Federal Judge is Helping Clinton Cover Up Crimes
“A federal judge has rejected a conservative group’s lawsuit demanding the release of drafts of a criminal indictment of Hillary Clinton prosecutors prepared, but never issued, during the Whitewater investigation in the 1990s,” Politico reports. “U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton ruled Tuesday that Clinton’s ‘substantial privacy interest’ outweighed any public interest in disclosure and that the material was protected from disclosure by a court rule enforcing grand jury secrecy.”
Right. She’s running for president, where character and competence are foremost in the interests of Americans, and her privacy interests outweigh our right to examine criminality evidence from a publicly-financed court case directly responsive to that character.
So says Reggie Walton. And why shouldn’t that surprise us?
He’s the judge who, back in the days before Heller, ruled against the Second Amendment in Seegars v. Ashcroft. Long story short, per Walton, there’s no individual right to keep and bear arms, and the District of Columbia isn’t a state, so it doesn’t apply there anyway.
The anti-gunners were ecstatic.
“The court’s decision is a victory for the safety and security of District residents,” the Violence Policy Center crowed. “Despite the `handguns for all’ mentality of the NRA, the last thing District residents want is more handguns in their communities.
“Judge Walton’s opinion is not only the most comprehensive ruling ever to address the constitutionality of Washington, DC’s strict gun control laws, it is one of the most thorough and thoughtful decisions on the Second Amendment ever rendered,” VPC continued to gush, referring fellow travelers to their amicus brief in support of a disarmed citizenry.
Their “big gun” argument for that…?
TEXTUAL ANALYSIS CONFIRMS THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS A RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FOR MILITIA PURPOSES, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO OWN ARMS FOR PRIVATE SELF-DEFENSE OR OTHER PERSONAL USES.
And here’s something else about him that shouldn’t really surprise us: He was appointed to the DC District Court by President George W. Bush. He was also appointed to the secret FISA Court by “conservative” Obamacare supporter Chief Justice John Roberts. Previously, he’d “served” on the DC Superior Court under appointments from anti-gun Ronald Reagan and New World Order-heralding George H.W. Bush.
This is where we keep coming back to an assertion by Carroll Quigley, which the more it’s read, the more it sounds like an in-your-face boast:
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”
We need to be aware of that, and to make sure those we can influence are as well if we hope to do anything about it.