Caravan Facts

[Aianawa]

Great to see and listen to good old fashioned journalism >

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prg4HwgrOmw

[Emil El Zapato]

Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group[1] and self-styled watchdog group[2][3] that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials.

Founded in 1994, JW has primarily targeted Democrats, in particular the Clinton administration, the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton, although it has sued Republicans as well including the administration of George W. Bush. It has also filed lawsuits against government climate scientists; Judicial Watch has described climate science as "fraud science". The group has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, which have been picked up by right-wing news outlets. The vast majority of its lawsuits have been dismissed.[1]

[PurpleLama]

JW has uncovered a huge amount of corruption, most of which has seen little mention in the mockingbird media.

Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group[1] and self-styled watchdog group[2][3] that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials.

Founded in 1994, JW has primarily targeted Democrats, in particular the Clinton administration, the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton, although it has sued Republicans as well including the administration of George W. Bush. It has also filed lawsuits against government climate scientists; Judicial Watch has described climate science as "fraud science". The group has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, which have been picked up by right-wing news outlets. The vast majority of its lawsuits have been dismissed.[1]

So is this Snopes, or Wikipedia?

[Emil El Zapato]

wiki...

Can you explain their value...what lawsuits were well founded...what corruption has been prosecuted, etc...thanks

[Emil El Zapato]

Also wiki:

Department of Justice investigation

Attorney General Janet Reno
The Justice Department opened a task force in late 1996 to begin investigating allegations of campaign fund-raising abuses by the Clinton/Gore re-election campaign. It expanded its internal investigation to include activities related to President Bill Clinton's legal defense fund in December 1996.[36]

President Clinton announced in February 1997 that he thought there should be a "vigorous" and "thorough" investigation into reports that the People's Republic of China tried to direct financial contributions from overseas sources to the Democratic National Committee. The president stopped short of calling for an independent prosecutor, saying that was the decision of the Justice Department.

"[O]bviously it would be a very serious matter for the United States if any country were to attempt to funnel funds to one of our parties for any reason whatever," President Clinton said.[37]

By July 1997, the administration determined that no evidence of any such thing had yet been proven.

"We have received the relevant [FBI] briefings," White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said. "We believe there's no basis for any change in our policy toward China, which is one of engagement."[38]

"I do not know whether it is true or not," President Clinton stated. "Therefore, since I don't know, it can't... and shouldn't affect the larger long-term strategic interests of the American people in our foreign policy."[38]

Members of Congress of both parties reached disparate conclusions. According to The Washington Post, Senator Fred Thompson (a Republican from Tennessee) and chairman of the committee investigating the fund-raising controversy, said he believed the Chinese plan targeted presidential and congressional elections while Democratic Senators Joe Lieberman and John Glenn said they believed the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections."[38]

Congressional investigations
WIth regard to their overall efficacy, investigators are on record as having stated that the Congressional investigations were hamstrung due to lack of co-operation of witnesses. Ninety-four people either refused to be questioned, pled the Fifth Amendment, or left the country altogether.[25][39][40]


U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN)
The U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs held public hearings into the campaign finance issues from July to October 1997. The Committee, chaired by Republican Fred Thompson, adopted a Republican-written final report (the Wikisource referenced and appearing herein) on a straight party-line vote, 8 in favor and 7 opposing, in March 1998. Thompson described the findings as "not any one real big thing" but "a lot of things strung together that paint a real ugly picture."[41] The Democrats published a minority report dissenting with most of the conclusions of the final report, stating the evidence "does not support the conclusion that the China plan was aimed at, or affected, the 1996 presidential election."[41] Considerable acrimony was displayed during the hearings between Thompson and the ranking minority member, Democrat John Glenn, with the public disagreements between the two leaders reaching a level seldom seen in recent years in Congressional committees.[42]


U.S. Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN)
A House investigation, headed by Indiana Republican Dan Burton focused on allegations of campaign finance abuse, including the contributions channeled through Chung, Huang, and Trie. The investigation was lengthy, spanning both the 105th and 106th Congresses, and according to a Democratic report had cost over $7.4 million as of August 31, 1998, making it the most expensive Congressional investigation ever (the Senate Watergate investigation cost $7 million in 1998 dollars).[43]

Norman Ornstein, a Congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute said in May 1998, "Barring some dramatic change, I think the Burton investigation is going to be remembered as a case study in how not to do a congressional investigation and as a prime example of investigation as farce."[44] In a May 5, 1998, letter to other Republicans on the committee, Burton admitted that "mistakes and omissions were made" in tape transcripts released to the public of phone calls made by Webster Hubbell. A committee investigator who was an advocate of releasing the tapes resigned at Burton's request.[45]

Calls for an independent counsel

FBI Director Louis Freeh
President Clinton's FBI Director Louis Freeh wrote in a 22-page memorandum to then Attorney General Janet Reno in November 1997 that "It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for appointing an independent counsel."[46]

