Although the American people are awaiting news of whether or not Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton will be indicted for her alleged criminal conduct and cover up, this will not be the first time that she is being considered a criminal conspirator by law enforcement officials. In fact, her law firm associate Webb Hubbell — the man a number of stories claim was Clinton’s lover — served time in federal prison after entering into a plea deal with the Justice Department.
While the case is known to most denizens of the nation’s newsrooms, the news media have very little interest in reporting that a top “Inside the Beltway” non-government organization (NGO) this week petitioned the U.S. federal court to direct officials at the National Archives and Records Administration to release the drafted but unprocessed criminal indictments of Hillary Clinton prior to September 1996.
While the major news organizations dig and dig into the pasts of each and every Republican who ran for the GOP presidential nomination, these same organizations show little if any interest in exposing their ‘chosen one’ to the American voters.
Even the National Archives is claiming that “the drafts involve a significant [Clinton] privacy interest that is not outweighed by any public interest….”
“In other words, protecting Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations, according to National Archives bureaucrats, is of higher importance than the public’s right to know about the activities of — and accusations against — a person who many believe will be the next occupant of the Oval Office,” said former police criminal investigators Thomas Meechum.
In fact, Judicial Watch on March 11, 2016, filed an opposition brief which countered that “making false statements and withholding evidence from federal investigators bears on Mrs. Clinton’s honesty and trustworthiness for the position she currently seeks,” rendering the National Archives claim on behalf of Mrs. Clinton “neither serious nor credible.”
“The people at the National Archives do not work for Hillary Clinton but for the American people. [President Barack] Obama promised us transparency. I guess he was talking about transparency in some other government branch not the executive branch,” said political consultant Michael Barker.
These developments stem from an October 20, 2015, Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration) seeking: “All versions of indictments against Hillary Rodham Clinton, including but not limited to, Versions 1, 2, and 3 in box 2250 of the Hickman Ewing Attorney Files, the “HRC/_ Draft Indictment” in box 2256 of the Hickman Ewing Attorney Files, as well as any and all versions written by Deputy Independent Counsel Hickman Ewing, Jr. prior to September of 1996.”
The draft indictments were the result of accusations that First Lady Hillary Clinton gave authorities false information and withheld evidence from federal investigators to intentionally hide her connections to the corruption-rampant Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, which lead to multiple criminal convictions following its collapse.
Clinton allegedly represented Madison Guaranty as an attorney at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas. Clinton and her minions claimed the infamous Rose Law Firm billing records were missing and couldn’t be located by her or the case’s prosecutors. The mysteriously lost records, however, were discovered in a cardboard box in President and First Lady Clinton’s private quarters in the White House once the statute of limitations had expired.
In its motion for summary judgment, the National Archives confirmed that it has located the Clinton draft indictments, stating, “Included among the records of [Special Prosecutor Ken] Starr and his successors are drafts of a proposed indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
In addition, “Box 2250 contains a folder labeled ‘Draft Indictment.’ Box 2256 contains a folder labeled ‘Hillary Rodham Clinton/Webster L. Hubbell Draft Indictment.’ Multiple drafts of the proposed indictment of Mrs. Clinton were located by NARA [National Archives and Records Administration] within these folders.”
During the Whitewater controversy, Web Hubbell was indicted for allegedly over billing clients while in private practice at the Rose Law Firm. Hubbell had previously resigned as associate attorney general on April 14, 1994 in order to avoid controversy regarding his work as the number-three leader at the U.S. Justice Department and in hopes to reach a civil resolution with his old firm. In December 1994 Hubbell finally entered into a plea deal for one count of wire fraud and one count of tax fraud in connection with his legal billing at the Rose Law Firm and on June 28, 1995, Judge George Howard sentenced Hubbell to 21 months’ imprisonment.
Hubbell entered Federal Correctional Institution, Cumberland in August 1995, and was released from a halfway house in February 1997
The National Archives claims that Clinton’s right to privacy supersedes the public interest concerning the draft indictments. It also claims that the release would violate grand jury secrecy protections and that Mrs. Clinton has ‘a strong interest in not being associated unwarrantedly with alleged criminal activity.’
The National Archives asserts: “While there may be a scintilla of public interest in these documents since Mrs. Clinton is presently a Democratic presidential candidate, that fact alone is not a cognizable public interest under FOIA, as disclosure of the draft indictments would not shed light on what the government is up to.”
Judicial Watch counters that the public interest in finding what Mrs. Clinton was up to in the White House is paramount:
[A]t the time Mrs. Clinton was being investigated by the independent counsel for making false statements and withholding evidence from federal investigators, she was First Lady of the United States. The alleged false statements and withholding of evidence also allegedly occurred while Mrs. Clinton was First Lady of the United States. The D.C. Circuit has found that, as First Lady of the United States, Mrs. Clinton was an officer of the United States, at least for purposes of the Federal Advisory Committee Act….
Obviously, making false statements and withholding evidence from federal investigators bears on Mrs. Clinton’s honesty, credibility, and trustworthiness, not only as First Lady, but also in her subsequent government service as a U.S. Senator and U.S. Secretary of State and for the position she currently seeks … The Archives’ assertions to the contrary are neither serious nor credible.
In its opposition brief, Judicial Watch also notes that when it comes to any grand jury secrecy, “there is no secrecy left to protect:”
Finally, enormous amounts of grand jury information about the independent counsel’s investigation of the First Lady have already been made public and are widely available. The relevant section of the January 5, 2001 Final Report [by the independent counsel] – which, again, the D.C. Circuit approved for publication and which is readily available on the Government Publishing Office’s website – cites to, references, or quotes testimony from at least 25 grand jury appearances by 21 witnesses between 1995 and 1998… Once published, independent counsel reports effectively eliminate grand jury secrecy. Similarly, the 206-page “Summary of Evidence” produced by the Archives to Judicial Watch pursuant to a separate FOIA request also discloses even more grand jury information.
In response to a separate Judicial Watch FOIA investigation, the National Archives released 246 pages of previously undisclosed Office of Independent Counsel internal memos revealing extensive details about the investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton for possible criminal charges involving her involvement with Madison Guaranty, including the infamous Whitewater/Castle Grande land transaction. The memos are “statements of the case” against Hillary Clinton and Webster Lee “Webb” Hubbell, Hillary Clinton’s former law partner and former Associate Attorney General in the Clinton Justice Department. Ultimately, the memos show that prosecutors declined to prosecute Clinton because of the difficulty of persuading a jury to convict a public figure as widely known as Clinton.
“It is absurd for the Obama administration to argue that Hillary Clinton’s privacy would keep a draft indictment from the American public,” said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. “One can’t help but conclude that the Obama administration is doing a political favor for Hillary Clinton at the expense of the public’s right to know about whether prosecutors believed she may have committed federal crimes.”