American citizens. And so, evidently that was going on in the Ukrainian embassy, using the search terms that you highlighted, "Biden," "Giuliani," "Soros" and "Yovanovitch." They then sought additional help to do that process, that project, from the State Department here in Washington, D.C., and that's when someone said "Well, hold on a second. You can't be doing this at all, you got to stop it. It's illegal."

And so, we don't know if they actually stopped it, we're not sure how long it went on for, but we do know that this target list is pretty darn accurate. I don't know if it's complete, but it included you, other Fox News personalities, and contributors associated with Fox, and other conservatives who are known for taking strong stances on social media, certainly allied with President Trump generally.

So, it's very curious that they would be concerned about these issues, Biden, Soros and Yovanovitch, way back at -- it looks like the date timeframe is back in March of this year, so it was before she was removed.

…

HANNITY: But this wasn't even really an issue at the time, was it? I mean, we were focused on many other things at that time, if I recall, and, you know, not the least of which I guess was the pending Mueller report. When did the Mueller report come out?

FITTON: The Mueller report came out around the same time, but the noises about Biden and Ukraine began around that same timeframe. I should go back and check. So, you have to wonder why it is -- we don't know why these individuals such as you made it onto that list.

...

FITTON: This is why the coup's taking place against President Trump, because they want to freeze any investigation of these issues, both in Ukraine and in China. They're targeting Trump, they're targeting president -- his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani now, and you can see that they were nervous about what others were saying about it. It looks like, according to our reporting, from -- from you on down, and it's just an incredible list, and you know, the idea that you would have illegal monitoring of not only all these Fox News journalists, I'm sure all the other media are rushing to your defense, Sean -- but the president's lawyer and the president's son, it ought to be concerning that this abuse was taking place. This is -- to me, this is just another extension of spygate.

HANNITY: It is -- if we have the powerful tools of intelligence, and by the way, this is not the first time in all of this process, in all of our coverage that I have been told -- you know, I have to go about my daily life, what am I supposed to do -- that this type of thing has happened to me, and I know to others. So, then the question becomes at what point do the American people step up and say we can't live in a country that denies fundamental constitutional rights to people, like is happening here. Because to me, we lose the country if the powerful tools of intelligence are turned on the American people.

We saw that with the General Flynn case. I mean, what happened in his case is they knew the whole conversation that had taken place, because they had raw intelligence, he had been unmasked, and they had the information when McCabe's -- and Comey, Comey bragging about taking advantage of the chaos, which he'd never do in the Obama or Bush administration, sending his FBI guys in, and his partner, the deputy director of the FBI, McCabe, is saying you don't need a lawyer. Well, that would deny him his Miranda rights, on that issue alone the case should be thrown out. But then, they went into his office knowing the full conversation, because they had unmasked and surveilled him, and they had raw intelligence on the whole conversation. So, they were setting him up, and he was immediately in a perjury trap, without even the benefit of a lawyer to tell him "Maybe you should clam up, here."

FITTON: Well, it's -- Sean, they're trying to remove a president based on allegations from an anonymous source, who it looks like may have illicitly shared classified information with the investigator, Adam Schiff. It's -- it's -- it's just another -- it's another variation of the theme, of the civil rights of those who are targeted taking a backseat to this power politics where they abuse the rule of law to change political results. It's a constitutional crisis we're in, and it's not because of any misconduct by President Trump. It's because of the misconduct of those investigating him, who were purporting to be concerned about his activities.

HANNITY: Yeah. What do you think -- I know you work with a lot of lawyers, I know you're not a lawyer yourself, but what do you think is the legal recourse if in fact such illegality happens, to citizens, even people like myself as a public figure, do I have a right to -- for recourse, or a path for recourse, in something like this?

FITTON: Well, there could be potential violations of the privacy act, that's -- that's an easy call. The other law that covers this is the Smith-Mundt Act, which prohibits the US government from propagandizing Americans or targeting, and, or targeting them, the State Department especially. So, you know, talk to any civil rights lawyer. They'll probably provide you all sorts of other claims you could pursue, when the government is illegally targeting you with a spy operation, even if they are just tracking your public comments.

And, you know, I guarantee you, all your listeners will be very nervous to know if this -- that -- if the government was tracking what they were doing, and keeping a file on them, which is what purportedly may have been going on here, and we're just trying to figure out what the scope of it was and how far it went, but it's just disturbing it took place at all, because the government's not allowed to do that. It -- because obviously, it's a chilling effect, and the law doesn't allow it because it's a chilling effect.

One America News Network’s Jack Posobiec, who pushed the Pizzagate and Seth Rich conspiracy theories and has ties to white nationalists, covered Judicial Watch’s reporting on the network, highlighting his inclusion. Reporter Stephanie Myers commented that Posobiec now has his “guard up” because it’s “like Big Brother watching you” and called on Yovanovitch to be “held accountable for this unlawful monitoring.”

Video file

CitationFrom the October 16 edition of One America News Networks' OAN News

STEPHANIE MYERS (OAN ANCHOR): But first, Judicial Watch takes a look into former Ukrainian ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who allegedly ordered the monitoring of journalists and those tied to the Trump administration. One of those people named was One America's Jack Posobiec. Jack is live in Washington, D.C. to give us the details on the probe. Good morning, Jack.

JACK POSOBIEC (OANN):Hey, good morning Stephanie. So we're now learning of course from Judicial Watch and our own One American News sources at the White House and within the administration about this list. Now Maria Yovanovitch, she's the former ambassador, in terms of contacts, the former ambassador to the Ukraine that had been recalled by President Trump. She herself had been appointed by Barack Obama and was seen as a holdover from her administration. Now just last week she testified against President Trump behind closed doors as part of this impeachment inquiry with the Democrats, so we're not really hearing very much what came out of that. However just days later, we see this report from Judicial Watch naming a list, apparently a watch list, that she put together at the embassy but then also reached back to her colleagues at State Department headquarters asking for more resources into what the report describes as monitoring of the people on this list which include myself, a number of other journalists, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and the list goes on. I found my name to be right at the very top of it and so we're not sure exactly yet what exactly the scope of this monitoring was, whether or not it was simply following on their on-air reports and tweets or whether or not it included something further with government resources.

MYERS: Right, and you mentioned some of the other people, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Guiliani, and again it's believed that Yovanovitch ordered the State Department to monitor those employees, including yourself, who may be allies of the president. What can you tell us about the investigation conducted by Judicial Watch?

POSOBIEC: So Judicial Watch so far has filed a Freedom of Information Act request. And we are gonna be following up as well with the privacy act requests -- for myself it's a privacy act request because it's actually records pertaining to myself that the government is holding. From sources that have reported back to Judicial Watch, they have essentially said that Marie Yovanovitch was looking for certain key words in reports or in tweets that she was tracking through the State Department, and having her own employees and members of the State Department track one of which, believe it or not was the word "Biden," which is very interesting because apparently this list may have been done as early as a year ago. So those of us who are covering this story, so One American News, we were certainly covering the story. I know I was making it certainly a highlight of my coverage. They've been noting that Joe Biden has had an issue, Hunter Biden has had an issue, for well over a year at this point. And that's something that even members of our own State Department were tracking it, certainly doesn't seem like something that was done in the course of official duties and unfortunately it smacks of the type of partisan political targeting that was done by members of the Barack Obama administration and now we're seeing hauled over into the Trump administration.

MYERS: I can only imagine, especially someone like you who was targeted, that you may have your guard up at this point and it's essentially like Big Brother watching you but can we expect Yovanovitch and other State Department officials who may have been involved in this to be held accountable for this unlawful monitoring?

JACK POSOBIEC: Well she's already been pulled from her State Department -- her at least ambassadorship post. She's still at the State Department but we would like to see -- I mean once the Freedom of Information Act request comes back out, I would certainly like to go to the House intelligence committee ,to the Senate intelligence committee to see if the lawmakers there -- and by the way in a bipartisan fashion because this shouldn't be something that's a partisan issue. The United States government should not be using state resources, national security resources for use against partisan political opponents. I myself was a former member of the intelligence community and believe me Stephanie, I would not dream of using any of those assets for my own personal gain.

MYERS: Yeah, we'll have to see if this is just the tip of the iceberg as more information unfollows. It almost seems like an onion and you're peeling back the layers so it's definitely an interesting development, especially since you were one of those names.

On The Ingraham Angle, host Laura Ingraham invited Fitton on to discuss his report. Ingraham claimed that Democrats' efforts to “note [Yovanitch's] deep integrity” were “a bit premature.” Fitton insisted he has it on “solid gold authority” that Yovanovitch “illegally” monitored conservative personalities.

Video file

CitationFrom the October 16 edition of Fox News' The Ingraham Angle:

LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): And last week, ousted US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified behind closed doors for ten hours. It was part of the impeachment star chamber against President Trump.

Now, most people didn't even know who she even was, but since she was there to hit Trump, the media and the Democrats were quick to note her deep integrity.

...

INGRAHAM: Well, it turns out that praise may be a bit premature. The group Judicial Watch is investigating whether prominent conservatives, including yours truly, were unlawfully monitored by the State Department in Ukraine.

Now, this was reportedly all done at the request of Yovanovitch herself. Joining me now, the man who first uncovered this, was Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. He is here with us now.

Tom, what's going on, what have you uncovered, what do we know?

TOM FITTON: Well, we understand that she had directed that a list of people, including you, Donald Trump Jr., the president's lawyer Rudy Giuliani --

INGRAHAM: I feel so special.

FITTON: Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, other Fox News contributors --

INGRAHAM: Okay, all the cool kids.

FITTON: -- Be tracked. She wanted to know, the staff wanted to know, the social media postings of what you were saying about Biden, Soros, Giuliani, and her.

INGRAHAM: Why so defensive, you think?

FITTON: Well, because this supposedly happened back in March when noise started happening about whether she was a never-Trumper, and whether she was improperly protecting that crowd.

INGRAHAM: So, people have to understand this, this is a U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine at the State Department, and you have it on -- is this solid gold authority, Tommy? Solid gold?

FITTON: Is sure is. I wouldn't be here if it weren't.

INGRAHAM: So, so we were -- I mean, I completely trust, you know -- make sure that she was ordering or requesting that we be tracked. Now, who did the tracking? Do we know?

FITTON: Well, the staff was doing it and evidently it was a big project and they asked the help of the State Department here in Washington, D.C., someone took the request in, looked at what was going on and said, "Wait, you can't be doing this."

...

INGRAHAM:  I want to show the comment from March that might have triggered this on this show, from me, troublemaker always. Watch.

...

INGRAHAM: Well, she did get -- that was the first time I mentioned her.

FITTON: And around the same time, this list was generated, and it's an -- The concern is it is in violation of the law. The government can't be tracking people like this.

INGRAHAM: The liberals used to care about this. Going back to what I said in The Angle, liberals used to care about government police state-like behavior, deep state, endless wars. Do you see how they really are turned into these political pretzels by just their opposition to Trump. Like, nothing he does you could ever agree with, even a smidgen of it.

FITTON: And, you know, you are acting as a journalist, and your fellow journalists were also on this list. So, the left doesn't care that journalists were being targeted, according to our source, illegally, because you were critical of a U.S. official abroad.

INGRAHAM: What's the recourse? What's the recourse here? Any recourse?

FITTON: Well, the Privacy Act, you know, there are civil remedies, and frankly -- you know, look -- look who's being investigated. Wall Street Journal reports that Sessions gets a subpoena, the man who was sent a letter, Giuliani is being targeted. Violating the Privacy Act carries criminal penalties if you're found to have done it.

INGRAHAM:  I think my D.C. bar license is still pretty active. Get a little pro bono, I will represent myself, so, no problem.

FITTON: Well, maybe we can do it, too. But we're suing, we're asking under FOIA, we want the -- more information, and I want to know whether Congress is going to look at this.

INGRAHAM: Spit out the email, we want the emails. They don't like turning over their emails. They hide the emails. Alright Tom, thank you for doing this, and thank you for finding out about the surveillance.

==

frenetic? page 5 random

Russia Special Counsel Mueller Worked with Radical Islamist ...

https://www.judicialwatch.org/.../russia-special-counsel-mueller-conspired- radical-islamic-groups-fbi-chief/

May 18, 2017 ... Judicial Watch had to sue to get the records and published an in-depth report on the scandal in 2013 and a lengthier, updated follow-up in ...

Obama High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Judicial Watch

https://www.judicialwatch.org/.../obama-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors/

Oct 30, 2015 ... Congress needs to get its act together and consider the impeachment and removal from office the officials, including Barack Obama, ...

Judicial Watch Sues CIA for Documents on Dossier Leak to Senator ...

https://www.judicialwatch.org/.../judicial-watch-sues-cia-for-documents-on- dossier-leak-to-senator-harry-reid/

Jul 6, 2018 ... News chief investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff and David Corn, the Washington bureau chief of the left-wing Mother Jones magazine, ...

Open Records Laws and Resources - Judicial Watch

https://www.judicialwatch.org/open-records-laws-and-resources/

Federal open records laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), provide access to government documents and public records. State “sunshine” laws ...

Judicial Watch Statement on State Department Release of Huma ...

https://www.judicialwatch.org/.../judicial-watch-statement-state-department- release-huma-abedins-government-documents-weiners-laptop/

Judicial Watch Statement on State Department Release of Huma Abedin's Government Documents on Weiner's Laptop. DECEMBER 29, 2017. Email Print Text ...

Illegal Aliens Quietly Being Relocated Throughout U.S. on ...

https://www.judicialwatch.org/.../illegal-aliens-quietly-relocated-throughout-u -s-commercial-flights/

Jan 19, 2018 ... In the last few days alone, groups of illegal aliens boarded planes at airports in Texas and Arizona accompanied by a taxpayer-funded ...

Rule

www.judicialwatch.org/.../documents/2011/usa-v-hlf-order-07012009.pdf

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat

Islamic Relations (“CAIR”), the Islamic Society of North America (“ISNA”), and the North. American ... In their Motion, ISNA and NAIT ask the Court to (1) declare.

Judicial Watch: State Department Records Show Obama ...

https://www.judicialwatch.org/.../judicial-watch-doj-records-show-**obama- administration-helped-fund-george-soros-left-wing-political-activiti...

Apr 4, 2018 ... The records were obtained in a May 26, 2017, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. ...

Judicial Watch Sues Justice and State Departments for Uranium ...

https://www.judicialwatch.org/.../judicial-watch-sues-justice-state-departments -uranium-one-records/

Apr 10, 2018 ... In July 2014, Judicial Watch released more than 200 Clinton conflict-of interest documents, including a record of a speech in Moscow in June ...

New Clinton Benghazi Documents- Judicial Watch

https://www.judicialwatch.org/.../new-clinton-benghazi-documents/

Apr 22, 2016 ... The documents reveal that the then-Secretary of State informed then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil that the deadly terrorist attack on ...

==

2011 acorn cite by vadum

ACORN and its affiliate, Project Vote, successfully pressured Colorado officials to implement new policies for increasing the registration of public assistance recipients during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons. Following the policy changes, the percentage of invalid voter registration forms from Colorado public assistance agencies was four times the national average.

