Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ethics watchdogs bark up the Republicans' tree: The Clintons are not the only ones being hounded
National Post ^ | December 28, 2002 | Jan Cienski

Posted on 12/30/2002 7:33:15 PM PST by new cruelty

WASHINGTON - Republicans cheered and opened their wallets when conservative ethics watchdogs probed the many scandals of Bill Clinton's administration, filing dozens of lawsuits.

Now that their party is in power, the same organizations are taking aim at them.

Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, is being sued, as are senior Republicans in Congress. The Justice Department and the anti-terrorism policies of the administration have been hammered by Judicial Watch and the Rutherford Institute, which have found common cause with once-reviled liberal outfits like the American Civil Liberties Union and the environmentalist Sierra Club.

"They seem to be genuinely against big government, no matter who is in charge," said Allan Lichtman, a political scientist at Washington's American University.

"I'm surprised by what they've done."

So is the Bush administration, which was expecting much different treatment from groups it considered allies in the fight against the evils and immorality of Mr. Clinton.

Mr. Bush even campaigned on changing the tone in Washington and bringing a new uprightness to how business is conducted in the U.S. capital.

Judicial Watch, the brainchild of former trade lawyer Larry Klayman, was founded in 1994 to dig up dirt on Mr. Clinton and his wife, Hillary.

It quickly became enmeshed in just about every scandal of the Clinton era, from Whitewater to Paula Jones and her sex harassment suit against Mr. Clinton. The juicy targets quickly attracted attention and Mr. Klayman became a regular on radio and television talk shows.

His group, which raised just US$70,000 in 1996, was pulling in more than US$12-million two years later and, by the end of the Clinton presidency two years ago, was getting more than US$17-million.

The money came from small donors and Clinton-haters with deep pockets, such as the conservative philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaife.

But Republicans who thought Mr. Klayman would cease digging the dirt once they swept back to power were in for a shock.

Initially, Mr. Klayman continued to focus on the Clintons -- he still has more than 80 lawsuits outstanding against them and named Mrs. Clinton as his most corrupt politician of the year for 2002.

He lambastes "gutless Republicans" for dropping investigations into charges she pilfered White House furniture and easing back on other Clinton-era probes.

But Judicial Watch apparently took its slogan, "No One is Above the Law," seriously and soon began probing much closer to home.

It filed a suit against Tom DeLay, the House Majority Whip, charging him with bribery for soliciting campaign donations in return for access to senior Bush administration officials.

Next came Mr. Cheney, who is being sued for refusing to say who he talked to when crafting the administration's energy policy, as well as a second suit on behalf of shareholders of Halliburton, the energy industry conglomerate he used to head, alleging fraudulent accounting practices.

"Mr. Cheney is not above the law," Mr. Klayman said after the White House threatened to arrest a process server who tried to serve the Vice-President with a complaint.

"The suit is without merit," said Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman.

Judicial Watch also denounced the decision to hire Henry Kissinger, the former U.S. secretary of state, to head the commission looking into the Sept. 11 attacks. It described his nomination as part of a Republican-Democratic coverup to avoid getting at the truth of who dropped the ball on preventing terrorist attacks.

Mr. Klayman has also derided the Justice Department, denouncing the abortive Terrorism Information and Prevention System, which called on postal workers and meter readers to snoop on their customers, as something out of Nazi Germany.

That's also the view of the Rutherford Institute, which also backed Paula Jones in her lawsuit against Mr. Clinton, and also rode that case to fame.

"I have not been real happy with Bush," said John Whitehead, the founder of the Virginia-based organization.

"When they started monkeying with the Constitution and civil rights we knew we would have a problem with the White House."

He called the Patriot Act, a series of measures aimed at helping law enforcement crack down on spies and terrorists, a "monster" and a "real intricate invasion" of Americans' rights.

He has also spoken out against Mr. Bush's faith-based initiative, a plan to ease restrictions on religious groups getting federal money for social services.

With friends like these, the Bush administration and its congressional allies do not need enemies.

"We could care less about the politics," Mr. Whitehead said. "It's all about principle."

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: clinton; ethics; gadfly; huckster; judicialwatch; loser; politics; selfaggrandizement; suddencredibility
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

1 posted on 12/30/2002 7:33:15 PM PST by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: Guy Angelito
The problem is that they probably aren't going to find much "dirt". No one had to dig very hard to see how really awful the Klintoons and their administration was (is). If they should come up with something, it surely won't be sex and lies--and whatever they find will probably bore the public no end.
3 posted on 12/30/2002 7:38:37 PM PST by basil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: new cruelty
His group, which raised just US $70,000 in 1996, was pulling in more than US $12-million two years later and, by the end of the Clinton presidency two years ago, was getting more than US $17-million.

Any question as to why Larry doen't want to close up shop?

4 posted on 12/30/2002 7:38:41 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Any question as to why Larry doen't want to close up shop?

If it's conservative pipers who are paying, this shouldn't last, correct?

5 posted on 12/30/2002 7:46:09 PM PST by CanisMajor2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CanisMajor2002
If it's conservative pipers who are paying, this shouldn't last, correct?