In July 1998, the Justice Department's campaign finance task force head, Charles La Bella, sent a report to Janet Reno also recommending she seek an independent counsel to investigate alleged fund-raising abuses by Democratic party officials.[47] The media reported that La Bella believed there was clearly an appearance of a conflict of interest by Reno.[48] In his report to Reno he wrote: " [A] pattern [of events] suggests a level of knowledge within the White House—including the President's and First Lady's offices—concerning the injection of foreign funds into the reelection effort." Additionally, La Bella stated: "If these allegations involved anyone other than the president, vice president, senior White House or DNC and Clinton-Gore '96 officials, an appropriate investigation would have commenced months ago without hesitation."[49]

Robert Conrad, Jr., who later became head of the task force, called on Reno in Spring 2000 to appoint an independent counsel to look into the fund-raising practices of Vice President Gore.[50]

Janet Reno declined all requests:

I try to do one thing: what's right. I am trying to follow the independent counsel statute as it has been framed by Congress. If you had a lower threshold, then any time somebody said 'boo' about a covered person, you'd trigger the independent counsel statute

—Janet Reno, December 4, 1997.[51]

A CNN/Time poll taken in May 1998 found 58 percent of Americans felt an independent counsel should have been appointed to investigate the controversy. Thirty-three percent were opposed. The same poll found that 47 percent of Americans believed a quid pro quo existed between the Clinton administration and the PRC government.[52]

Criticism of investigation
In addition to partisan complaints from Republicans, columnists Charles Krauthammer, William Safire, and Morton Kondracke, as well as a number of FBI agents, suggested the investigations into the fund-raising controversies were willfully impeded.[53][54][55]

FBI agent Ivian Smith wrote a letter to FBI Director Freeh that expressed "a lack of confidence" in the Justice Department's attorneys regarding the fund-raising investigation. He wrote: "I am convinced the team at... [the Department of Justice] leading this investigation is, at best, simply not up to the task... The impression left is the emphasis on how not to prosecute matters, not how to aggressively conduct investigations leading to prosecutions." Smith and three other FBI agents later testified before Congress in late 1999 that Justice Department prosecutors impeded their inquiry. FBI agent Daniel Wehr told Congress that the first head U.S. attorney in the investigation, Laura Ingersoll, told the agents they should "not pursue any matter related to solicitation of funds for access to the president. The reason given was, 'That's the way the American political process works.' I was scandalized by that," Wehr said. The four FBI agents also said that Ingersoll prevented them from executing search warrants to stop destruction of evidence and micromanaged the case beyond all reason.[56]

FBI agents were also denied the opportunity to ask President Clinton and Vice President Gore questions during Justice Department interviews in 1997 and 1998 and were only allowed to take notes. During the interviews, neither Clinton nor Gore were asked any questions about fund-raisers John Huang, James Riady, nor the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple fund-raising event led by Maria Hsia and attended by John Huang and Ted Sioeng.[57]

[PurpleLama]

I would be surprised if you were not aware of the inherent unreliability of information, especially controversial information outside of common knowledge, from Wikipedia.

As far as what JW is up to, www.judicialwatch.org is their website. Much of the corruption around the Clinton private server email debacle became public knowledge through the efforts of JW, for example and just for starters. Although the majority of their work has been seeking evidence through FOIA and lawsuits aimed at the progressive end of things, conservative politicians and bureaucrats have not been exempt. It is just that we just came out of 8 years of progressive ascendancy under Obama, no doubt we will see them digging out the scandals under Trump's watch in the years to come.

[PurpleLama]

Since we are talking about the migrant caravan, check this out:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1257910

[Emil El Zapato]

I would be surprised if you were not aware of the inherent unreliability of information, especially controversial information outside of common knowledge, from Wikipedia.

As far as what JW is up to, www.judicialwatch.org is their website. Much of the corruption around the Clinton private server email debacle became public knowledge through the efforts of JW, for example and just for starters. Although the majority of their work has been seeking evidence through FOIA and lawsuits aimed at the progressive end of things, conservative politicians and bureaucrats have not been exempt. It is just that we just came out of 8 years of progressive ascendancy under Obama, no doubt we will see them digging out the scandals under Trump's watch in the years to come.

I'm not going to participate in this thread but I wanted to leave you with one thought:

"especially controversial information outside of common knowledge." Common knowledge is the one thing we should avoid like the plague. Good luck to you, PL. I think you'll make it.

[Dreamtimer]

I haven't found Judicial Watch to be trustworthy. Mostly because of the imbalance of their focus. That would be due to their very right leaning perspective.

An organization with a conservative agenda and mission is not going to be able to objectively watchdog the government. There's too much bias. Mission mentality is very much wrapped up in religion. In America religion is inextricably entwined with conservative politics and think-tanks.

[PurpleLama]

I haven't found Judicial Watch to be trustworthy. Mostly because of the imbalance of their focus. That would be due to their very right leaning perspective.

An organization with a conservative agenda and mission is not going to be able to objectively watchdog the government. There's too much bias. Mission mentality is very much wrapped up in religion. In America religion is inextricably entwined with conservative politics and think-tanks.

So the fact that they are ostensibly conservative somehow negates the actual corruption they uncover? Such facts would know no partisan bounds, IMO.

[Dreamtimer]

Good thing that's not what I said.

It's the mission/religion part that gets in the way.