404

sorta

https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/03/acorn-operating-under-different-name/

==

acorn bs

https://web.archive.org/web/20141215022434/http://www.judicialwatch.org:80/blog/tag/acorn-tag/

Judicial Watch Sues HHS for Obamacare Navigator Records

APRIL 22, 2014 | SEE ALL PRESS RELEASES »

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on March 27, 2014, it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to obtain records about controversial Obamacare navigators, including records about navigator qualifications and background checks (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department…

PRESS RELEASE

:{Records Reveal Former Top ACORN Operative Continues to Advise:(style="font-weight:400"):}:CFPB:{Head, Other Officials on Housing Issues:(style="font-weight:400"):}:

OCTOBER 15, 2013 | SEE ALL PRESS RELEASES »

March 21 Letter from NHRC’s Dorpalen to CFPB Senior Advisor Calls for Extension of Home Affordable Modification Program; Obama Administration Extends Program Eight Weeks Later  (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained documents from the Consumer Financial Protection Administration (CFPB) revealing that Bruce Dorpalen, the

CORRUPTION CHRONICLES

U.S. $ponsors Event Featuring Ex ACORN Chief Trashing Whites

SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 | SEE ALL CORRUPTION CHRONICLES »

President Obama and more than a dozen U.S. government agencies participated in a Washington D.C. conference that featured a keynote speaker—a black activist who headed the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)—who made racist remarks about whites. It gets better; American taxpayers helped fund the annual event, put…

PRESS RELEASE

Judicial Watch Obtains Documents Revealing ACORN Spin-Off Received HUD Grant Despite Federal Funding Ban

AUGUST 15, 2013 | SEE ALL PRESS RELEASES »

Top HUD official transferred more than $200,000 from ACORN spin-off AHCOA for activities of “former AHCOA affiliates”  (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) revealing that on February 12, 2013, HUD Assistant Secretary for Office of…

CORRUPTION CHRONICLES

Former ACORN Director Gets $445 Mil From U.S. Treasury

JUNE 07, 2012 | SEE ALL CORRUPTION CHRONICLES »

The Obama Administration has given a former director at the scandal-plagued Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) nearly half a billion dollars to offer “struggling” Illinois homeowners mortgage assistance, a Judicial Watch investigation has found. It means the ACORN official (Joe McGavin) will go from operating a corrupt…

CORRUPTION CHRONICLES

ACORN Offshoot Sues State For Not Registering Voters On Welfare

MAY 24, 2012 | SEE ALL CORRUPTION CHRONICLES »

The Obama-tied community organization famous for operating fraudulent voter registration drives during the 2008 presidential campaign is suing a state for failing to offer voter registration services at public welfare agencies. New England United 4 Justice (NEU4J), a reincarnation of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), has…

INVESTIGATIVE BULLETIN

ACORN Documents from the Federal Election Commission

JANUARY 18, 2012 | SEE ALL INVESTIGATIVE BULLETINS »

ACORN Documents from the Federal Election Commission The following documents were obtained from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) website and are in the public domain. The cases outlined below are examples of FEC’s apparent inability to thoroughly examine complaints. In each of these three complaints filed against ACORN, a number…

INVESTIGATIVE BULLETIN

Investigation of Federal Grants Awarded to ACORN from the Corporation for National & Community Service

JANUARY 18, 2012 | SEE ALL INVESTIGATIVE BULLETINS »

On May 1, 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Corporation for National & Community Service (CNCS), asking for documents on grants given to ACORN. CNCS handles the programs and paperwork for national grants, including AmeriCorps grants. On June 1, 2009, CNCS produced documents. The…

INVESTIGATIVE BULLETIN

FBI ACORN Investigation Documents

JANUARY 18, 2012 | SEE ALL INVESTIGATIVE BULLETINS »

Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) related to the 2007 investigation and arrest of eight St. Louis, Missouri, workers from the “community organization” Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) for violation of election laws and voter fraud.

CORRUPTION CHRONICLES

DOJ Steers Countrywide Settlement Cash To Leftist Groups With Dem Ties

JANUARY 05, 2012 | SEE ALL CORRUPTION CHRONICLES »

The untold story of the Obama Administration’s widely reported, $335 million discrimination settlement with Countrywide Financial Corporation is that, under a secret Justice Department program, a chunk of the money won’t go to the “victims” but rather leftist groups not connected to the lawsuit. The Department of Justice (DOJ) will…

INVESTIGATIVE BULLETIN

Party Politics at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

DECEMBER 12, 2011 | SEE ALL INVESTIGATIVE BULLETINS »

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a lawsuit in April 2011, against Boeing, claiming that the company’s decision to open a Dreamliner production line in South Carolina was in retaliation against The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers for a series of union strikes that reportedly slowed production…

INVESTIGATIVE BULLETIN

Federal Election Commission ACORN Documents

DECEMBER 09, 2011 | SEE ALL INVESTIGATIVE BULLETINS »

Documents related to a 2006 complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) about the Project Vote/ACORN collaboration during the 2004 campaign cycle. Includes the final draft version of a document by Brian Kettenring, Project Vote’s Head Organizer in Florida, which said that the ultimate goal of this campaign was…

INVESTIGATIVE BULLETIN

ACORN

DECEMBER 09, 2011 | SEE ALL INVESTIGATIVE BULLETINS »

The leftist Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and its affiliated organizations have been the subject of great controversy. Concerns have been raised about fraudulent voter registrations, intimidation tactics, involvement in the housing market meltdown, and a partnership with U.S. Census Bureau. Most importantly, Barack Obama has

CORRUPTION CHRONICLES

ACORN Got DOJ Grant To Combat Juvenile Delinquency

DECEMBER 01, 2011 | SEE ALL CORRUPTION CHRONICLES »

A Justice Department program that annually distributes hundreds of millions of dollars to combat juvenile delinquency is under fire for giving a famously corrupt leftist group—Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)—money that was fraudulently spent. It marks the latest of several controversies for the DOJ’s Office of Juvenile Justice…

CORRUPTION CHRONICLES

ACORN Behind Occupy Wall Street Protest

OCTOBER 05, 2011 | SEE ALL CORRUPTION CHRONICLES »

A famously corrupt leftist community organization with deep ties to President Barack Obama is largely behind the national movement to “end economic segregation” and social injustice in the United States.Best known as Occupy Wall Street, the rowdy protests have received quite a bit of mainstream media coverage around the world. Besides New…

==

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/06/08/judicial-watch-s-tom-fitton-says-pardon-may-be-warranted-paul-manafort-whether-he-did-anything-wrong/220404

DOBBS (HOST): Our first guest tonight says the Manafort indictment is overkill, another example of Mueller abusing his power, and an investigation that's become disastrous. Joining us tonight, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. Tom, good to have you with us.

I mean, how many -- I mean, Manafort's going to set some sort of record as the most indicted man in political history. What in the world is -- what is gained by the Special Counsel adding to these charges, and making these extraordinary charges that have really nothing to do with the Trump campaign, that have nothing to do even with the modern era in American politics?

[...]

FITTON: If I were the president, I would look at this investigation as something requiring a pardon analysis, because I don't know whether Manafort did anything wrong or not, but I don't trust Mueller to figure it out. And I know that if he did anything wrong or not, he would never have been indicted but for his relationship with then-candidate Trump. So, if -- in those circumstances a pardon may be warranted.

Previously:

Lou Dobbs and Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton call on Trump to "just pardon everybody, you know, just have a field day"

Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton tells Hannity "It's fair to ask whether" Rod Rosenstein should "be fired, or in the least have to recuse himself"

Tom Fitton tells Tucker Carlson that Jeff Sessions should order U.S. Marshals to raid FBI offices

On Fox Business, Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton says Jeff Sessions can "unrecuse" himself from Trump/Russia probe

==

wacko

hmmn

http://winsipcuster.blogspot.com/2016/10/james-comeys-feud-with-joseph-digenova.html

quote by digen]

An Interview with Lowell P. Wigglesworth

by Fabian Colbachi CPW News Service

The conservative Judicial Watch assembled a panel of five to review the recent developments in the Hillary Clinton email scandal.

Moderated byJudicial WatchPresident Tom Fitton, the panel included Paul Schweizer the author ofClinton Cash,Jerome Corsi,author ofPartners In Crime: The Clinton's Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit,

Christopher J. Farrell, a member of theOSS SocietyandInvestigative Reporters and Editorswhose 1996 debate between Gary Webb and theWashington Post'sJeff Leen was moderated by the University of Missouri's Professor Emeritus of Journalism,Steve Weinberg, attempted to skewer Webb's reporting for the San Jose Mercury Newsand his book Dark Alliance.Also on the panel was former U.S. Attorney in Washington D.C. and founding partner of the K Street legal firm of DiGenova &Toensing, Joseph E. DiGenova.

new 9/17

https://www.ecowatch.com/silence-climate-scientists-2491043851.html

The Desperate But Effective Attempts to Silence Climate Scientists

By Jeremy Deaton

People play dirty when they can't win by playing fair. This is, more or less, the story of climate change denial in the U.S.

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are altering the climate, reaping changes with potentially catastrophic consequences. Climate deniers can't dispute the data. They can't win on facts. Instead, they impugn the credibility of scientists, a tactic which has proved both ugly and effective.

Right-wing groups are using open records laws to obtain scientists' emails, and then misrepresenting the content of those emails to question the integrity of researchers and cast doubt on their findings, all of which has a chilling effect on scientific inquiry. But scientists have earned powerful allies in the fight to protect their research—including, by a strange set of circumstances, the Trump administration.

"Climategate" led to a wave of harassment.

The current spate of invasive records requests back to "Climategate," a 2009 controversy that erupted when a hacker obtained more than 1,000 emails sent and received by climatologists at East Anglia university in the United Kingdom. Parts of some emails, taken out of context, suggested scientists had manipulated data to exaggerate the warming trend.

Climate deniers harped on the leaks to paint climate scientists as ideologically motivated and dishonest. Though an official inquiry into the matter exonerated scientists, the damage was already done. Their calls for universities to investigate climate scientists prompted institutional probes that hampered research efforts. Today, conservative advocacy groups point to "Climategate" when making open records requests.

"I think anyone who looks at the whole 'Climategate' manufactured controversy understands now that it's bogus, but that's the rationale that they've used," said Lauren Kurtz, executive director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit working to protect researchers threatened by legal attacks.

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E), a conservative think tank with ties to coal and oil companies, cited "Climategate" as the impetus for its "transparency project." In 2011, the group sued to obtain more than 10,000 emails written or received by Michael Mann, a researcher at the University of Virginia and one of the scientists implicated in "Climategate." The Virginia Supreme Court sided with Mann, who lamented the "coordinated assault against the scientific community by powerful vested interests."

That same year, E&E requested more than a decade of emails from University of Arizona climate scientists Jonathan Overpeck and Malcolm Hughes, another researcher ensnared by "Climategate." E&E's legal brief alleged there is a "climate scientific-technological elite" which has "behaved badly" in the past, a reference to "Climategate." In a gesture of surprising candor, E&E acknowledged that it was searching for emails to "embarrass both Professors Hughes and Overpeck," whom it characterized as "academic climate alarmists." That suit continues to this day.

The University of Arizona case volleyed back and forth between the trial court and the appellate court, which recently determined the trial court had failed to consider a statute that protects "unpublished research data, manuscripts, preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers" and other documents produced by researchers at Arizona public universities.

Now the case will go back to the trial court, which will reevaluate the records request in light of this statute. The ruling is a pyrrhic victory for researchers and the university, who must dedicate even more time and money to fighting off E&E. "That's basically as good as we could have hoped for," Kurtz said. Even when scientists win, they lose.

The lawsuit has taken a hefty toll on Overpeck and Hughes. Overpeck said he spent six weeks of his sabbatical sorting through 90,000 pages of emails, explaining the case was a "grave distraction" from his work and family. Hughes spent an entire summer collecting emails, failed to attend to his work and lost a research grant as a result.

These injuries are temporary. More worrisome is the long-term effect that records requests have on research. Hughes noted that, due to his involvement in the case, other scientists have been reluctant to email him. While Hughes is nearing the end of this career, he said that, were he a young man, he would "consider a different line of work or another institution."

Even if E&E loses in the trial court—and it most likely will—the group will have nonetheless succeeded in bullying climate scientists. This, rather transparently, was the point. If E&E had concerns about the empirical rigor of climate research, it could have scrutinized the findings of specific studies. Instead of interrogating the final product, it went after the hastily scribed emails exchanged between colleagues.

"I have taught, researched and administered in academia for more than 40 years and have not seen a time in which freedom of inquiry has been more needed, or more imperiled than it is now," Hughes wrote in a letter to University of Virginia president Teresa Sullivan when E&E was working to obtain Mann's emails. "Nothing is more likely to quash the creativity of America's scientists than the ever-present ear of a hostile listener intent on finding, at all costs, the appearance of malfeasance. Nothing is more calculated to discourage research into topics that may challenge power interests."

Today, some states are enacting policies to protect scientists. Rhode Island and North Dakota recently passed laws guarding academic freedom. The Rhode Island statute specifically shields "drafts, notes, impressions, memoranda, working papers and work products" from open records requests. Kurtz hopes more states follow suit.

Climate scientists have an unlikely ally in the Trump administration.

At the federal level, the issue becomes more complicated. The legal protections that guard the emails of federally-funded climate scientists also shield government employees, including those working for the president. As a result, climate scientists have an unlikely ally in the Trump administration.

In 2015, the conservative nonprofit Judicial Watch made a FOIA request to obtain the emails of climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).Judicial Watch has a history of harassing opponents with records requests—most notably Hillary Clinton. Its president, Tom Fitton, claimed the NOAA documents requested would show "the Obama administration put politics before science to advance global warming alarmism."

"This case is interesting because it was actually started under the Obama administration, but the Trump administration continued it, I think, because the Trump administration recognizes that it's important to maintain these open-records protections," said Kurtz.

The administration, though leaky, is notoriously secretive. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, who regularly antagonizes climate scientists, recently installed a $25,000 soundproof booth in his office. Pruitt has also been sparing in his use of email, in part, as a response to a 2014 open-records request that revealed his close ties with the fossil fuel industry. "The Trump administration, I don't think, is eager to be turning things over under open-record laws," said Kurtz.

The rationale for protecting scientists' emails from public disclosure is simple. FOIA was enacted to make government more transparent, but it also threatened to discourage open conversations among federal employees. Judges have interpreted the law to exclude these conversations from records requests—what's known as deliberative process privilege.

"The deliberative process privilege was designed to allow agency employees to have freedom to communicate with each other and toss around ideas and engage in devil's advocate debates and what-if arguments and really feel like they can be candid with each other," Kurtz said. "In addition, there's the rationale that people might toss out ideas that are later determined to be bad ideas and never implemented, and if you produce all those emails, it's really going to confuse the public."

The NOAA suit was settled in August."The trial court judge agreed that the emails in the NOAA case were exactly the sort of emails that this deliberative process privilege was designed to protect," Kurtz said. Judicial Watch declined to appeal to the ruling.

As with the University of Arizona case, the damage was already done. If Judicial Watch had concerns about the empirical rigor of the NOAA study, it could have scrutinized the data, the method or the results—all of which were publicly available. But, the group didn't want to debate the merits of the science. Its goal was more specific.

Invasive records requests undermine scientific inquiry.

A 2015 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists found that researchers in numerous fields—public health, environmental science, genetic engineering—face attacks from groups on both sides of the ideological spectrum. The report explains that "individuals and well-heeled special interests across the political spectrum are increasingly using broad open records requests to attack and harass scientists." It warned that such tactics can "can curb the ability of researchers to pursue their work,chill their speech and discourage them from tackling contentious topics."

With climate change, there is evidence that this is already happening.A 2015 study found that climate scientists frequently downplay the gravity of their findings in response to harassment. Authors wrote that, " in response to constant, and sometimes toxic, public challenges, scientists have over-emphasized scientific uncertainty, and have inadvertently allowed contrarian claims to affect how they themselves speak, and perhaps even think, about their own research." This erodes public understanding of science.

"We all lose when scientists self-censor due to continued harassment. We have a poorer understanding of the science and are less able to make good personal and policy decisions," said Michael Halpern, head of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Scientists will be more likely to keep their heads down and refuse to publicly engage or ask contentious research questions if they don't feel that their peers who are attacked are adequately protected."

