Judge won't release drafts of Hillary Clinton Whitewater indictment

Way back in the early 1990s, a massive investigation took place about the Clintons' involvements in shady real estate deals.

They even had a special prosecutor and something like 15 people were convicted of crimes.

We found out recently that a draft indictment from that exists for Hillary.

It was only a speculative draft in preparation for possible real prosecution.

Judicial Watch (every politician's biggest p.i.t.a.) requested that the draft indictment be released to the public.

However, now a Judge has said no.

The Court has cited "privacy" concerns because Hillary at the time was not a government official.

Voters are watching and counting the "pros" and "cons".


Judge won't release drafts of Hillary Clinton Whitewater indictment

A federal judge has rejected a conservative group's lawsuit demanding the release of drafts of a criminal indictment of Hillary Clinton prosecutors prepared, but never issued, during the Whitewater investigation in the 1990s.

U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton ruled Tuesday that Clinton's "substantial privacy interest" outweighed any public interest in disclosure and that the material was protected from disclosure by a court rule enforcing grand jury secrecy.

"The fact that information about the independent counsel’s investigation and potential indictment of Mrs. Clinton is readily available to the public does not extinguish Mrs. Clinton’s privacy interest," Walton wrote. "Although an individual’s interests in privacy fade when the information involved already appears on the public record'...'the fact that an event is not wholly private does not mean that an individual has no interest in limiting disclosure or dissemination of [the requested] information,'" the judge added, quoting earlier cases.

a reply to: xuenchen

Looks like either the Clinton camp got to this judge first, or possibly because it was only a "draft" indictment, they don't want damning documentation to come out since it wasn't ever official.

One thing is for sure, Hillary would be much better protected, and her privacy is more important, than regular folks like you or me. Double standards, what a surprise.

a reply to: xuenchen


" The Court has cited "privacy" concerns because Hillary at the time was not a government official. "


Mr. Trump isn't a Government Official Yet , but his 1995 Tax Returns were made Public by the N.Y. Times . I Wonder what a Judge would say about Privacy Concerns in Any Lawsuit Mr. Trump would consider bringing against them ? ..Hmm.....

a reply to: xuenchen
I guess because it's over, like Benghazi and the emails. We should be worrying about the future which looks rather bleak.

Vote Pat Paulson 2016

Just another example of the establishment covering her ass.

Not the first time this particular judge has gone out of their way to help her.

link

They're all in on it- and they all need to go to prison.

Not if he loves his family he won't!

a reply to: lordcomac

Not the first time this particular judge has gone out of their way to help her.

Unfair bias/conflict of interest much? What a show this is..

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: lordcomac

Not the first time this particular judge has gone out of their way to help her.

Unfair bias/conflict of interest much? What a show this is..

Appointed by bush, no less.

It's a big club, and we ain't in it.

originally posted by: lordcomac

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: lordcomac

Not the first time this particular judge has gone out of their way to help her.

Unfair bias/conflict of interest much? What a show this is..

Appointed by bush, no less.

It's a big club, and we ain't in it.

There is an old saying, nothing wrong with the big club. Unless of course you are not in it.

You and I are not in The big club. By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good honest hard-working people . . . white collar, blue collar it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means . . . continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don’t give a # about you. They don’t give a # about you . . . they don’t give a # about you. They don’t care about you at all . . . at all . . . at all, and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on.

- Carlin

Those docs are buried the same place Obama's college transcripts are.

Someday the truth will come to light.

a reply to: xuenchen

I actually agree with this ruling.

I work with PII (Personally Identifiable Information) on a daily basis that pertains to federal trials, and only once the trial is complete does that information become available to the public. If a trial never took place and the indictment is just a draft, then there is no right for it to be released to the public, IMO, even though it was created by a government agency.

Privacy has and should have prevailed in this instance, although I would LOVE to see what it says...

a reply to: xuenchen

System is working as intended. Or do you not value privacy?

Let me see if I can do this properly...

The only draft we should be talking about is the one Donald dodged.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

System is working as intended. Or do you not value privacy?

Your usual 20 questions game does not involve me.

Hillary: I'm the Most Transparent Person in American History

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
Let me see if I can do this properly...

The only draft we should be talking about is the one Donald dodged.

That was Bill.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah sorry. I forgot that we aren't deemed to get Xuenchen's opinion on anything you post. Just obscure non-answers while trying to dredge up idiotic controversies.

Interesting the Judge said she wasn't a government official. I found this in the NY Times:
link to 1993 ruling First Lady is DeFacto Government Official

So my question is: would this extend to the State level as well? As Arkansas' "First Lady" from 1979 until becoming First Lady (except for 1982), one could argue that the ruling would naturally apply under the "US Law-trumps-State Law" argument.

ganjoa

Working papers or investigative notes are routinely exempt from FOIA requests. This doesn't see unusual to me.