I'm not running from a thing. The question is meant to take the heat off of Clayman because, deep down, you know what I am saying is true and deflection is your only defense. If his evidence and skill and desire for justice is so overwhelming, he'd have pocketed money for his clients. I'll ask you again to refresh my memory on that. Which client has he recovered for?
Through Judicial Watch Don and Teri Adams received a rather sizeable amount of money via R. M. Scaif for their legal expenses--a lot more help than anyone else has done...what help is BITCHIN and bellyacheing going to do for them all?
The biggest complainers and critics are the brain dead crybabies in their dirty diapers crying all the time...you--your play pen pals/gals!
Oh yeah...your LTV comments were infantile too!
No the question is not meant to do that. I've stated repeatedly that I do not like what JW has become recently and I have no objections to people voicing their criticism of THAT transition. What I object to is this very SELECTIVE criticism and the distortion of what he could do. Do you deny that he was limited to CIVIL suits? Do you deny that the SERIOUS crimes committed by the DNC and Clinton administration (which JW was in large part responsible for uncovering and letting us know about) are CRIMINAL matters? Do you want to suggest that Reno/Clinton did a fair investigation of such crimes and tried to prosecute crimes were the evidence was suggested? Do you want to deny that the responsibility for doing that is now Bush and Ashcroft's?
I don't mind you criticizing Klayman but where is the criticism of Bush and Ashcroft? Because I don't see THAT, I'm think I'm right to be suspicious of your real motives. You seem more outraged at Klayman than the men that are ACTUALLY letting Clinton and the DNC get away with MASS MURDER, TREASON, ELECTION TAMPERING and a multitude of other CRIMINAL violations.