How then do scientists balance privacy with transparency? Where is the line between confidentiality and obfuscation?

"We think it's totally appropriate to FOIA for funding information and conflict of interest information," Kurtz said. "When you're getting into research emails and candid communication, I think that's really harmful." She added, "Short of something where you have actual evidence of criminal fraud, I think those things should be protected."

FOIA is designed to give a window into the policymaking process, but science is already transparent. "When you're doing a peer-reviewed study, your peers are looking at your research and giving you feedback on it, and they are determining whether or not it is appropriate for publication," said Kurtz. Scientists must publish their data, their methods, their results, and they must disclose their source of funding .

"That sort of transparency is actually what you need to replicate the research, evaluate the research," said Kurtz. "That is not happening in the policymaking field where FOIA was originally designed to operate."

Because science is transparent, it is also self-correcting. Researchers can interrogate, criticize and improve upon each others' work. In 2013, Thomas Herndon, a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts made headlines when he found a number errors in an influential study authored by two Harvard economists. The paper showed that economic growth slows down in countries with high national debt, and it was used to justify austerity measures following the Great Recession. Herndon, 28, published a paper which called attention to the errors and refuted its conclusions about national debt.

This is how research works. Researchers evaluate and attempt to replicate the findings of their peers. They have every incentive to prove each other wrong. Herndon's work earned him the acclaim of serious economists, weeks of fawning press coverage and a star turn on The Colbert Report.Any person who could do the same for climate research would be similarly celebrated.

If E&E, Judicial Watch or any other groups were to find and publicize flaws in peer-reviewed climate research, they would be doing a public service. But, overwhelmingly, the data show that humans are driving the warming trend. So instead, right-wing groups go after emails, looking to defame scientists.

"Scientific transparency is obviously important," Kurtz said. "What we want to preclude is scientists having to live in a fish bowl."

Reposted with permission from our media associate Nexus Media.

 ==

==

Conservative anti-Clinton group Judicial Watch announced a “special panel presentation” promising a “scandal update” on the Clinton Foundation and the emails of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.Judicial Watch, itself a hub for baseless smears against the Clintons, invited to the panel two discredited Clinton conspiracy theorists known for making claims based on “bogus” data.

Judicial Watch To Hold A “Clinton Scandal Update” Panel On “Emails And The Clinton Foundation”

Judicial Watch To Host “Educational Panel Discussion” On The Clinton Foundation, Clinton Emails. Right-wing group Judicial Watch announced a “special panel presentation” they entitled “Clinton Scandal Update – Emails and the Clinton Foundation.” The panel is a response to “the revelations about the pay-to-play scandal” related to Hillary Clinton’s “email system and the Clinton Foundation.” From the September 22 press release:

In response to the revelations about the pay-to-play scandal tied to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s non-state.gov email system and the Clinton Foundation, Judicial Watch announced today that it will host an educational panel discussion: “Clinton Scandal Update – Emails and the Clinton Foundation.”

Panelists include the author of the New York Times best-seller Clinton Cash and President of Government Accountability Institute Peter Schweizer;Joe diGenova, former U.S. Attorney, Independent Counsel and founding partner of the Washington, D.C., law firm diGenova & Toensing; and Chris Farrell, director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch. Moderator will be Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. Judicial Watch, [9/22/16]

Judicial Watch, Schweizer, And diGenova Frequently Peddle Clinton-Related Misinformation

Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch Is A Driving Force In Peddling Baseless Clinton Scandals. As a leading conservative activist group, Judicial Watch has repeatedly pushed a false narrative about Hillary Clinton’s emails to both the right-wing and mainstream press. Records obtained by Judicial Watch are used in the GOP Majority House of Representatives investigations into the Benghazi attacks and Clinton’s email server. Media outlets have also regularly used Judicial Watch’s baseless reports in stories about the Clinton family, often making misleading claims about Democrats and progressives. *Media Matters*, [10/2/15]

Judicial Watch Was Founded By A Clinton-Obsessed Conspiracy Theorist. Judicial Watch was founded in 1994 by Larry Klaymanwho, during the 1990s, filed at least 18 different lawsuits against Bill and Hillary Clinton accusing them of various conspiracies, and hundreds more against multiple governmental agencies, The Washington Post, and even his own mother. As The Weeknoted in 2013, Klayman pushed a conspiracy theory that “the Clintons orchestrated the murders of several of their associates in the 1990s,” which, in various iterations, has been repeated by right-wing media, notably with Trump confidante Roger Stone who accused the Clintons of murdering over 40 people. Klayman also believes President Obama is "our first 'Muslim' president" and “not even a naturalized U.S. citizen and thus is in the United States illegally.” *Media Matters*, [3/25/15, 4/12/16]

Judicial Watch Reports Routinely Dupe The Media. Despite Judicial Watch’s long history of questionable information, media outlets regularly turn to them for damaging stories about the Clintons. In August 2016 Judicial Watch claimed that a Clinton Foundation official, Doug Band, emailed then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin, to allow a Foundation donor to speak to a “substance person” about Lebanon. The media repeated the story, alleging it raised “questions about whether [the Clinton Foundation] worked to reward its donors with access and influence at the State Department.” Judicial Watch and the media ignored the complete lack of evidence that any Clinton Foundation donors ever influenced State Department policy. *Media Matters*, [8/10/16]

Peter Schweizer

Peter Schweizer’s Marquee Book Is Filled With Lies And Misinformation.Peter Schweizer, President of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), is also the author of Clinton Cash, a discredited anti-Clinton book often cited by right-wing media that purports to expose the corruption of the Clinton family. Schweizer’s book is filled with 20-plus errors, distortions, and fabrications including a false press release, political double-standards, the omission of key information (to which Schweizer admitted,) and taking quotes “badly out of context.” *Media Matters*, [4/30/15, 5/23/16]

Peter Schweizer’s Entire Career Is Full Of Errors, Retractions, And Questionable Sourcing.Peter Schweizer’s career features a long history of sloppy journalism and embarrassing mistakes. In 2005 he falsely accused then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) of underpaying workers at a vineyard she owns. In 2012, Schweizer’s GAI claimed President Obama skipped half of his daily intelligence briefings, though The Washington Post Fact-Checker blog reported that GAI’s data was “bogus” and that under Schweizer’s standard, “Republican icon Ronald Reagan skipped his intelligence briefings 99 percent of the time." The Post’s fact-checker gave GAI’s claim “three Pinocchios.” *Media Matters*, [4/20/15]

Peter Schweizer’s Lies And Misinformation Have Been Cited By Donald Trump. Schweizer’s error-ridden Clinton Cash has been referenced by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to reinforce his lies about Hillary Clinton. Trump cited the book on June 22 to claim the Clintons personally benefitted from a uranium deal with a Russian company, Uranium One, headed by a Clinton Foundation donor. However, Time magazine noted Schweizer’s conspiracy theory was “based on little evidence.” *Media Matters*, [6/20/16, 6/20/16]

Joseph diGenova

Joseph diGenova Was An Early Benghazi Misinformer. In 2013, Joseph diGenova appeared on Fox News with his wife, Victoria Toensing, and alleged the Obama administration was threatening Benghazi whistleblowers to keep quiet. However, by that time Benghazi witnesses had already reportedly testified to the FBI, an independent review board, and spoken to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) regarding the events of September 11, 2012. DiGenova also pushed the falsehood that soldiers were “relieved of their duty because they insisted there be a military response” to the Benghazi attacks, even though a military response was ordered by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. *Media Matters*, [4/30/13, 10/29/13]

Joseph diGenova Was Scolded By A Congressman For “Unseemly, Undignified” Investigative Conduct. In 1998, Roll Call reported that diGenova and his wife were excoriated by then-Rep. Bill Clay (D-MO) for their conduct in the then-ongoing Monica Lewinsky scandal:{. Clay lambasted diGenova for “becom[ing] so closely aligned with the President's critics and so personally identified with the scandal itself as to have relinquished the air of impartiality, non-partisanship, and professionalism required of leaders of a serious congressional investigation." Clay called their conduct “unseemly, undignified, unworthy of this committee, and generally detrimental to important Congressional functions." :(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}:*Media Matters*:{,:(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}:[4/30/13:{]}:

Joseph diGenova Led A Right-Wing Media Frenzy About Hillary Clinton’s Indictment. On the January 5, 2016, edition of The Laura Ingraham Show, diGenova predicted that Hillary Clinton would be indicted for her private email server within “the next 60 days.”Even though the FBI investigation was never a criminal investigation, right-wing media from Rush Limbaugh, to the Washington Examiner, and the Daily Mail ran with what Fox host Sean Hannity called an “overwhelming” case for Clinton’s criminal prosecution. On July 5, 2016 -- 182 days after diGenova’s prediction -- FBI Director James B. Comey announced that the investigation was closed and the FBI could not “find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.” *Media Matters*, [1/7/16; Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System, 7/5/16]

==

[poll to capt email]

eg chuck johnson troll

Among the 14,900 federal documents Hillary Clinton is said to have failed to turn over to the State Department in 2014 are some related to the Benghazi attacks, according to Judicial Watch.

The conservative watchdog group says that government lawyers admitted in court papers filed on Tuesday that the nearly 15,000 pages of Clinton records recovered by the FBI included some which “satisfied the [Benghazi-related] search terms.”

That suggests that Clinton withheld or deleted records which referred to the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks which left four Americans dead.

Clinton has claimed that a team of her aides searched through her email account using search terms for a variety of issues, including Benghazi.

And though Clinton has claimed that she turned over all of her work-related records, the FBI says that a forensic sweep of Clinton’s server led to the recovery of nearly 15,000 more documents. It is unclear if all of the documents were emails maintained on Clinton’s server or if they resided somewhere else.The bureau transferred the recovered documents to the State Department on Aug. 5.

Amit P. Mehta, the federal judge overseeing the Judicial Watch lawsuit, ordered the State Department to begin releasing Benghazi-related records to the watchdog group by Sept. 30. All of the documents must be produced by Oct. 31, several days before the general election. A hearing is scheduled for Aug. 30 to ascertain how many documents will be provided.

In a separate Judicial Watch lawsuit, a federal judge ruled that the State Department must start releasing deleted Clinton emails on Sept. 13. e State Department contacted The Daily Callerafter this article was published to dispute that the records in the Judicial Watch lawsuit have been definitively found to include Benghazi-related materials.

“As we have said, the Department agreed to search the materials we received from the FBI in response to several pending FOIA requests and, to the extent responsive records are identified, produce them,” State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau said.

“Using broad search terms, we have identified a number of documents potentially responsive to a Benghazi-related request. At this time, we have not confirmed that the documents are, in fact, responsive. We also have not determined if they involve Secretary Clinton.”

MONDAY, AUG 22, 2016 05:00 AM PDT

Judicial Watch vs. Hillary: The conservative group has a long history of spreading Clinton lies

Right-wing strike force Judicial Watch is not letting up on Hillary's emails — the media shouldn't enable them

HEATHER DIGBY PARTON

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/22/judicial-watch-vs-hillary-the-conservative-group-has-a-long-history-of-spreading-clinton-lies/

salon (but 2 wsj video ~ HC?! autoplay, fake news? dan henniger crook; trump arrogant blowhard idiot]

Back in the 1990s the political establishment made fun of Hillary Clinton for her comment that the press was missing the real story of “the vast right-wing conspiracy”that had been dogging her family throughout her husband’s presidency. Any mention of it provoked eye-rolls and knowing smirks among the cognoscenti, who were all absolutely sure that it was just more evidence of Clinton’s guilty conscience over something.

But she was right. And there was some real reporting on it even at the time although, as it was revealed, the Republicans would throw out another shiny object and the press pack would go running in the opposite direction like a herd of gazelles. So it was very difficult to get a handle on the whole story. For instance, this 1999 article by Jill Abramson and Don Van Natta in the New York Timeslaid out the previously untold story story of the small group of conservative lawyers who concocted the Paula Jones lawsuit and were instrumental in pushing the Monica Lewinsky matter, among other things. As it happens one of those lawyers was a fellow namedGeorge Conway, who was not yet married to Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, who is now Donald Trump’s latest campaign manager.The Drudge Report drove much of the scandal, and George Conway was believed to have been Drudge’s main source, most memorably the story about President Clinton’s alleged “distinguishing characteristic” which pundits and commentators gleefully discussed on television for months. It’s a small right-wing world after all.

The book “The Hunting of the President” and the new e-book “The Hunting of Hillary,” both by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons, finally put together the overall narrative of what happened. But even at the time, it was obvious that there was a concerted effort, funded by millionaire GOP donors, to throw mud on the Clinton administration in an attempt to either get the president impeached or force him to resign. We all know how that ended.

One of the biggest players in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was an outfit called Judicial Watch, formed in the early 90s by a conservative gadfly named Larry Klayman. Klayman was a one-man wrecking crew who filed more than 18 lawsuits against members of the Clinton administration costing them millions of dollars in legal fees. The most notable of these was a $90 million invasion of privacy suit filed against Hillary Clinton and others on behalf of the “victims” of Filegate, one of the many scandals for which both Bill and Hillary Clinton were completely exonerated by two different independent counsels.The lawsuit was colorfully described at the time by Jacob Weisberg of Slate:

Klayman has found an opening to harass his political opponents, inflicting costly all-day depositions on Harold Ickes, [George] Stephanopoulos, James Carville, Paul Begala, and many others …Klayman asks administration officials about whom they date, where they go after work, whether they were expelled from school for disciplinary problems. One 23-year-old White House assistant was interrogated about a triple murder that took place at a Starbucks in Georgetown. Klayman videotapes these depositions, excerpts of which air on Geraldo when Klayman appears on the program, and publishes the transcripts on the Internet. This is in pursuit of a case about the invasion ofprivacy,remember … The ultimate goal of the Filegate suit appears to be to inflict this treatment on Hillary Clinton.

That was just one of many Judicial Watch lawsuits, including one in which Klayman sued his own mother for $50,000, that went nowhere. But they did achieve their true purpose, which was to damage reputations, smear political opponents and inflict huge legal fees on anyone who happened to be in the administration.

Klayman left Judicial Watch in 2003 and ended up suing them (naturally.) His recent activity has included a rare righteous lawsuit against the National Security Agency for spying on Americans, and accusations that President Obama is a Muslim who is trying to institute Sharia law. Just this month he added another name to the list of more 80 deaths for which he says Hillary Clinton is responsible. And yes, he’s representing two Benghazi families in wrongful death suits against her.

...?

Meanwhile, Judicial Watch has continued its work without him. During the Bush administration they made a couple ofhalf-hearted attempts at bipartisan “watchdog” activity by submitting Freedom of Information Act requests for Dick Cheney’s energy task force members and the White House guest logs for lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The Obama presidency proved to be more fertile ground. Judicial Watch has accused the administration of creating dozens of “czars”that don’t exist, and has made a fetish out of lying about the Obamas’ travel expenses. This so-called watchdog group has engaged in some truly weird conspiracy-mongering. Via Media Matters:

Judicial Watch claimed that the Justice Department was helping to “organize and manage rallies and protests against George Zimmerman,” the Florida man who shot and killed teenager Trayvon Martin. In reality, the unit of the DOJ was sent to Florida in order to defuse tensions in the community, and as the Orlando Sentinel reported, they “reached out to the city’s spiritual and civic leaders to help cool heated emotions.”

Judicial Watch claimed that the Islamic State (ISIS) had set up a terrorist camp in Mexico “just a few miles from El Paso, Texas,” facilitating the smuggling of terrorists into the United States. Conservative media outlets picked up Judicial Watch’s claim. Authorities in both the U.S. and Mexico rejected the group’s fearmongering.

