JUDICIAL WATCH UNCOVERS FORMER INS COMMISSIONER'S ORDERS TO DESTROY EVIDENCE...

Judicial Watch ^ | April 9, 2002

[Nam Vet]

I'm not pro or con of Judicial Watch, however, we must all keep in mind that suits against the government take YEARS. We must all admit tho, that they HAVE uncovered some awesome documents and testimony.

Nam Vet

[nopardons]

Ummmmmm ... are you suggesting that the majority of FREEPERS , who have been here for longer than a few months, haven't ever read about what was posted; which, BTW, I was talking about ? ARE YOU ? I so, then I disagree with you. Most FREEPRS read / consumed everything that was Clinton related, and remember it well.

If you didn't read that stuff; oh well ...

[connectthedots]

Look, Larry has turned into one on the most bizarre self aggrandizing, money grubbing / beggars,

Have you ever visited their office in Washington, D.C.? I have, and I can assure you that they are not spending any money on fancy furniture or opulent offices. I suspect it would be very difficult to find less expensive office space in D.C. Their offices really are very spartan.

[nopardons]

That's because most of it goes into Larry's pockets ! Thanks for helping to prove that point. : - )

[Nam Vet]

Yup....I remember Jack What's-his-name hehe. A real trip, wasn't he?

Nam Vet

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"You have accused ME of " group think " and implied GOD knows what else; but you , YOU claim to have all the answers. I take it all back, you aren't a naif, but I shan't tell you just what you are. You aren't worth the banning. LOL"

I do not particularily care what you think of me, although I have been called several colorful names by you tonight. I never knew that abuse could be so entertaining. I would much rather just debate you on the issues; my person is irrvelevant to this thread.

You also stated that most of the money that Judicial Watch brings in goes right into Larry's pocket. Before I believe any remark such as this, I would like to see some documented proof other than your interpretation of the financial situation at Judicial Watch. I consider slandering one's reputation a very serious matter. Do you?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Yawn, yawn, yawn ! Are you assuming that FREEPERS didn't . don't know these things, and probably a good deal more than you do, BTW ? Are you trying to enlighten us , dear ? All you're doing is wastig bandwidth, right now. Still and all, Larry has done zip. Go read the archives. I hope that the threads, with Larry actually posting, are still there. Go open those eyes, of your's; or don't. Your idoletry is misplaced."

You assume that I haven't read threads about Larry Klayman on Freerepublic before? One can be a lurker and still read any post that actual members here get to read, it is not as if there is a separate forum for lurkers and members. Second of all, I have read a lot about Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch from many different sources, some on Freerepublic and many not. So does this make me more or less nowledgable about Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Larry is taking credit for this brave man's moral stance against his own employer."

I am sure that Larry Klayman realizes that absent a client, he has no suit.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"I hope you don't mind if I wait for somebody without such a vested interest in Judicial Watch to come along and say it's an accomplishment."

No, I dom't mind at all, just thought you'd be interested. I admire Judicial Watch for their good work and that essentially constitutes my vested interest--that they keep up their good work and firm committment to justice and integrity.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"I totally agree with what you said in your most recent post. I would also like to say that in all of the years I have been a lurker here I can not believe how childish some of the poster here have become. It is sad very sad IMHO."

Well, at least I learned what the meaning of the word Naif is.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"My own opinion is that Larry probably started out with good intentions and ran out of cash, he probably hooked up with a professional fund raiser and promo people and a business was born. It probably started out as him just looking to continue lawsuit against Clinton but eventually he was seduced by the easy money garnered by the "news-release" to cash cycles that work so well."

I would not be surprised if people at Judicial Watch, including Larry Klayman, put in 60-70 hour work weeks. I appreciate the hard work they do and the jobs they take that no one else will touch. Larry Klayman could make a lot more money being a trial or corporate lawyer, but he isn't.

[nopardons]

Read Howlin 's post. Reread ( if you ever did read them to begin with ) ALL of the archived posts about Larry and JW's spotty financial revelations.

Then just go back to fawning over Larry and wishing that he eventually gets anything done. LOL

Now, I'm off to read important and interesting threads. Shameless idoletry and sycophantic drooling are boring.

[Deb]

I remember exactly when I realized Klayman was leading us all down the garden path. It was when Fred Thompson was attempting to expose the Clinton/Chinese scandal.

Thompson held a press conference, which no one covered and then, taking John Glenn's lead, the left-wing talking heads trashed and mocked him on every news show till they had totally destroyed him politically. Klayman chose that moment to make Thompson one of the "Top Ten Most Wanted", on his web site, for some bogus campaign violation that was never mentioned again.

That was it for me.

[timestax]

bump

[RJCogburn]

I had a similar experience and have a similar opinion.

Still, Larry sometimes gets something right, even if by accident.

[js1138]

Convictions in political areas are rare. It is important to get the documents into the history books before they're shreded.

[RJCogburn]

I believe for most of us it came when we saw the few financial forms he has filed that are on the internet.

When you are a "law firm" begging for money to "fight the good fight" and you take in over $25,000,000 in donations and you spend less than $2,000,000 on "legal expenses" chances are you're not in it for the law.

Yes, that information was a bit "sobering". That is a whole lot of $ for 'education'.

[Maelstrom]

Don't forget the obtained the admission that the DNC didn't return *any* of the money from that scandal. That *still* didn't receive the attention it deserved.