Wednesday, August 12, 2015

A Clinton-appointed judge who prevented a lawyer who brought an organized crime case against Bill and Hillary Clinton and their family foundation from obtaining evidence has concluded the case must be tossed essentially because of a lack of evidence.

“It is unclear whether the records allegedly withheld from plaintiff exist at all, and if they do exist whether they are in defendants’ possession,” wrote U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks of Florida in throwing out the case brought by attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch.

“Similarly, it is unknown whether the contents of any alleged records would be of any interest to the public. Even assuming such records exist and are of interest to the public, it is unclear whether such public interest would translate into public support of plaintiff,” Middlebrooks continued.

“Finally, if all of this somehow garnered public support for plaintiff, it is unclear how such public support would translate into financial support.”

The judge previously blocked Klayman from deposing the Clintons about their actions and the foundation’s. He also did not allow Klayman to obtain access to documents the lawyer said could support his allegations.

“I am disappointed but not surprised. This case was a hot potato for a Clinton-appointed judge. Had he allowed it to proceed, he would have been potentially retaliated against by the Clintons,” Klayman said. “In this regard, he would not have had a chance to be nominated for a higher judgeship or other post should Hillary Clinton be elected president. While federal judges are appointed for life, they are not immune to politics. I intend to take an emergency appeal and I am confident that the judge’s decision will be reversed by neutral judges on the appeals court.”

The case was brought against the Clintons and their foundation under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, RICO. It focused on the vast quantities of money, estimated in the tens of millions of dollars, that flowed to the Clintons and their foundation.

Klayman alleged the payments were in exchange for favors while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

In addition to the lawsuit, Klayman asked Middlebrooks to take into custody Hillary Clinton’s private email server and the thumb drive containing classified information that are still in the possession of her attorney, David Kendall.

He argued predicate acts of RICO alleged in the complaint hinged on the obstruction of justice. He charged defendants secreted or destroyed emails evidencing their crimes, most notably the sale of waivers to do business with Iran and the release of classified information about U.S.-Israeli war plans should Tehran’s nuclear facilities need to be removed militarily.

Klayman contended the order dismissing the case was fatally flawed as it assumed he could not demonstrate a RICO case existed if discovery were allowed.

Klayman also had argued unsuccessfully that the case should be heard in court.

“The issues on this case are too important not to allow for oral argument. Oral argument will give this court an opportunity to ask questions and also to access the demeanor of counsel. Plaintiff, who is representing himself pro se, has been subject to a number of unprofessional ad hominem attacks by defendants which may have prejudiced this court,” Klayman wrote earlier.

Middlebrooks, who was appointed by Clinton in 1997, had canceled scheduled depositions without any explanation.

The complaint alleges not only did the Clintons engage in RICO violations, but Hillary Clinton covered up crimes by destroying her personal emails.

“This is a classic RICO lawsuit,” Klayman argued in a recent filing, “Indeed … few people – if any – can even attempt to refute the hard evidence that Bill and Hillary Clinton and their foundation have over a 10-year history of actually selling government access and influence in exchange for hard cash to fill their coffers and the coffers of their foundation, which not coincidentally, as pled, does not operate as a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization but instead operates as defendants Bill and Hillary Clinton’s own alter-ego in furthering their criminal enterprise.”

He said the case is about much more than access to hidden documents, which he is seeking.

“The production of documents at issue is relevant because they evidence a criminal enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act … created and further by each of the defendants, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, acting in concert as part of a conspiracy, to extort hundreds of millions of dollars in money – that is, bribes – from individuals, entities and persons upon which the defendants have bestowed favors and gratuities, principally in the form of granting waivers to do business with Iran. ”

Klayman alleged, for example, that Hillary Clinton as secretary of state “granted a waiver to Victor Pinchuk and his company Interpipe Group as an exemption from U.S. congressional sanctions against doing business with Iran.”

He alleges that was “as a quid pro quo for bribes disguised as donations made to The Clinton Foundation.”

He said the company “then, using the wires and mails and other illegal means fraudulently, donated $2.35 million to The Clinton Foundation.”

WND’s attempts to obtain comment from the New York office for Bill Clinton or the foundation have not been successful.

When the Clintons left the White House in 2000, they were “broke,” Hillary Clinton has claimed.

But estimates are that since that time, they have been paid well over $100 million, often in $250,000 and $500,000 increments for speaking. Speaking fees for Bill Clinton have been as high as $750,000.

The Clintons’ foundation has been embroiled in scandal, with foreign governments making donations when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. And, as WND has reported in a series, a respected Wall Street analyst charges accounting irregularities indicate the Clintons have skimmed millions from the foundation for themselves and their colleagues.

No comments:

Post a Comment