This is the same Judicial Watch that currently has the press panting over every release of the Clinton State Department emails they’ve received from their FOIA fishing expedition, rushing on the air and to print based upon the organization’s**often erroneous and misleading press releases**. Tom Fitton, the organization’s current president and author of the book “The Corruption Chronicles: Obama’s Big Secrecy, Big Corruption, and Big Government” proudly declared, “Judicial Watch has had more success investigating the IRS, Benghazi and Clinton email scandals than any House committee.”

Considering the outcomes of the IRS and Benghazi “scandals,” it would behoove the press to show a little skepticism. The history of this group is very clear. The first time it waged its campaign of character assassination against Bill and Hillary Clinton, it’s perhaps understandable that the press failed to recognize they were being manipulated by political operatives. The trumped-up Obama scandals added up to nothing as well. There’s no excuse for the media to fall for it again

==

Benghazi!— Breitbart CEO Bannon is part of a cabal that demanded the Republican Congress pursue endless investigations of the State Department response to the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.If you’re wondering why Congress has so far spent $6.7 million investigating the Benghazi tragedy, it’s partly over the fear that Breitbart News will marshal its resources to push members of the relevant congressional committees out of office if they don’t come up with a viable scandal to hang around the neck of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who served as secretary of state when the incident happened. (Breitbart News is credited with havingcreated the pressure the forced the resignation of former House Speaker John Boehner.)

In 2013, Mother Jones exposed the agenda of Groundswell, a weekly planning meeting convened by the right-wing group, Judicial Watch. Bannon’s name was on the guest list for a May 8, 2013, meeting, and Breitbart News reporter Matthew Boyle and the late editor Mike Flynn were active on its listservand participants in the messaging strategies on a range of issues at the time of the Mother Jones report. Others in the group, according to Mother Jones:

One of the influential conservatives guiding the group is Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, a columnist for the Daily Caller and a tea party consultant and lobbyist. Other Groundswell members include John Bolton, the former UN ambassador; Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy;Ken Blackwell and Jerry Boykin of the Family Research Council; Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch; Gayle Trotter, a fellow at the Independent Women's Forum; Catherine Engelbrecht and Anita MonCrief of True the Vote; Allen West, the former GOP House member; Sue Myrick, also a former House GOPer; Diana Banister of the influential Shirley and BanisterPR firm; and Max Pappas, a top aide to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

In one email message to the group, Boyle assures Groundswell members:

“I’m saying we can get pieces out fast on Breitbart. Whenever you have an idea, email or call me with a pitch and I'll do my best to get the story out there. Keep us on offense, them on defense. Even if the idea isn't perfect, I can help massage it to get there.”

Audio of one of the group’s meetings obtained by Karoli Kuns of Crooks and Liars reveals Boykin of the Family Research Council pushing the false Benghazi narrative of a State Department cover-up, suggesting that the message be conveyed toBoehner and Rep. Darryll Issa (R-Calif.),then chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, that nothing short of the appointment of a special committee on the Benghazi matter would do; conspiracy theorist, Islamophobe and birther Frank Gaffney is heard saying that in a meeting the previous night, he impressed upon the speaker and the committee chair that “there’s a lot of restiveness on the part of folks like us, and some of their donors as a matter of fact…” In May 2014, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) was appointed to lead the newly formed Select Committee on Benghazi.

Breitbart News stepped up to spin every small revelation into a false narrative of a gargantuan scandal. ...

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/5-manufactured-news-scandals-produced-and-promoted-breitbart-news-and-new-trump

==

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/01/new-fbi-docs-show-irs-tea-party-applications-to-black-hole/

new FBI Docs Show IRS Tea Party Applications To ‘Black Hole’

Photo of Ethan Barton

ETHAN BARTON

4:22 PM 08/01/2016

229131 

Lerner, the IRS official who this month revealed the tax agency   U.S. Director of Exempt Organizations for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Lois Lerner waits to testify at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on alleged targeting of political groups seeking tax-exempt status from by the IRS, on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 22, 2013. Lerner, the IRS official who this month revealed the tax agency's targeting of conservative groups asserted her constitutional right not to answer questions before a congressional committee on Wednesday. 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials orchestrated a complex scheme to dump conservative and Tea Party non-profit applicants into a bureaucratic “black hole,” according to FBI documents made public Monday by a government watchdog group.

The documents describe how the IRS targeted the groups applying for tax exemptions beginning in 2010 and continuing beyond the 2012 election in a scandal that culminated in top agency official Lois Lerner’s retirement following a series of investigations.

[If Donald Trump Is Elected President, Do You Think The IRS Will Be Held Accountable?

Your Email Address (Required)

Submit and See Results

Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.]

The IRS sent applications associated with the Tea Party to “Group 7822,” a special team apparently developed specifically to snare targeted organizations’ tax exemption requests, FBI narratives of interviews called “302s” obtained by watchdog Judicial Watch show. (RELATED: IRS Names Hundreds Of Tea Party Groups Subjected To Extra Scrutiny)

“The FBI 302 interviews with Cincinnati IRS employees reveal that the agency adopted a series of policies seemingly assuring that Tea Party and other conservative group tax exempt applications would not be approved before the November 2012 presidential election,” a Judicial Watch statement said.

The scheme’s full extent was shrouded in bureaucratic complexity. The IRS normally sorts tax-exempt applications into four categories, ranging from automatically-approved to automatically-declined.

The agency issued a document that ordered officials to look for groups connected with certain names, including the Tea Party, records show. IRS policy prohibited any groups associated with that document from being automatically approved.

But the IRS took an additional step for Tea Party applicants.

“The Tea Party designation [in internal IRS warnings] looks bad, especially since progressive cases were not included in these categories,” FBI documents show. “[Redacted] asked why progressive cases were not segregated similar to the Tea Party cases, but she did not get any satisfactory answers.”

All applications linked with the Tea Party were sent to Group 7822.

“Group 7822 was composed of 12 to 15 people and was simply a place for the Tea Party cases to be held in inventory while the agent waited to receive guidance from the Washington office,” one manager, whose name was redacted, said, FBI documents show. “There had been no precedence previously on these issues. If the case said it supports politics and political activity, it would be put into Group 7822.”

Another unnamed manager added: “DC is like a black hole.”

Increasingly delayed responses from Washington caused an enormous backlog, other IRS officials told the FBI.

“[T]hese new 302 FBI interview documents reveal for the first time just how carefully orchestrated the IRS program for silencing opposition to Obama’s reelection actually was,”Judicial Watch President Tom Fittonsaid in a statement. “Group 7822 was clearly the political equivalent of purgatory.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/01/new-fbi-docs-show-irs-tea-party-applications-to-black-hole

==

One of the issues looming large at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the movement's three-day confab held just outside Washington, DC, is the "scandal" over the IRS singling out tea party groups (and other nonprofits) for additional scrutiny during the 2012 election cycle. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who spoke first on the main stage this morning, opened his speech with a jab at Lois Lerner, the ex-IRS official at the heart of the trumped-up controversy that has yielded no evidence to back up the right-wing claim that the White House sicced the IRS on tea partiers. (Lerner appeared for a second time before the House oversight committee yesterday, where she pled the Fifth Amendment.)

But Cruz's zingers paled in comparison to what Tom Fitton, the president of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, said at a panel titled "IRS Targeting Scandal: Protecting the Voice of the People":

People are dying in the streets in Ukraine. People being oppressed by the political regime. That's what the IRS was doing.

To refresh, at least 75 people were killed in the protests in Kiev, the bloodiest period in the country's history since the fall of the Soviet Union. Soon after, Russian military forces invaded and essentially seized the Crimean peninsula in southern Ukraine. In response, Western countries have imposed sanctions against people and organizations accused of challenging Ukraine's sovereignty. In short, it's a crisis of international proportions. The IRS controversy is not. This supposed scandal has, however, briefly resuscitated the flagging tea party, which may explain the movement's continued obsession with the issue.

==

Funding

In 2002, Judicial Watch received $1.1 million from the Carthage Foundation and a further $400,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation. The year before the Scaife Foundation had given $1.35 million and Carthage $500,000.

In all, between 1997 and 2002, Judicial Watch received $7,069,500 (unadjusted for inflation) in 19 grants from a handful of foundations including. The bulk of this funding came from just three foundations - the Sarah Scaife Foundation, The Carthage Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc. [1]

(This section needs to be updated.)

Controversy

(placeholder)

Personnel

Contact

Judicial Watch, Inc.

P.O. Box 44444

Washington, DC 20026

Tel: 888-JW-ETHIC

Fax: 202-646-5199

info@judicialwatch.org

Web:http://www.judicialwatch.org/

2009 

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2009

Contact Information:

Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2009 list of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians." The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

  1. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 "Ten Most Corrupt" list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch's complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms. However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee.
  3. Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year's worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign. Ensign admitted in June to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special favors from the Nevada Republican in exchange for his silence. According to The New York Times: "The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide…" The former staffer, Douglas Hampton, began to lobby Mr. Ensign's office immediately upon leaving his congressional job, despite the fact that he was subject to a one-year lobbying ban. Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair. (These are potentially criminal offenses.) It looks as if Ensign misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to cover up his sexual shenanigans.
  5. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Judicial Watch is investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use." Rep. Frank admitted he spoke to a "federal regulator," and Treasury granted the funds. (The bank continues to flounder despite Frank's intervention for federal dollars.) Moreover, Judicial Watch uncovered documents in 2009 that showed that members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even as liberals led by Rep. Frank continued to block attempts to rein in the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: "I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury." Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008. Frank also engaged in a relationship with a Fannie Mae Executive while serving on the House Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  7. Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner: In 2009, Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that he failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes from 2001-2004 on his lucrative salary at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization with 185 member countries that oversees the global financial system. (Did we mention Geithner now runs the IRS?) It wasn't until President Obama tapped Geithner to head the Treasury Department that he paid back most of the money, although the IRS kindly waived the hefty penalties. In March 2009, Geithner also came under fire for his handling of the AIG bonus scandal, where the company used $165 million of its bailout funds to pay out executive bonuses, resulting in a massive public backlash. Of course as head of the New York Federal Reserve, Geithner helped craft the AIG deal in September 2008. However, when the AIG scandal broke, Geithner claimed he knew nothing of the bonuses until March 10, 2009. The timing is important. According to CNN: "Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG's impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28. That is ten days before Treasury staffers say they first learned 'full details' of the bonus plan, and three days before the [Obama] Administration launched a new $30 billion infusion of cash for AIG." Throw in another embarrassing disclosure in 2009 that Geithner employed "household help" ineligible to work in the United States, and it becomes clear why the Treasury Secretary has earned a spot on the "Ten Most Corrupt Politicians in Washington" list.
  9. Attorney General Eric Holder: Tim Geithner can be sure he won't be hounded about his tax-dodging by his colleague Eric Holder, US Attorney General. Judicial Watch strongly opposed Holder because of his terrible ethics record, which includes: obstructing an FBI investigation of the theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory; rejecting multiple requests for an independent counsel to investigate alleged fundraising abuses by then-Vice President Al Gore in the Clinton White House; undermining the criminal investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr in the midst of the Lewinsky investigation; and planning the violent raid to seize then-six-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint in order to return him to Castro's Cuba. Moreover, there is his soft record on terrorism. Holder bypassed Justice Department procedures to push through Bill Clinton's scandalous presidential pardons and commutations, including for 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that orchestrated approximately 120 bombings in the United States, killing at least six people and permanently maiming dozens of others, including law enforcement officers. His record in the current administration is no better. As he did during the Clinton administration, Holder continues to ignore serious incidents of corruption that could impact his political bosses at the White House. For example, Holder has refused to investigate charges that the Obama political machine traded VIP access to the White House in exchange for campaign contributions – a scheme eerily similar to one hatched by Holder's former boss, Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The Holder Justice Department also came under fire for dropping a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. On Election Day 2008, Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary garb threatened voters as they approached polling stations. Holder has also failed to initiate a comprehensive Justice investigation of the notorious organization ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), which is closely tied to President Obama. There were allegedly more than 400,000 fraudulent ACORN voter registrations in the 2008 campaign. And then there were the journalist videos catching ACORN Housing workers advising undercover reporters on how to evade tax, immigration, and child prostitution laws. Holder's controversial decisions on new rights for terrorists and his attacks on previous efforts to combat terrorism remind many of the fact that his former law firm has provided and continues to provide pro bono representation to terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Holder's politicization of the Justice Department makes one long for the days of Alberto Gonzales.
  11. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL): One of the most serious scandals of 2009 involved a scheme by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to sell President Obama's then-vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. Two men caught smack dab in the middle of the scandal: Senator Roland Burris, who ultimately got the job, and Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, emissaries for Jesse Jackson Jr., named "Senate Candidate A" in the Blagojevich indictment, reportedly offered $1.5 million to Blagojevich during a fundraiser if he named Jackson Jr. to Obama's seat. Three days later federal authorities arrested Blagojevich. Burris, for his part, apparently lied about his contacts with Blagojevich, who was arrested in December 2008 for trying to sell Obama's Senate seat. According to Reuters: "Roland Burris came under fresh scrutiny…after disclosing he tried to raise money for the disgraced former Illinois governor who named him to the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama…In the latest of those admissions, Burris said he looked into mounting a fundraiser for Rod Blagojevich -- later charged with trying to sell Obama's Senate seat -- at the same time he was expressing interest to the then-governor's aides about his desire to be appointed." Burris changed his story five times regarding his contacts with Blagojevich prior to the Illinois governor appointing him to the U.S. Senate. Three of those changing explanations came under oath.
  13. President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. Consider just a few Obama administration "lowlights" from year one: Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's scheme to sell the President's former Senate seat to the highest bidder. (Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and slumlord Valerie Jarrett, both from Chicago, are also tangled up in the Blagojevich scandal.) Moreover, the Obama administration made the startling claim that thePrivacy Act does not apply to the White House. The Obama White House believes it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability.President Obama boldly proclaimed that "transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," but his administration is addicted to secrecy, stonewalling far too many of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act requests and is refusing to make public White House visitor logs as federal law requires. The Obama administration turned the National Endowment of the Arts (as well as the agency that runs the AmeriCorps program) into propaganda machines, using tax dollars to persuade "artists" to promote the Obama agenda. According to documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the ideaemerged as a direct result of the Obama campaign and enjoyed White House approval and participation. President Obama has installed a record number of "czars" in positions of power. Too many of these individuals are leftist radicals who answer to no one but the president. And too many of the czars are not subject to Senate confirmation (which raises serious constitutional questions). Under the President's bailout schemes, the federal government continues to appropriate or control — through fiat and threats — large sectors of the private economy, prompting conservative columnist George Will to write: "The administration's central activity — the political allocation of wealth and opportunity — is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption." Government-run healthcare and car companies, White House coercion, uninvestigated ACORN corruption, debasing his office to help Chicago cronies, attacks on conservative media and the private sector, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors — this is Obama's "ethics" record — and we haven't even gotten through the first year of his presidency.
  15. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): At the heart of the corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement. Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2009 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline. These documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, include internal Pentagon email correspondence detailing attempts by Pentagon staff to accommodate Pelosi's numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker's 11th hour cancellations and changes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also came under fire in April 2009, when she claimed she was never briefed about the CIA's use of the waterboarding technique during terrorism investigations. The CIA produced a report documenting a briefing with Pelosi on September 4, 2002, that suggests otherwise. Judicial Watch also obtained documents, including a CIA Inspector General report, which further confirmed that Congress was fully briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques. Aside from her own personal transgressions, Nancy Pelosi has ignored serious incidents of corruption within her own party, including many of the individuals on this list. (See Rangel, Murtha, Jesse Jackson, Jr., etc.)
  17. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven: Rep. John Murtha made headlines in 2009 for all the wrong reasons. The Pennsylvania congressman is under federal investigation for his corrupt relationship with the now-defunct defense lobbyist PMA Group. PMA, founded by a former Murtha associate, has been the congressman's largest campaign contributor. Since 2002, Murtha has raised $1.7 million from PMA and its clients. And what did PMA and its clients receive from Murtha in return for their generosity? Earmarks -- tens of millions of dollars in earmarks. In fact, even with all of the attention surrounding his alleged influence peddling, Murtha kept at it. Following an FBI raid of PMA's offices earlier in 2009, Murtha continued to seek congressional earmarks for PMA clients, while also hitting them up for campaign contributions. According to The Hill, in April, "Murtha reported receiving contributions from three former PMA clients for whom he requested earmarks in the pending appropriations bills." When it comes to the PMA scandal, Murtha is not alone. As many as six other Members of Congress are currently under scrutiny according to The Washington Post. They include: Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-VA), Norm Dicks (D-WA.), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-KS.). Of course rather than investigate this serious scandal, according to Roll Call House Democrats circled the wagons, "cobbling together a defense to offer political cover to their rank and file." The Washington Post also reported in 2009 that Murtha's nephew received $4 million in Defense Department no-bid contracts: "Newly obtained documents…show Robert Murtha mentioning his influential family connection as leverage in his business dealings and holding unusual power with the military."
  19. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man in charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to adequately explain how he could possibly "forget" to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property. He also faces allegations that he improperly used his influence to maintain ownership of highly coveted rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, and misused his congressional office to fundraise for his private Rangel Center by preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company in exchange for funding. On top of all that, Rangel recently amended his financial disclosure reports, which doubled his reported wealth. (He somehow "forgot" about $1 million in assets.) And what did he do when the House Ethics Committee started looking into all of this? He apparently resorted to making "campaign contributions" to dig his way out of trouble. According to WCBS TV, a New York CBS affiliate: "The reigning member of Congress' top tax committee is apparently 'wrangling' other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles...Since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him." Charlie Rangel should not be allowed to remain in Congress, let alone serve as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and he knows it. That's why he felt the need to disburse campaign contributions to Ethics Committee members and other congressional colleagues.