When you're robbing Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul....
And vice versa

He just buys a new mailing list....
2 years ago in the red zone....now in the blue.

6 posted on 12/30/2002 7:52:01 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: new cruelty

7 posted on 12/30/2002 7:53:45 PM PST by hole_n_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Guy Angelito
Yes, Larry Klayman sued his mother, Shirley Feinberg, in a family matter.
8 posted on 12/30/2002 7:54:29 PM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
1997 - 3,400,000

1999 - 17,651,327

2000 - 25,935,456

This is from guidestar.org. Not, of course, from Judicial Watch's Web site. They have never posted their PUBLIC IRS filings.

So, one could conservatively assume that JW has taken in at least $60 million dollars. And never has paid one red cent in taxeslike a commercial law firm would.

As I have posted here for several years, "there are over 850,000 (it was 700,000 when I first posted this) nonprofits in this country. Many are only in business to enrich their handlers and/or push their own political agenda. We need to reform the corporate nonprofit laws in this country".

Like many people, I gave $$$ to JW. Until one day I called their "offices" only to find that I was talking to a telemarketing/fundraising firm. Suffice to say I never sent them another cent.

Will at some point Judicial Watch have taken in $100,000,000.00+ and not have won one important case? You figure the odds.....

9 posted on 12/30/2002 7:57:09 PM PST by isthisnickcool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: new cruelty
But Judicial Watch apparently took its slogan, "No One is Above the Law," seriously and soon began probing much closer to home.


Except when applied to Judicial Watch that is. If he ounce of intergity he'd complete the IRS audit and prove that it was politically motivated... I wonder why not if he's as pure as the wind driven snow...
10 posted on 12/30/2002 7:59:27 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: new cruelty
Is this about the same Bill Clinton who got impeached, and disbarred, and paid fines? The same Bubba who is a rapist and a liar? The Clinton of "The Clinton Body Count" fame?
11 posted on 12/30/2002 7:59:51 PM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool
one day I called their "offices" only to find that I was talking to a telemarketing/fundraising firm. Suffice to say I never sent them another cent.

Yep....ain't nothing that gets the blood boiling as much as being duped and played for a sap.
Klayman had me going for awhile too.

12 posted on 12/30/2002 8:02:15 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers

The official Judicial Watch Badge. Rumored to have been made out of old bullets obtained one-by-one from Barney Fife. Who also pretended to be in law enforcement.

13 posted on 12/30/2002 8:08:24 PM PST by isthisnickcool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jimer; Guy Angelito
That is a cheap shot charge. Klayman's mother was appointed as guardian for Klayman's grandmother. His mother was blowing his grandmother's dough on herself, so Klayman sued to be made the guardian. It is an honorable thing that he did.
14 posted on 12/30/2002 8:37:11 PM PST by Rodney King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool

The klaymer actually has the 2000 990 filing on their web site now and has for a while. Nothing newer or older is there. I don't know if the 2001 form has been filed or not. I read some article that the contributions in 2001 were down.

Here's the BBB Wise Giving opinion....


BBB Wise Giving Alliance Comment

Despite written BBB Wise Giving Alliance requests in the past year, this organization has not provided current information about its finances, programs, and governance.

The BBB Wise Giving Alliance reports on national charities and determines if they meet 23 voluntary standards on matters such as charity finances, appeals, and governance. Without the requested information, it cannot verify if the charity meets these standards. The Alliance does not evaluate the worthiness of the charitable program.



15 posted on 12/30/2002 9:00:24 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: deport
Yep. I found it. So, out of all the years they have been operating they have only posted on year's 990 data on their web site.
16 posted on 12/30/2002 9:11:26 PM PST by isthisnickcool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool
Yep. I found it. So, out of all the years they have been operating they have only posted on year's 990 data on their web site.



They aren't required to do so or not that I'm aware of. They only have to provide it to those that request it. However I think the regulations allow them to post it on the internet and not have to provide written copies by just directing the requestor to the internet posting. That is my guess why Guidestar.org had the info. I think they charge the charity a fee and host it on their web site. I'm not sure of that but it's my guess.

Look at the following guidelines set up by the BBB for charities.... note the section E. on officers, BOD. JW is awash with internal members....

http://www.give.org/standards/cbbbstds.asp
17 posted on 12/30/2002 9:35:12 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
That is a cheap shot charge. Klayman's mother was appointed as guardian for Klayman's grandmother. His mother was blowing his grandmother's dough on herself, so Klayman sued to be made the guardian. It is an honorable thing that he did.

What are you talking about? I stated a fact without taking sides and with making any moral or legal judgements, nor did I give my opinion about it. My post was not disrespectful in any way. Again, just what are you talking about?

By the way, Rodney: I thought that you wanted "everybody to just get along."

18 posted on 12/30/2002 9:38:31 PM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jimer
Sorry, I did not mean you personally, but to those who have spread the "he sued his own mother!" story to discredit him.
19 posted on 12/30/2002 9:42:01 PM PST by Rodney King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson