It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Judicial Watch’s Dirty Dozen

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 26 2002 @ 02:28 PM
Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announces its top ten list of the most corrupt politicians, government officials, lobbyists and business leaders of 2002.

#1 Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): Like a modern-day Gollum, Mrs. Clintonís quest for political brass rings frequently descends into evil, from Whitewater to FBI Filegate to Travelgate to taking over 2 million dollars in illegal contributions for her Senate campaign from Judicial Watch client Peter Paul. Judicial Watchís quest is to throw her ring into the judicial ìCracks of Doom.î

#2 Bill Clinton (D): The ìKing of Corruptionî for eight tawdry years, Judicial Watch looks forward to taking Mr. Clintonís testimony under oath in the Dolly Kyle Browning vs. Clinton case and many others.

#3 Fmr. FBI Director Louis Freeh (R): The most corrupt and inept FBI Director in the history of the agency, Freeh recently suffered a blow from the Supreme Court, refusing to acknowledge his claim of immunity in a lawsuit filed by JW on behalf of Fmr. Energy Department Director of Intelligence, Notra Trulock.

posted on Dec, 26 2002 @ 04:47 PM
Look at all the dems on that list

posted on Dec, 26 2002 @ 04:50 PM
You noticed that too.

Looks like they have some explaining to do.

posted on Dec, 26 2002 @ 05:00 PM
I am not surprised though (and not to mention all the dems on the list that are in office at this moment AND posts they hold - scary!)

posted on Dec, 26 2002 @ 05:07 PM
I like #12

#12 Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA): For his tireless efforts to obstruct justice whenever Democrat wrongdoing is involved.

But gee, the dems would never do anything like that.

posted on Dec, 26 2002 @ 05:08 PM
And by the way, before Bout Time chimes in about Judical Watch being pro-GOP this group is suing Cheney

posted on Dec, 26 2002 @ 05:18 PM
Well maybe BT is right.Look what the dems/IRS tried to do to JW.I would be a little bitter too.


posted on Dec, 27 2002 @ 09:58 AM
Y'know, I think it's really somewhat slanted.

So howcome "Judicial Watch" didn't go after one of the biggest scoundrels (who got tossed in prison): Democrat Jim Trafficant? Could it be that his ultra-conservative views made them sympathetic? A search on the bozo, Trafficant, revealed ZERO hits.

And how about Republican ex-Senator Bob Packwood -- he makes Clinton look like an amateur. Alcohol, womanizing, fooling around with aides, allegations of rape... so where's JudicialWatch when it comes to Packwood?

Nowhere... that's where.

They reported on Republican Gingrich's affair, but didn't do more than archive the news stories and announce one call for him to resign. They don't seem to have done any followup into his finances or other problems uncovered during his terms.

There's no call to investigate Bush or Gore's business links and energy policies. They note Bush is throwing out anyone who's not a "yes man" but other than noting it, they don't do anything about it.

Frankly, I don't think this is an "unbiased" site. It's obviously Republican and obviously Conservative.

Justice should be equally applied to all under the law instead of "applied with big sticks to people I hate (Hillary Clinton) and applied with foam pillows to people I respect (Trafficant???)"

posted on Dec, 27 2002 @ 10:28 AM
Traficant is an alter boy compared to Hillary. Had he not stepped on the toes of the DOJ and IRS he would still be around, imho.

posted on Dec, 27 2002 @ 11:11 AM
Traficant is in jail,so why would they bother with him?Packwood is no longer in the senate or the public eye,why bother.But Hillary is still in the senate,and might run for President.Bill still has a lot to answer for as well.If you scan down their list of complaints, they are going after Cheney,the also looked at the Florida recount.So I do not think they are that biased.

posted on Dec, 27 2002 @ 11:19 AM
Just becuase there are more democrats breaking the law doesn't mean they're bias

posted on Dec, 29 2002 @ 09:39 PM
I know Trafficant is in jail and so forth... but, the thing is, when they were out and free, Judical Watch didn't seem terribly interested in watching them. Or filing any lawsuits against them.

No howls about the Iran-Contra scandals. No shrieks over George The First's policies. No hisses and lawsuits over Bush & Co refusing to turn over records of who they met with to determine their energy policies (and it probably included Enron execs.)

I don't think they're very balanced.

posted on Dec, 30 2002 @ 09:00 AM
As always, great points Byrd. JW wasn't around during the Iran-Contra ordeal. Traficant's agenda was very much like JW's - in my opinion plus he's so insignificant. The Bush energy policy meetings: The GAOís request was unprecedented, good arguments on both sides.

posted on Dec, 30 2002 @ 01:29 PM
Judicial Watch proved their stripe a while ago, howls from me necessary!
Have you and Nyeff looked out the metephorical window as to what's happening in Mr. Bush's version of America?
You honestly are trying to put a moral high ground face on Cheney's assertion that he wouldn't be able to get " unvarnished" advice if he let everyone know that Enron wrote our National Energy policy!?!?!

Are you going to have Reagans picture or G.O.P. on your tombstone...or both!?!?

posted on Dec, 30 2002 @ 01:39 PM
lol, we've been waiting for you BT! How was your vacation?

posted on Dec, 30 2002 @ 02:07 PM
Thanks, it was good...just not long enough! I'm looking for the bright spots to focus on, I really am!

posted on Dec, 30 2002 @ 02:26 PM
Do ya notice that when something is posted here that points out a Democrat's wrong doing, certain individuals say it's "slanted", but when it's anti-Republican, they say it's the truth, no matter what the source?

Just something to make you say, Hmmmmmm......

posted on Dec, 30 2002 @ 02:31 PM

I was wondering when you going to chime in.

Yes I've noticed the same thing AR.

posted on Dec, 31 2002 @ 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Byrd
Y'know, I think it's really somewhat slanted.
So howcome "Judicial Watch" didn't go after one of the biggest scoundrels...

...Before you actually *get* an answer to this question, you might have to take into consideration *how many* scoundrels (Dem & Rep) actually hold public office nowadays & figure out what kind of resources the JW actually have to try to keep up with them all at the same time...

Please don't interpret this as an attempted defense on the behalf of JW...Merely stating an observation of current politicking...

posted on Jan, 2 2003 @ 11:27 PM
Actually, I do agree -- there's scoundrels on both sides. And that's what I looked for... were they going after an equal balance of Dems and Repts?

The Mayberry Machiavellis have done an appalling number on us, and their machinations with the energy policy are pretty egregious. I saw a lot of interest in pursuing Clinton Unto The Grave... but not in pursuing anybody else with such fierce determination.

(shrug) Just IMHO... your mileage may vary.


log in