Judicial Watch

wiki

Judicial Watch is an organization that describes itself as "a conservative, non-partisan American educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law."[1] According to its mission statement, Judicial Watch "advocates high standards of ethicsand morality in America's public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people."[2] In 2010 Judicial Watch released their list of "Washington's ten Most Corrupt Politicians." The list included Rep. Barney Frank, and President Barack Obama.[3]

Contents

[edit] History

Founded by conservative attorney Larry Klayman in 1994,[4] Judicial Watch came to public attention after filing 18 lawsuits against the administration of Democratic U.S. President Bill Clintonand figures in the Clinton administration. The organization received considerable financial support from prominent Clinton critics, including $7.74 million from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.[5] This led Clinton administration officials to accuse Judicial Watch of "abusing the judicial system for partisan ends."[6]

However, in July 2003 Judicial Watch joined the environmental organization the Sierra Club in suing the George W. Bush administration for access to minutes of Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force.[7]After several years of legal wrangling, in May, 2005 an appeals court permitted the Energy Task Force's records to remain secret.[8][9]

In September 2003, Klayman left the organization to run for the United States Senate from Florida.[10] In 2006 Klayman sued Judicial Watch and its president Tom Fitton. The lawsuit charged Fitton misrepresented his academic and professional credentials upon hiring, and upon assuming his position engaged in false and misleading fund raising, misuse of donor money, failure to appoint an attorney as Chairman, failure to comply with a promised severance package to Klayman, and other actions which damaged Judicial Watch, the donors and Klayman. [11][12] The majority of Klayman’s claims have been dismissed,including all claims against Fitton and the other officers of the organization.[13] The only claims by Klayman that remain pending before the Court consist of allegations that Judicial Watch breached a severance agreement with Klayman. [14]

Judicial Watch has asserted several claims against Klayman.[15] On October 14, 2009, the Court found that Klayman breached the severance agreement by failing to pay Judicial Watch, $69,358,48 in unreimbursed personal expenses.[16] The remainder of Judicial Watch’s claims against Klayman, which include additional claims of breaches of the severance agreement and trademark infringement, remain pending before the Court as of October 5, 2010.[17]

In 2006 Judicial Watch sued the Secret Service to force the release of logs detailing convicted former lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits to the White House. This resulted in the release of a number of documents.[18][19]

In 2007 former donor Peter F. Paul sued Judicial Watch, accusing it of using his name to raise more than $15 million to support his lawsuit against Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton while doing little to advance his case.[20][21][22] All of Paul’s claims have been dismissed.[23]

[edit] Positions

The motto of Judicial Watch is "because no one is above the law."[2] The bulk of Judicial Watch's cases involve transparency in government and government integrity, and the organization has taken positions on a wide range of issues.[24] Judicial Watch supports:

[edit] Activities

According to David Corn, Judicial Watch uses litigation as its primary tool,[4] and its web page contains detailed information on current litigation matters.[24] Judicial Watch activities include:

Judicial Watch gained media attention when a judge in a separate lawsuit ordered the Department of Justice to releasing live video taken from relevant security cameras at The Pentagon on September 11, 2001. On May 16, 2006 the group released the videos from the two cameras on their website with hopes to "...put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77..."[31]

On June 20, 2007 the group released FBI documents related to the “expeditious departure” of Saudi nationals, including members of the bin Laden family, from the United States following the 9/11 attacks. According to one of the documents, dated September 21, 2001, Osama bin Laden himself may have chartered one of the Saudi flights.[32]

[edit] Funding

In 2002, Judicial Watch received $1.1 million from The Carthage Foundation[33] and a further $400,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation. Both foundations are managed by Richard Mellon Scaife.[33] The year before the Scaife Foundation gave $1.35 million and Carthage $500,000.[33]

In all, between 1997 and 2002 Judicial Watch received $7,069,500 (unadjusted for inflation) in 19 grants from a handful of foundations. The bulk of this funding came from just three foundations – the Sarah Scaife Foundation, The Carthage Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.[33] According to MediaTransparency, itself a subsidiary of the progressive Media Matters for America, "Judicial Watch is essentially a tool of Richard Mellon Scaife, who provides almost all its funding."[33]

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ "About Us", Judicial Watch web site.
  2. ^ ***a*** ***b*** ***c*** ***d*** ***e*** "About Judicial Watch - Our Mission", Judicial Watch web site.
  3. ^ http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/dec/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2009
  4. ^ ***a*** ***b*** Corn, David (2004-03-29). "Klayman Watch". The Nation. http://www.thenation.com/article/klayman-watch. Retrieved 2007-06-02.
  5. ^ "Recipients by amounts granted by all Scaife foundations". Media Transparency. http://www.mediatransparency.org/scaifeaggregate.php. Retrieved 2007-06-02.
  6. ^ Segal, David (1998-05-30). "Pursuing Clinton Suits Him Just Fine". Washington Post. p. A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/klayman053098.htm. Retrieved 2007-06-02.
  7. ^ Bill Moyers Interview with Larry Klayman, Public Broadcasting Service, July 11, 2003.
  8. ^ Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat’l Energy Policy Dev. Group, et al., Judicial Watch web site.
  9. ^ Appeals Court Permits Energy Task Force Records to Remain Secret, Judicial Watch press release, May 10, 2005.
  10. ^ Joseph Farah, "Larry Klayman for U.S. Senate," WorldNetDaily, August 26, 2004.
  11. ^ Timothy Noah, Judicial Watch v. Judicial Watch, Slate, April 28, 2006.
  12. ^ United States District Court for the District of Columbia Civil Action No. 06-670 (Ckk); Larry Klayman, Plaintiff, V. Judicial Watch, Inc., et Al., Defendants; Memorandum Opinion, (December 3, 2007); United States District Court for the District of Columbia Civil Action No. 06-670 (Ckk); Larry Klayman, Plaintiff, V. Judicial Watch, Inc., et Al., Defendants; Memorandum Opinion, (June 25, 2009)
  13. ^ Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 628 F. Supp.2d 112, 118 (D.D.C. 2009).
  14. ^ Id.
  15. ^ Klayman, 628 F. Supp. 2d at 118.
  16. ^ Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 661 F. Supp.2d 2, 4 (D.D.C. 2009).
  17. ^ Klayman, 628 F. Supp.2d at 118.
  18. ^ The Jack Abramoff Scandal, Judicial Watch web site.
  19. ^ U.S. Secret Service Forced to Release More White House Logs Detailing Abramoff Visits, Judicial Watch website, July 7, 2007.
  20. ^ Kristen Lombardi, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Rides Again; Hillary haters go wild over campaign finance case, Village Voice, May 17th 2005.
  21. ^ "Battling the Clintons, and each other (Judicial Watch may tie up Peter F. Paul)", The New York Times, March 15, 2005, p. B3.
  22. ^ "Former Donor To Clinton Sues Judicial Watch," Josh Gerstein, New York Sun, February 8, 2007, p.5
  23. ^ Paul v. Judicial Watch, Inc., Civil Action No. 07-00279 (RCL) (D.D.C. Feb. 2, 2009) (memorandum and order granting dismissal with prejudice).
  24. ^ ***a*** ***b*** Litigation page, Judicial Watch web site.
  25. ^ Letter from Tom Fitton Re: Request for Investigation, Determination and Final Disposition of Awards Granted to Lieutenant (junior grade) John Forbes Kerry, USNR Judicial Watch web site, August 18, 2004.
  26. ^ Route, R.A. (2004-09-14). "Navy response to Judicial Watch request" (PDF). Judicial Watch. http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/navyresponse.pdf. Retrieved 2007-06-02.
  27. ^ Route, R.A. (2004-10-04). "Naval response to FOIA request" (PDF). Judicial Watch. http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/jknavydocs.pdf. Retrieved 2007-06-02.
  28. ^ By Blustein, Paul and Locy, Toni (1996-11-17). "To Gadfly of the Right, Clinton Administration Is Unsafe at Any Speed". Washington Post. p. A17. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/klayman111796.htm. Retrieved 2007-06-02.
  29. ^ Judicial Watch (2004-10-06). "House Majority Leader Should Step Down Over Ethics Lapse, Says Judicial Watch". Press release. http://www.judicialwatch.org/3844.shtml. Retrieved 2007-06-02.
  30. ^ Judicial Watch (2002-07-26). "BUSH-CHENEY WHITE HOUSE OBSTRUCTS HALLIBURTON LAWSUIT". Press release. http://www.judicialwatch.org/2221.shtml. Retrieved 2007-06-02.
  31. ^ "Defense Department Releases Two Videos of Flight 77 Crashing Into Pentagon". Judicial Watch. http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml. Retrieved 2007-06-02.
  32. ^ "Judicial Watch Releases New FBI Documents: Osama bin Laden May Have Chartered Saudi Flight Out of U.S. after 9/11". Judicial Watch. http://www.judicialwatch.org/6322.shtml. Retrieved 2008-01-04.
  33. ^ ***a*** ***b*** ***c*** ***d*** ***e*** "Recipient Grants: Judicial Watch". Media Transparency. http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=1122. Retrieved 2007-06-02.

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch"

Categories: Government watchdog groups in the United States | Political organizations in the United States | 1994 establishments

 ===

officbs bio

Tom Fitton

Tom Fitton is the President of Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption. Founded in 1994, Judicial Watch seeks to ensure government and judicial officials act ethically and do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American public.With 20 years of experience in conservative public policy, Tom Fitton has helped lead Judicial Watch since 1998 and overseen its tremendous growth and success in recent years. 

Under Fitton’s leadership, Judicial Watch was named one of Washington’s top ten most effective government watchdog organizations by The Hill newspaper.Mr. Fitton provides Judicial Watch with strategic guidance and leadership on Judicial Watch’s comprehensive efforts to fight government corruption. He is a nationally recognized expert on government corruption, immigration enforcement, congressional and judicial ethics, and open government. A former talk radio and television host and analyst, Tom is well known across the country as a national spokesperson for the conservative cause. He has been quoted in TIME, Vanity Fair, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Associated Press, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Post, and most every other major newspaper in the country. He has also appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News Channel, C-SPAN and MSNBC.

Mr. Fitton has authored numerous articles such as “Judicial Activism Hurts our Courts,” “What Bill Clinton Knew About bin Laden,” “Following Terrorism’s Money Trail,” “Senate Abandons Judicial Nominees,” “Every Town is a Border Town,” “Obama’s Records Problem” and “Jesse Jackson Exposed.” Judicial Watch also publishes the monthly 375,000+ circulation Verdict newsletter and runs the cutting-edge Internet site JudicialWatch.org, which includes the oft-cited Corruption Chronicles blog.Mr. Fitton gained national attention as a political analyst, previously working for America’s Voice and National Empowerment Television.He is a former employee of the International Policy Forum, the Leadership Institute, and Accuracy in Media.Mr. Fitton holds a B.A. in English from George Washington University.

Paul J. Orfanedes

Paul J. Orfanedes heads Judicial Watch’s Litigation Department and has been with Judicial Watch since its inception. Paul is a distinguished civil litigator who has argued in front of the Supreme Court and in the federal appeal courts on behalf of Judicial Watch and its clients.As Director of Litigation, he has been a spokesperson for Judicial Watch with his legal commentary appearing in major radio and print media outlets. In addition to managing the day-to-day operations of the Legal Department, Paul is Corporate Secretary and Treasurer of Judicial Watch. He is also member of the Board of Directors.Paul is a native of Illinois. He graduated from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1986. He received his Juris Doctorate from American University in 1990.

Tom Fitton

Christopher J. Farrell

Christopher J. Farrell joined Judicial Watch in 1999 as the organization’s Director of Investigations & Research, and has been a member of the Board of Directors since September 2003. ?Chris is a native of Long Island, New York. He was a Distinguished Military Graduate from Fordham University with a B.A. in History, whereupon he accepted a Regular Army Commission and served as a Military Intelligence Officer – specializing in Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence. Chris is a graduate of the Military Intelligence Officers Basic and Advanced Courses, the U.S. Army Advanced Counterintelligence Training Course, the Combined Arms Services Staff School of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Military Operations Training Course, and the Haus Rissen Institut für Politik und Wirtschaft in Hamburg, Germany. He is a specialist in national security matters, specializing in unconventional warfare and terrorism. Following command and staff assignments that included three tours of duty in the Federal Republic of Germany, and one tour at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, Chris returned to civilian life as a contractor to the defense and intelligence communities. He also provided management and training consulting services to non-profit organizations, and was active in the establishment of a small, private, co-ed Christian high school where he both taught and served as director. Chris has appeared on numerous national TV and radio shows, and has authored dozens of articles. He contributed a chapter on terrorism to Dr. Irwin Redlener’s book “Americans at Risk” (Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 2006). Chris maintains a busy lecture schedule on both government corruption issues and intelligence matters. He served as a Senior Staff Associate of Columbia University’s National Center for Disaster Preparedness at the Mailman School of Public Health (2005 – 2008). He is currently an adjunct professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.  Chris is a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers; the Society of Professional Journalists; Investigative Reporters and Editors; the OSS Society; the National Military Intelligence Association; and is a constituent member of the State Department’s Overseas Security Advisory Council. Chris serves as the Judicial Watch main representative to United Nations Headquarters in New York.

