Also, please post where I've mentioned Ron Brown, Chinagate, or Filegate on this thread; otherwise I'll have to conclude that you are carrying arguments from thread to thread in clear violation of the rules.
The credibility and motives of a poster are certainly germaine to any discussion involving Klayman and the Clintons. Don't you agree? By your apparent friendliness with someone (Howlin) who has espoused views that seem ... well Clintonesque ... you open yourself to scrutiny. I'm simply asking where you stand with regards to the validity of the Clinton-related crimes that Klayman helped expose (which is probably why he was audited in the first place). If your views aren't consistent in that regard, as Howlin's aren't, then perhaps the readers of this thread may reassess your dislike of Judicial Watch.