==

Jason Aldrich is Judicial Watch’s longest standing employee having joined the organization in November of 1997. Since 2001 he has served as a staff attorney. Jason has extensive experience litigating Freedom of Information Act cases in federal court as well as Freedom of Information Law cases in New York State. Jason has been involved in several significant Judicial Watchcases, including theFOIA lawsuit that uncovered a scheme in President Clinton’s CommerceDepartment to offer seats on government trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions. Jason received his law degree from the Marshall- Wythe School of Law at the College of William & Mary in 1997, where he was an article editor for theWilliam & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. He received his undergraduate degree in Philosophy from Bates College in 1993. He is a member of the bars of New York, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Jason Aldrich

Lauren Burke

Lauren M. Burke joined the Judicial Watch legal team in September 2014. She has extensive trial experience and a background in government and public policy. Lauren worked for a large New England law firm and a boutique, full service law firm in Boston, MA where she was part of a strong litigation team that developed a cooperative legal group working in Massachusetts and Washington D.C. Lauren has litigated civil, commercial and criminal cases in federal, state, and administrative courts. Notably, Lauren argued against qualified immunity in a federal civil rights case and successfully defeated summary judgment in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts; arbitrated an award for compensation, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees in a Wage and Payment Act case on fraud and successor liability; negotiated a multi-million dollar settlement as lead counsel in an international trademark and patent rights case; was lead counsel in a consumer protection case obtaining favorable judgment and collaborating with the Massachusetts Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs for further prosecution; successfully resolved a commercial contract dispute in the international arbitration forum. Prior to embarking on a legal career, Lauren worked in government relations in both the public and private sectors in Washington, D.C. While pursuing a B.A. in politics from the Catholic University of America, Lauren worked at Judicial Watch in the development department. She received her J.D. from Suffolk University Law School in Boston, MA where she worked as a certified prosecutor in Boston district court under Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3.03. She also worked for the Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services as an appellate attorney for indigent clients achieving remand or overturned verdict in 10 out of 12 appeals filed and argued. Originally from Philadelphia, PA, Lauren now resides and primarily practices in Washington D.C. She is licensed in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.

Lauren Burke

Michael Bekesha

Michael Bekesha joined Judicial Watch’s legal team in 2009 after receiving his law degree. Michael previously interned with Judicial Watch during his last summer of law school.

Since joining Judicial Watch, Michael has litigated dozens of freedom of information cases in both state and federal courts on behalf of Judicial Watch as well as individuals, media organizations, and other not-for-profit organizations.Most recently, Michael successfully forced the U.S. Department of Justice to produce over 42,000 pages of records that were being improperly withheld under a claim of Executive Privilege.

In addition to government transparency lawsuits, Michael has had extensive experience litigating accountability and integrity lawsuits in both federal and state court. Michael has challenged the delay of the employer mandate on behalf of a Florida orthodontist, challenged the Cook County Sheriff’s Office for failing to comply with its legal duties, and challenged the District of Columbia’s policy allowing Congressional employees to purchase health insurance on the “Small Business Exchange.” Michael also has represented a whistleblower in a whistleblower/First Amendment retaliation action under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and three police officers in a Section 1983 lawsuit for violations of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, Michael has filed numerous amicus curiae briefs concerning a variety of issues, including Voter ID, illegal immigration, FOIA, and executive overreach.Michael has also drafted legislation and testified before state legislatures. Michael most recently testified before the State Government Committee of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives concerning the impeachment of the Pennsylvania Attorney General.

Michael received his law degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia, School of Law in 2009, where he was a member of the Journal of Dispute Resolution. He received his undergraduate degree in Political Science from Northwestern University in 2004 and is actively involved in Northwestern’s local and national alumni affairs. Michael has been published three times, most recently in the Administrative and Regulatory Law News in an article entitled James Madison Would Not Litigate FOIA Disputes: Fixing FOIA through ADR, and is a member of the bars of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Michael Bekesha

Ramona R. Cotca

Ramona R. Cotca joined Judicial Watch’s legal team as a senior attorney in May 2013. For the last eight years prior to joining Judicial Watch, she worked as a litigator for a local boutique firm and then joined the national in-house litigation group for a Fortune 500 company. In her previous practice she represented corporate clients in a variety of complex civil litigation matters, including contracts, insurance, product liability, professional malpractice, real estate and wrongful death. Ms. Cotca has tried cases in local state and federal courts in the District of Columbia and Maryland, and has argued cases at the appellate levels, including the U.S. Court for Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Ms. Cotca is a member of the bars of the District of Columbia and Maryland, as well as several federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States.Ms. Cotca earned her Juris Doctorate and Masters of Arts in International Affairs from Washington College of Law and American University in 2004. She graduated from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor with high honors in 2001 and attended Oxford University in 2000. Ms. Cotca is also an active member in a number of professional legal organizations, including The Barristers, and sits on several boards. Ms. Cotca is fluent in Romanian.

Ramona R. Cotca

Chris Fedeli

Chris Fedeli joined Judicial Watch in 2012 as a senior attorney. Since joining, Chris has litigated multiple cases in state and federal courts concerning election integrity, ballot initiatives and referendums, and government transparency. In October, 2013, Chris argued thegerrymandering referendum case of Parrot v. McDonough before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. Chris has also authored or co-authored several amicus briefs for Judicial Watch filed with the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts. Prior to joining Judicial Watch, Chris was a senior associate at Davis Wright Tremaine in Washington D.C., where he represented clients in communications law litigation and regulatory proceedings. In 2009, the ABA’s Communications Lawyer published Chris’s articlecriticizing the FCC for its heavy-handed net neutrality regulations, which have since been overturned twice by the DC Circuit. Chris is a native of New Jersey. He received his law degree from Georgetown University and his undergraduate degree from the University of Pittsburgh. He is admitted to practice before the courts of Maryland, the District of Columbia, and several federal courts. During his career, Chris has been active in the Federal Communications Bar Association and the Republican National Lawyers Association.

Chris Fedeli

Paul J. Orfanedes

Paul Orfanedes heads Judicial Watch’s Litigation Department and has been with Judicial Watch since its inception. Paul is a distinguished civil litigator who has argued in front of the Supreme Court and in the federal appeal courts on behalf of Judicial Watch and its clients.As Director of Litigation, he has been a spokesperson for Judicial Watch with his legal commentary appearing in major radio and print media outlets. In addition to managing the day-to-day operations of the Legal Department, Paul is Corporate Secretary and Treasurer of Judicial Watch. He is also member of the Board of Directors.Paul is a native of Illinois. He graduated from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1986. He received his Juris Doctorate from American University in 1990.

Paul J. Orfanedes

James F. Peterson

James F. Peterson, an attorney with broad experience in complex litigation, is a senior member of Judicial Watch’s legal team. His breadth of knowledge and experience have contributed greatly to Judicial Watch’s success as he has played a key role in some of Judicial Watch’s most significant cases. These include Judicial Watch’s case before the Supreme Court concerning Vice President Cheney Energy Task Force documents (Judicial Watch v. Nat’l Energy Policy Dev. Group) and many of Judicial Watch’s groundbreaking lawsuits seeking to compel the enforcement of the nation’s immigration law. Most recently, Mr. Peterson has worked closely with the Arizona State Legislature in its legal defense of Arizona’s “S.B. 1070” immigration enforcement law.Prior to joining Judicial Watch in 2002, Mr. Peterson was a member of the litigation practice of a large national law firm in Washington, D.C., representing business clients in federal and state courts and administrative proceedings. He also was in the litigation department of a major national trade association, representing the industry in complex tax and administrative litigation.Mr. Peterson is a graduate of the George Mason University School of Law, where he was the Articles Editor of the school’s Civil Rights Law Journal. He received his undergraduate degree from Kent State University in Ohio. Mr. Peterson is an active member of the Federalist Society and other conservative organizations. He is a member of the bars of the District of Columbia, Virginia, and numerous federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States.

James F. Peterson

Robert Popper

Robert Popper joined Judicial Watch in September 2013 as a senior attorney and as head of Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Project. Prior to joining Judicial Watch, Mr. Popper worked for eight years, five as Deputy Chief of the Voting Section, in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, in which capacity he garnered numerous professional awards. Before that, Mr. Popper worked as a private attorney in New York City for 17 years, where his practice extended to a wide range of legal matters, including voting rights. Mr. Popper served as counsel in a successful constitutional challenge alleging racial segregation in the design of New York’s congressional districts, and successfully defended the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Popper is a published author on the topic of voting rights law. He developed a legal standard relating to gerrymandering that is widely cited by experts and was adopted by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. He has testified before the Missouri Senate Redistricting Committee and the Pennsylvania House State Government Committee; and he has spoken about voting rights to a conference of U.S. Attorneys at the National Advocacy Center, to state officials, and to countless local community representatives. Mr. Popper is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and Northwestern University Law School. He is admitted to practice in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Robert Popper

Christina Rotaru

Cristina joined Judicial Watch as a legal assistant in 2002. She holds a BA and a Master’s degree in English from the University of Bucharest, Romania. She also has completed coursework toward a PhD in English at the University of Maryland, where she taught writing and composition for ten years.

Christina Rotaru

David F. Rothstein

David F. Rothstein is a paralegal with Judicial Watch’s legal team. He has worked for Judicial Watch since 2003. David’s prior legal experience included working with both a small law firm and a large legal contractor. David has worked with courts in many different jurisdictions. David has utilized the broad-based knowledge that he has attained to assist Judicial Watch in its many legal victories in both state and federal courts. David is a graduate of the College of William and Mary, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Government. David also has a law degree from the Columbus School of Law of Catholic University and is a member of both the District of Columbia Bar and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Bar. David has litigated Freedom of Information Act cases in addition to his paralegal dutie

==

Judicial Watch is currently seeking interns for our 2016 Fall Internship Program to serve in the following capacities:

Legal Intern:Legal interns have the opportunity to work closely with our Legal Department on various federal lawsuits brought under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the National Voter Registration Act as well as state lawsuits on behalf of taxpayers.  Over the course of 8-10 weeks, interns will assist Judicial Watch’s eight attorneys and two paralegals with legal research, brief writing, drafting FOIA requests and administrative appeals, document review and analysis, and a host of other key litigation responsibilities, as well as various other duties as assigned. Applicants are required to be enrolled in or have completed their first year of law school. If interested, please send a cover letter, resume, and a writing sample (no more than 10 pages) to Patrick Roy at proy@judicialwatch.org.

Investigations Intern:Investigations interns at Judicial Watch are introduced to the structure of government agencies subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  Investigations interns learn about the nine FOIA exemptions, and how to draft FOIA requests accordingly.  They also research the open records laws for state and local governments and use their findings to supplement requests at the federal level.  Once the interns in the JW Investigations Department have been trained on proper FOIA protocol, they are encouraged to explore key issues of personal interest and/or open investigations under Judicial Watch’s guidance. If interested, please send a cover letter, resume, and a 500 word writing sample to Patrick Roy at proy@judicialwatch.org.

Development and Fundraising Intern:Judicial Watch’s Development Department is seeking interns for its busy and growing fundraising development program to assist Development staff in the many day-to-day activities fundamental to raising over $21 million for one of the leading conservative non-profit organizations in America. Development interns will gain experience and understanding in all aspects of non-profit fundraising, from direct mail, internet fundraising, and foundation grants, to major and planned giving programs. Interns will assist with a variety of tasks including donor correspondence, telephone calls to donors, writing and sending acknowledgement letters, major donor research and foundation grant writing, as well as various other duties as assigned.  Interns will also gain a thorough knowledge about the importance of donor databases by assisting with data-entry, data clean up, donor coding and more. Interns must be politically conservative, detail oriented and willing to learn. If interested, please send a cover letter, resume, and a 500 word writing sample to Patrick Roy atproy@judicialwatch.org.

KLAYMAN BAK:

==

funny, i was wondering earlier today about judicial watch figleaf of cheney secret task force

==

no lnx

ref

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/04/17/hate-groups-and-racist-pundits-spew-covid-19-misinformation-social-media-despite-companies

Hate groups and racist pundits have pushed misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic on mainstream social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube throughout the crisis, despite companies pledging to fight fake news about the virus.

Among some of the false claims propagated on social media include the notion – based on unproven race science – that persons of East Asian descent were predisposed to suffer from COVID-19, erroneous assertions that the virus was originally designed to be a bioweapon and arguments supporting the idea that racism can protect against global pandemics.

Hatewatch has chosen to repeat some of these posts in full to demonstrate the nature of the problem.

This deluge of COVID-19-related misinformation cuts against a pledge made by Facebook, YouTube and Twitter in February 2020, when representatives from some of the world’s largest tech companies convened with members of the World Health Organization (WHO) to discuss tampering the spread of false information related to the virus. The group was gathered, in part, in response to what a representative from the WHO dubbed an “infodemic” in an interview with CNBC – the new wave of false information on major social media platforms.

Groups such as Change the Terms, a coalition of civil rights organizations including the Southern Poverty Law Center, have pushed to bridge this gap. Change the Terms advocates for social media companies to adopt a reasonable standard of care regarding regulation, which aims to constrain hate activity without stifling communities arbitrarily. But there is work yet to be done. Companies, as the 2019 “Year in Hate” report found, still struggle “to prioritize public safety over the freedom of their users to post extremist content.” The moderation of hate groups across all platforms is often inconsistent as well. Some groups, such as white nationalist publication American Renaissance, have been banned from Twitter and Facebook for hate speech for years, but have nevertheless continued to operate on YouTube.

As Hatewatch found in a survey of numerous hate groups tracked by the SPLC’s Intelligence Project across three major social media platforms – YouTube, Facebook and Twitter – racism and disinformation has continued to fester. In addition to spreading racist memes and fake news about Asian Americans and other minority groups, hate groups have used all three platforms to boost a slew of conspiracy theories, fake cures (including one that has resulted in a death in Arizona) and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

When considering the real-world threat posed by social media companies’ inability to enforce their own guidelines on misinformation and fake news, Chloe Colliver, the head of digital policy and strategy at ISD, told Hatewatch that “three main risks came to mind.” These included the risks posed not only to public health by the proliferation of fake cures, but also to institutions as a result of a preponderance of conspiracy theories. She also cited the danger of “target attacks” against minority groups and others.

“None of which are new,” she added. “They fit the patterns of platforms’ inability to deal with [these] specific kinds of attack and disinformation content.”

Most, if not all, of the groups spreading this content have been given a pass to do so under existing social media policies.

“Obviously, the historical reticence of these companies to promote evidence-based or expert information above other kinds of information has come back to bite [them] now, as we’ve seen,” Colliver continued. “The platforms themselves acknowledged that their policies aren’t up to scratch in a crisis like this.”

Facebook

VDARE, a white nationalist site that has had a promotional page on Facebook since 2012, has seized upon this climate of instability to push its racist agenda. More than 50 posts on its promotional page referred to the epidemic in some capacity.

“There is now scientific evidence that Africans (and Whites) are more resistant to [COVID-19] than Asians and that this is for genetic reasons,” one post from March 5 said. It included a link to an article from pseudonymous New York-based contributor “Lance Welton,” titled “Chinese Scientists Find MORE Evidence That Coronavirus (a.k.a. COVID-19) Discriminates By Race.”

“I’m sure the health authorities do have this information,” VDARE editor Peter Brimelow contended in an article posted to the site on March 12 as a follow up to “Welton’s” piece. Using debunked race science, Brimelow posited that COVID-19, as well as its predecessor, SARS, were “Oriental-specific.”

“Are some racial groups more prone to catching the Chinese pathogen – and are some races more severely affected when they do?” asked another Facebook post from March 31 – the same day officials announced that deaths in the United States had officially surpassed those of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. The same post included a link to an article featuring a section titled “Coronovirus [sic] and the Mexican Race.”

VDARE, which has often referred to the coronavirus as the “Chinese virus” or “Wuhan flu” (or “Wuflu”), defended Trump’s own use of the term on March 17 as well, arguing in a March 17 post that any opposition to such nomenclature was born out of a world where “white people are blamed for all . . . problems.”

Fake cures, not to mention misinformation regarding the source of the virus and government efforts to contain it, have been featured on a number of pages belonging to hate groups and extremist groups monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

WorldNetDaily (WND), a conspiracy-minded outlet and active antigovernment extremist group with over 840,000 likes on Facebook, has boosted a number of articles featuring antisemitic dog whistles, fake cures and other disinformation. Recent WND headlines include: “Coronavirus is being weaponized by Soros, others behind anti-Trump ads”; “Clyburn: Democrats must use Chinese virus to restructure America ‘to fit our vision’”; and “Newt Gingrich’s question for Biden exposes Obama’s undeniable role in N95 mask shortage.” Another proclaimed that a three-drug cocktail promoted by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko had a “100% success” rate in treating 350 patients with COVID-19. The article, which was shared to WND’s Facebook on March 24, includes an embedded video from Dr. Zelenko himself, which has since been removed by YouTube for violating community guidelines.

Though the particular combination of drugs – which includes hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malarial treatment – has been used by some doctors, the rapid spread of misinformation regarding the drugs’ use has raised some concern, especially for patients who may attempt to administer them themselves.

On March 31, WND published an article titled “‘Cover-up’: Chinese researched bat virus near Wuhan market,” which posited that the virus may have originated in a research lab near Wuhan.

Several antigovernment groups, including militias, peppered their pages with misinformation implying that the virus would result in a communist takeover of essential industries and/or attacks on the Second Amendment. These fears are central to the antigovernment movement’s opposition to the “New World Order.” This far-reaching conspiracy theory, which features prominently in antigovernment and other far-right circles, posits that a small, secretive cadre of elites are behind a rising totalitarian, one-world government.

“We’re not going down the road that leads to tyranny, and that’s what this whole crisis is about,” James Stachowiak, otherwise known as “Johnny Infidel,” said on a video on Facebook that sought to inspire “lone wolves” to take action.

“KLAYMAN: LEFT USING COVID-19 TO INSTALL GOV’T DICTATORSHIP!,” screamed a post on Freedom Watch’s page – a group run by far-right extremist Larry Klayman– in a post from March 25.

Still others encouraged users to view the virus as a vast “globalist” conspiracy. This antisemitic euphemism is frequently used by groups such as WND and Infowars, and has its roots in the centuries-old antisemitic image of Jews as “puppeteers” in complete control of society. One post from anti-LGBTQ extremist Scott Lively, published on March 22, claimed that the coronavirus outbreak had been “orchestrated” by the elites. Their goal, he contended, was to target “small business because it is a cornerstone of American self-sufficiency and serves as a barrier to the complete Marxist takeover of our society.”

Twitter

“Now think of a country the size of China . . . and think of its multi-thousand-year habit of eating some very strange creatures – basically a zoo is a menu in China, it seems. What are the odds that coronavirus just happened to emerge within a stone’s throw – in a giant country – of its only level four bioweapons lab?” asked white nationalist YouTuber and self-proclaimed philosopher Stefan Molyneux in a video clip posted to his Twitter on March 30.

“The odds, of course, are virtually zero,” he said. He claimed the virus appeared to be “engineered,” possibly for “transmission and lethality.”

Molyneux – who runs a verified account on Twitter with over 450,000 followers – has spread racist or pseudoscientific disinformation about COVID-19 for weeks.

“Open borders guy reaps fruit of open borders,” he tweeted on March 7, after the head of Italy’s Democratic Party tested positive for the virus.

Then, on March 25, Molyneux released a video accusing the media of turning “attention away from the mass infiltration of academia, of media, of Hollywood, [and] of real estate [by] Chinese citizens, often with illicit money from the criminal actions of the Chinese government.”

Finally, when asked by a follower why German hospitals weren’t “overwhelmed,” Molyneux encouraged followers on March 26 to “go look up average IQ by country.”

Molyneux, a well-known proponent of scientific racism, has as recently as Oct. 7, 2019, stated that the “average IQ in Syria is 83. Turkey is 90. They will never ever be like the West.” In 2018, he also cited “racial IQ differences” as a method to “push back against Third World immigration without succumbing to racism.”

Molyneux has made his affinity for a white “monoculture,” to borrow his term, widely known. In late 2018, Molyneux said he had endeared himself to white nationalist beliefs after visiting Poland, which he referred to as “an all-white country,” according to a Right Wing Watch report from Dec. 21, 2018.

Other prominent far-right accounts have sought to downplay the threat posed to Americans by the virus in various ways.

Far-right social media personality and Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe produced a series of videos featuring him driving to different COVID-19 testing sites and hospitals in the New York City metro area on March 27. The videos, which were published on both O’Keefe’s personal Twitter with over 710,000 followers, as well as Project Veritas’s verified account with some 460,000 followers, include O’Keefe pressing a national guardsman to call the media coverage of the crisis “overblown.”

Though one of the videos was removed from O’Keefe’s Facebook on April 1, they remain on Twitter.

VDARE, which has evaded waves of Twitter bans targeting white nationalists, advertised on April 3 that they had created a “special archive” for posts related to COVID-19 and race. According to the white nationalist site, the “race-denying ruling class” – as one author called them in a March 28 article quoted on Twitter on April 1 – has supposedly denied the role of pseudoscientific racial differences in the spread of the disease.

“Ruling Class concedes it’s ok to Notice that Coronavirus discriminates by gender, but NOT that it discriminates by race. Why?” the account tweeted on Feb. 21.

VDARE also pushed the same anti-Asian rhetoric that has led to a wave of hate crimes across the country. “575,000+ Chinese call NYC home,” it posted on March 22, along with a link to an article titled “Is NYC Coronavirus Ground Zero Because Massive ‘Be Strong Wuhan’ Feb 9th Chinese New Year’s Parade Helped Spread the Chinese Virus?”

Twitter has, at times, cracked down on disinformation on the platform. On March 25, Twitter removed a post from the far-right site the Federalist, which advocated for spreading the virus through “chickenpox parties.” A March 27 tweet from Turning Point USA head Charlie Kirk, which echoed the president’s endorsement of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment, has since been removed from the platform for a terms of service violation. Two tweets from the far-right populist president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, were removed on March 30 for spreading misinformation.

YouTube

“We actually have sound, instinctive reasons to be xenophobes,” American Renaissance head Jared Taylor told viewers in a YouTube video posted on March 12. He continued:

Everyone knows about the body’s immune system, which fights disease. We also have a behavioral immune system. All people everywhere instinctively avoid certain things that could make us sick. Piles of feces. Rotting flesh. People with running sores. Part of this behavioral immune system is an instinctive fear that people who act or look strange could be carrying disease.

“Xenophobia,” Taylor concluded, “can save your life.”

Taylor followed up on March 27, noting in a video titled “What the Virus Means for Us” that “everything teaches ‘identitarian’ lessons, including the coronavirus.”

“Professor Giorgio Palu, former president of the European Society of Virology, says that early on there was a proposal to isolate people coming from China, but they didn’t do that because people would’ve said that was ‘racist.’ Professor Polu believes that a large level of the devastation [in Italy] was caused by that: fear of being called racist,” Taylor said later in the same video.

Though Palu did acknowledge that a proposal to “isolate people coming from China” was shot down in a statement to CNN on March 18, he also explained that the breadth of Italy’s outbreak arose from the government lagging on both testing and enforcing lockdowns.

Despite being banned from Twitter since 2018, American Renaissance’s YouTube channel and its 126,000 subscribers have remained.

Jason Köhne, a white nationalist podcaster and vlogger known online as “No White Guilt,” blamed “anti-whiteism” not only for coronavirus spreading throughout the United States, but also for ensuring that many medicines and medical products were produced abroad.

“This is an anti-white issue,” he said in a video posted on March 24. “You can say there’s an economic component to it, but the bottom line is that the . . . incentivization structures have been put in place to capitalize on the harm inflicted on Western kind.”

Molyneux, meanwhile, used his channel to flesh out the idea, also propagated on his Twitter, that the virus was a “bioweapon.”

“[COVID-19] is kind of like the perfect virus from a weaponization standpoint, and if it was related to eating bats, it’s not like people in China started eating bats last October,” he said in a podcast from Jan. 25.

In a live stream aired March 27, Molyneux, along with his guest, Dr. Paul Cottrell, who received his Ph.D. in finance from the online, for-profit school, Walden University, discussed whether “the Wuhan virus is the bioweapon” that Cottrell contended had leaked out of a lab near Wuhan in 2015. Molyneux later pondered whether the virus’s spread throughout the world ought to be considered an act of “manslaughter” or even “homicide,” presumably on China’s part.

A day later, in a now-unlisted YouTube video linked to on Molyneux’s Twitter he declared a sort of victory for the racist, anti-immigrant right.

“All the people who were called ‘xenophobic’ and ‘racist’ for wanting to talk about immigration – who said that it was possible to stop it relatively easily – they’ve all been proven right,” he said in the March 28 video.

“Now the walls go up because it affects those in power,” he said

==

**George Zimmerman Attacks Trayvon Martin's Family With Help From Larry Klayman and a Right-Wing Blog**

===

1219

https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/george-zimmerman-sues-trayvon-martins-family-attorney-publisher-and-others-for-100-million/

George Zimmerman sues Trayvon Martin’s family, attorney, publisher and others for $100 millionhttps://www.alternet.org/2019/12/george-zimmerman-sues-trayvon-martins-family-attorney-publisher-and-others-for-100-million/Marissa Higgins/Daily Kos

no lnx

George Zimmerman sues Trayvon Martin’s family, attorney, publisher and others for $100 million

Written by Marissa Higgins / Daily Kos December 5, 2019

George Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch volunteer, shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in 2012 as the unarmed black teenager was walking in the gated community his father’s fiancee lived in. Trayvon, who was on his way back from the store, carried just a bag of Skittles and a drink, though Zimmerman claims he shot in self-defense. Being acquitted of the teenager’s death in 2013 was apparently not enough.As reported by the Miami Herald, Zimmerman is filing a lawsuit against Martin’s family, civil rights attorney Ben Crump, key witness Rachael Jeantel, and others. He seeks more than $100 million in damages.

The suit, which was filed in Polk County, Florida, alleges a number of offenses, including conspiracy, abuse of civil process, and defamation. Among other claims, the suitalleges that Rachel Jeantel, an important witness in the trial who was on the phone with Trayvon before he was killed, was an “imposter.” The lawsuit accuses defendants of creating a “false storyline to prosecutors in order to cause Zimmerman to be arrested, tried, and convicted for second degree murder.” The suit states that all listed defendants “have worked in concert to deprive Zimmerman of his constitutional and other legal rights.”

In total, the suit lists the following defendants: Sybrina Fulton, Benjamin Crump, Rachel Jeantel, Brittany Diamond Eugene, Tracy Martin, Bernie De La Rionda, John Guy, Angela Corey, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, The State of Florida, and HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C.

Of note, of course, is Sybrina Fulton. Fulton is listed as the lead defendant. She is also Trayvon’s mother. Fulton became active in the Black Lives Movement, as well as gun reform, after her son’s death. She’s currently running for a seat on the Miami-Dade County Commission.

Crump, the family attorney, also stands out on the list. He issued a statement on behalf of himself, Tracy Martin, and Sybrina Fulton on Wednesday:

“I have every confidence that this unfounded and reckless lawsuit will be revealed for what it is – another failed attempt to defend the indefensible and a shameless attempt to profit off the lives and grief of others. This plaintiff continues to display a callous disregard for everyone but himself, revictimizing individuals whose lives were shattered by his own misguided actions. He would have us believe that he is the innocent victim of a deep conspiracy, despite the complete lack of any credible evidence to support his outlandish claims.This tale defies all logic, and it’s time to close the door on these baseless imaginings.”

HarperCollins, a book publisher, is on the list because of Crump’s book, Open Season: Legalized Genocide of Colored People, in which Zimmerman claims he was defamed.

Who is representing Zimmerman in this case? Far-right activist and attorneyLarry Klayman. Klayman is the founder of the conservative watchdog group Freedom Watch. Among other things, you might remember him as a major “birther” who refused to believe that former President Barack Obama was born in the United States. As reported by ABC 7, an ethics committee of the bar in D.C. recommended that Klayman’s license be suspended in July.

Why this suit and why now? Klayman said the suit came to fruition after new “evidence” in a film and book called The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking the Witness Fraud that Divided America by filmmaker Joel Gilbert came to light.

NBC reports that Zimmerman, Klayman, and Gilbert arranged to hold a press conference at Coral Gables Art Cinema on Thursday to discuss their case. However, once the theater realized the details, it canceled the event.

Zimmerman has been arrested numerous times since he walked free in 2013. He faced felony aggravated assault charges and domestic aggravated assault charges (both dropped), and charges of cyberstalking and harassing a private investigator. A man also said Zimmerman threatened to kill him during a road rage incident. In perhaps his most uniquely horrifying move since being acquitted, Zimmerman also says he sold the gun he says he used to kill Trayvon.

==

==

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/jerome-corsi-and-larry-klayman-threaten-to-sue-gateway-pundit/

no lnx twit

Jerome Corsi and Larry Klayman Threaten to Sue Gateway Pundit

By Jared Holt | January 31, 2019 1:01 pm

Jerome Corsi and one of his lawyers are waging threats to sue against The Gateway Pundit, an outlet that has been overwhelmingly supportive of Corsi before he began singing to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators in the Justice Department probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Corsi admits that he corroborated evidence that the Mueller team had involving the interactions he had with Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone, who was arraigned on Tuesday, with regard to the WikiLeaks dumps of emails hacked from the Clinton campaign by Russian intelligence operatives.

Larry Klayman, the estranged founder of Judicial Watch who is representing Corsi as he processes through Mueller’s probe, appeared on NewsmaxTV yesterday with host John Cardillo to spar with Gateway Pundit contributor Cassandra Fairbanks, who had taken to Twitter the day before to call Corsi “a deranged old man,” and to criticize Mueller for taking information from him. Corsi is also represented by New Jersey attorney David Gray.

(Screenshot/Twitter)

It’s worth noting that many in Stone’s orbit—a right-wing media universe that includes Fairbanks—have sought to smear and discredit Corsi, believing that the former Infowars writer is directly responsible for Stone’s ensnarement in the Mueller probe. Stone was indicted last Friday for allegedly lying to federal officials about his communications with senior Trump campaign officials about WikiLeaks releases that were published during the summer before the 2016 election. Corsi and Stone are currently threatening to sue each other for defamation.

“All of this is kind of smoke. It means nothing in terms of what Mueller has and Roger should take it seriously,” Klayman said. “Dr. Corsi has been the hero here. He’s actually sued Robert Mueller twice with criminal complaints, with civil complaints. I haven’t seen Roger do that.”

Last year, Corsi filed a lawsuit against Mueller accusing that the special counsel of goading him to provide false testimony and of leaking grand jury secrets.

On Newsmax TV, Fairbanks defended WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, with whom she has a personal relationship, and argued that Corsi could not be considered a credible source on WikiLeaks. She went on to assert that Corsi had made numerous false predictions about WikiLeaks releases, had plagiarized her work to promote QAnon conspiracy theories, and had “no basic understanding” of how WikiLeaks operates. She also pointed out that Corsi once solicited charity donations to pay a cancer doctor that didn’t exist.

“The fact that anybody is taking him seriously at all makes me completely just—it makes me laugh,” Fairbanks said.

Klayman told Cardillo that Corsi wouldn’t hesitate to bring defamation cases and that “we can sort this out in court if she wants to get to the bottom of it.” That was echoed by Corsi on Twitter, where he claimed that Gateway Pundit owner Jim Hoft had been “put on legal notice,” and that he had demanded the outlet issue a retraction of Fairbanks’ claims.

(Screenshot/Twitter)

Fairbanks told Right Wing Watch that no legal notice was sent.

“We didn’t receive legal notice. He and his lawyer called my boss ratting on me, threatening lawsuits and saying they were going to Mueller about me,” she wrote to us via email. “I told Jim to tell them to contact my lawyer, as I am only a contributor to Gateway and it doesn’t really concern him. Corsi’s lawyer is just an idiot.”

Klayman did not answer our request for comment via email.

(Article updated at 1:58 p.m.)

Tags: Cassandra Fairbanks Jerome Corsi Larry Klayman Media Russia Investigation Gateway Pundit InfoWars

==

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/who-is-larry-klayman/

Standing behind former Infowars Washington bureau chief Jerome Corsi at the middle of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into suspected Russian election meddling is attorney Larry Klayman.

Klayman describes himself to be a “modern-day Batman,” or on one occasion the “Hamburger Helper.” But the Southern Poverty Law Center lists Klayman as an extremist aligned with the antigovernment movement.

During the Reagan administration, Klayman got his start as a prosecutor at the Department of Justice, which he left to join a private law firm where he sought to influence government officials and judges with threats of legal action. SPLC describes his legal career filing tedious lawsuits to have “irritated many and produced few results.” In the late 90s, Klayman sued his own mother for funds that he had spent on private healthcare for her mother, his grandmother.

In 1994, Klayman opened up the right-wing law shop Judicial Watch, which is currently under the direction of Tom Fitton but continues to provide conspiracy theory fodder to right-wing media. There, Klayman gained notoriety for filing lawsuit after lawsuit against Bill Clinton and Clinton associates. After he left Judicial Watch for a failed U.S. Senate run from Florida, bad blood between him and his successors at the group led him to sue Judicial Watch for defamation and win—one of his rare wins in court. Klayman went on to found the group Freedom Watch, which is based on the original model for Judicial Watch—a pro-bono legal organization devoted to bringing nuisance suits against political enemies.

RWW’s Kyle Mantyla reported earlier today that Klayman had likened Corsi to both Jesus Christ and America’s Founding Fathers. Klayman’s praise is less surprising when considering his active role in the fever-swamps of right-wing conspiracy theorists and his history of promoting and defending absurd claims with litigation.

His latest stint at Freedom Watch includes running campaigns urging Trump to remove Mueller—whom he calls a “legal terrorist”—as special counsel and appoint Klayman himself to Mueller’s position so that he can pursue legal action against the Clintons. Speaking on the podcast, “Crowdsource the Truth,” Klayman told host Jason Goodman— who has featured content supportive of the “Pizzagate” hoax—that he believed the Clintons ordered people to be killed.

Throughout the years we’ve been keeping up with Klayman at Right Wing Watch, Klayman has claimed that the “Jewish left” will destroy America, accused Barack Obama of organizing a coup, asserted that Hillary Clinton would carry out a modern-day Holocaust if she was elected president, and demanded that Trump critics be taken to “legal guillotines.”

Klayman once announced he was suing Obama for supposedly endangering his life as a white man by existing. During the Obama years Klayman paired baseless allegations with legal motions to advance his narrative that Obama was a communist dictator working to rip apart the country, a despot, Klayman said, who even cooked up a secret Ebola-ISIS plot to kill Americans. (Yes, really.) Like Corsi, Klayman was a key figure in the birther movement that coalesced around efforts to prove that Obama’s birth certificate was a fake and that he was ineligible for the presidency.

Klayman is also a weekly contributor to WorldNetDaily.

In addition totaking on the role of Corsi’s defense attorney, Klayman has filed a class action legal complaint with far-right activist Laura Loomer against social media tech giants, alleging that the companies are “acting as a monopoly to restrain trade and discriminate against conservatives.” He’s also representing “Sheriff Joe” Arpaio, a failed Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Arizona, in a lawsuit against The New York Times seeking $147.5 million in damages for “widespread ridicule and humiliation” Arpaio faced after the paper published factual information about his tenure as sheriff of Maricopa County.

Tags: Larry Klaymanconspiracy theoriesRussia Investigation

==

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/larry-klayman-is-outraged-by-michelle-obamas-shoulders/

Right-wing attorney Larry Klayman posteda video yesterday in which he said thatBarack Obama is trying to “undermine the Trump presidency” by vacationing in Italy while President Trump is making his first trip abroad.

Klayman said that Obama is “running an evil [shadow] government” and “trying to upstage” Trump and fumed that Michelle Obama wore a shoulder-bearing top while touring the region.

“The thing that is really troubling about this,” Klayman said, “[is that] he and Michelle went into a church in Siena, Italy, and she basically had an open shoulder … showing a lack of respect to the Catholic Church and Christianity. Of course, that’s not surprising because herhusband is, in fact, a closet Muslim, someone who worships the Quran over the Bible, who has fooled the American people all these years into thinking he’s a Christian … who wears a ring that says, ‘My only God is Allah.'”

“This is an absolute disgrace,” he continued. “He has blood on his hands and he will stop at nothing to destroy the Trump presidency, even in a petty way to go to Italy during the week that the president’s on a foreign trip. It shows you who he is,he’s not just an evil person, he’s low class.”

...

==

Larry Klayman is the former Chairman of Judicial Watch. He currently operates a similar organization, Freedom Watch.[1]

Klayman "emerged in the 1990s after founding a Washington watchdog group called Judicial Watch, which he used to file a number of lawsuits against Bill and Hillary Clinton and Clinton's administration. But Klayman, a libertarian by nature, has built a reputation as a prolific litigant. Targets of his complaints have included Vice President Dick Cheney, former House Republican Leader Tom DeLay, Osama bin Laden and Fidel Castro."[2]

In 2004, Klayman, who lives in Miami, Florida, made an unsuccessful bid for the U.S. Senate. In September 2007, He filed a lawsuit against Republican White House front group Freedom's Watch for trademark infringement.[2]

Contents[hide]

Lawsuits

2002

In March 2002, the Washington Monthly reported that Klayman had "filed four lawsuits against the Bush administration, seeking information on contacts between the Bushies and Enron officials", as well as "a brief supporting the General Accounting Office's suit against Dick Cheney, issued press releases demanding Ari Fleischer's resignation for refusing to answer questions about Enron, and raised questions over allegations that Karl Rove urged Enron to hire former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed as a consultant."[3]

2006

In April 2006, Klayman filed suit against his former employer, Judicial Watch,[4] claiming that current Judicial Watch leader Tom Fitton "has misused the organization for his own ends, improperly dissipating and squandering donor monies and turning the group into a very bad joke."[5]

Contact information

Phone: 305 579-3455

Email: aacosta1 AT bellsouth.net

URL: http://www.klaymanlaw.com/

Resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

  1. ↑ Freedom Watch website, accessed February 1, 2009.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Jim Kuhnhenn, "Conservative Sues Pro-Bush Group," Associated Press, September 18, 2007.
  3. ↑ "Who's who," Washington Monthly (TheFreeLibrary.com), March 1, 2002.
  4. ↑ "FOUNDER SUES JUDICIAL WATCH PRESIDENT TOM FITTON," SavingJudicialWatch.org, accessed February 1, 2009.
  5. ↑ "Aboput Us," Freedom Watch, accessed February 1, 2009.

External articles

Categories:

wiki

Larry Elliot Klayman (born July 20, 1951) is an American attorney and activist. He is known as the founder and the former chairman of Judicial Watch, a public interest and non-profit law firm, which attained notoriety through the initiation of 18 civil lawsuits against theClinton Administration and an unsuccessful lawsuit against Vice-President Dick Cheney to obtain information about the White House's energy task force.[2][3][4]

Contents

  [hide]

Life and career:{:(style="margin-left:-0.25em;margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit source|edit:{beta:(style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:0.5em;background-image:none !important;display:inline !important"):}::{]}:

During the Ronald Reagan administration, Klayman was a prosecutor in the United States Justice Department and was on the trial team that succeeded in breaking up the telephone monopoly of AT&T.

In September 2003, Klayman left the organization to run for the United States Senate from Florida but lost in the United States Republican Party primary.

After his run for the U.S. Senate, Klayman formed the organization Freedom Watch.[5]

Klayman wrote the books Fatal Neglect and Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment, and writes a weekly column for the conservative news website WorldNetDaily.

Lawsuits:{:(style="margin-left:-0.25em;margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit source|edit:{beta:(style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:0.5em;background-image:none !important;display:inline !important"):}::{]}:

In April 2011, Klayman filed a lawsuit against Facebook, accusing the social media website of "negligence" for not responding quickly enough to calls to take down an anti-Israel "Third Intifada" page and demanding $1 billion in damages. Facebook representatives responded that the suit was "without merit."[6] In December 2012, the district court dismissed the complaint on 47 U.S.C. 230 grounds.[7]

Also in 2011, Klayman represented Joseph Farah in his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against *Esquire* magazine.[8] In July 2011, Klayman represented Bradlee Dean in his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow; Dean was eventually ordered to pay defendants' legal fees that totalled nearly $25,000.[9]

In 2012, Klayman filed on behalf of a Florida resident an unsuccessful challenge to Barack Obama's placement on the primary ballot and claimed that the latter is not a**natural-born citize**n.[10]

References:{:(style="margin-left:-0.25em;margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit source|edit:{beta:(style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:0.5em;background-image:none !important;display:inline !important"):}::{]}:

  1. ^ http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/112453/
  2. ^ Segal, David (1998-05-30). "Pursuing Clinton Suits Him Just Fine". Washington Post. p. A01. Retrieved 2007-06-02.
  3. ^ Bill Moyers Interview with Larry Klayman, Public Broadcasting Service, July 11, 2003.
  4. ^ Appeals Court Permits Energy Task Force Records to Remain Secret, Judicial Watch press release, May 10, 2005.
  5. ^ "About Freedom Watch". Freedomwatchusa.org. Retrieved 2011-03-05.
  6. ^ "Facebook sued for $1billion over 'Intifada' page calling for violence against Jews". Daily Mail. 2011-04-03. Retrieved 2011-07-03.
  7. ^ Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182598 (D.D.C. Dec. 28, 2012), http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2011cv00874/148053/42/.
  8. ^ Kuo, Lily (June 4, 2012). ""Birther" lawsuit against Esquire Magazine dismissed". Reuters.
  9. ^ Fung, Katherine (July 10, 2012). "Bradlee Dean Fires Back At Judge In Rachel Maddow, MSNBC Suit". Huffington Post.
  10. ^ "Judge dismisses suit to keep Obama off Fla. ballot". Tampa Bay Online. July 2, 2012.

External links:{:(style="margin-left:-0.25em;margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit source|edit:{beta:(style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:0.5em;background-image:none !important;display:inline !important"):}::{]}:

Authority control

Categories:  

==

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/larry-klayman

Klayman: America 'Has Been Hijacked by Islam and Our President Is the leader of this Muslim Revolution'

SUBMITTED BY: Brian Tashman, Monday 08/19/2013, 11:10am

Conservatives are predictably freaking out that a tiny fringe group closely linked to the 9/11 Truthers is organizing a “Million Muslim March” in Washington D.C. on September 11. In a WorldNetDaily column, Larry Klayman suggests that President Obama is behind the march—the name of which has since been changed to the “Million American March Against Fear”—and believes he might even speak at the rally: “They have been given a virtual green light to do so by the mullah in chief. And, even if he does not show his devilish face at this highly provocative... MORE >

Klayman: NSA Surveillance Meant to Oppress White People and Make Them Pay Reparations

SUBMITTED BY: Brian Tashman, Thursday 08/15/2013, 10:50am

In a very reasonable and rational column titled “Obama’s Mein Kampf,” Larry Klayman insists that the “Muslim megalomaniac” and “neo-national socialist Fuhrer” Obama is “taking a page from Hitler” with regards to the NSA surveillance program. He asserts that President Obama’s press conference on the NSA was an attempt to “fool the citizenry” and hide the truth that “at the heart of NSA-gate; a means to keep whitey and whitey’s allies down as Obama dismantles and deconstructs the nation by having them pay their... MORE >

Klayman: Obama a 'Hitler-Like Figure' Who Is 'Even More of a Dangerous Tyrant than King George III'

SUBMITTED BY: Brian Tashman, Monday 07/29/2013, 3:20pm

Larry Klayman is angry at President Obama for dismissing the “phony scandals” that are distracting attention away from meaningful policy debates, charging that Obama “is not merely a disgrace, but a dangerous man whose allegiance to Islam, disdain of Jews and Christians, and favoritism toward all things black have cast him into the role of a very cheap, bigoted and hateful man.” He warns that Obama is a “Muslim through and through” and “a Hitler-like figure, finding scapegoats such as whites, Christians and Jews to use to rally the shock troops for... MORE >

Klayman Envisions Military Coup to Remove Obama

SUBMITTED BY: Brian Tashman, Wednesday 07/10/2013, 10:25am

Another day, another call for an anti-Obama revolution from Larry Klayman. In his column, ‘Americans to follow Egypt’s lead?,’ Klayman predicts that President Obama’s supposed drive to “refashion the nation through intimidation and threat, in his own Muslim, socialist image” will push the US military into removing him as leader, just as the Egyptian military deposed Mohamed Morsi. He claims that Obama, “like Morsi before his downfall,” is “pushing the American people to the limit” and “playing with fire among the military.... MORE >

Larry Klayman Is Proud to Lead the 'Second American Revolution'

SUBMITTED BY: Brian Tashman, Wednesday 07/03/2013, 10:35am

George Washington, Ben Franklin….Larry Klayman? Indeed, the Judicial Watch founder says he will save the legacy of the country’s founders with his “citizens’ grand jury” investigating the Obama administration. In a column today entitled “People power: Philadelphia 1776 - Ocala 2013,” Klayman writes that he is happy to humbly lead the “second American revolution” and, like the founders, organize people to “rise up and preserve our freedoms… before a less desirable alternative could again prove necessary to restore the republic... MORE >

Oops: Five Conservative IRS Conspiracy Theories Fall Apart

SUBMITTED BY: Brian Tashman, Tuesday 06/25/2013, 12:10pm

Just as the GOP’s hyperventilation and grandstanding over Benghazi turned up empty, so are their claims that the IRS has been targeting right-wing groups. New reports show that the IRS did apply extra scrutiny to groups with phrases like “Tea Party” in their names…but the agency also applied the same scrutiny to groups with “progressive” or “occupy” in their titles. This backs up an earlier story from The Atlantic which also found that liberal groups had been targeted. Prior to these revelations, we learned that the White House had no... MORE >

Klayman: 'This Government, Under Obama, Is Seeking to Enslave Us'

SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Mantyla, Monday 06/24/2013, 10:56am

Larry Klayman has not been shy about warning that armed rebellion might be necessary to fight President Obama's efforts to enslave every American, and so it was not much of a surprise when he sat down with WND to discuss his various lawsuits that he declared that, if the courts don't rule in his favor and stop the government efforts to "make us its prisoners," this will be the last opportunity to "try to take the country back." "The American people are being pushed up against the wall," Klayman warned, "and unless our judicial institutions start... MORE >

Klayman: Obama Using NSA Surveillance Program to Control the Population Through Blackmail

SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Mantyla, Thursday 06/13/2013, 3:38pm

Steve Malzberg of Newsmax interviewed Larry Klayman about his multi-billion dollar lawsuits over the NSA surveillance program, which Klayman alleged was being used "by the President and his comrades to try to control the United States and its population" through blackmail: MORE

==