Judge won’t release Clinton draft indictments: Privacy outweighs public debate

[mystery-ak]

 By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Secret draft grand jury indictments prepared to charge Hillary Clinton with crimes in the 1990s cannot be released because they would infringe on the Democratic presidential nominee’s privacy rights, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

Judge Reggie B. Walton shot down a request by Judicial Watch to reveal the draft indictments, saying they are protected from disclosure because they disclose the inner workings of a grand jury, and because Mrs. Clinton was never charged — so releasing the unfulfilled case documents against her would be unfair.

“Mrs. Clinton has a significant privacy interest in not re-visiting past criminal investigations, particularly when the investigation resulted in an indictment never being filed against her,” Judge Walton wrote in his opinion.

He said that there is information in the draft indictments that hasn’t been seen by the public — and that’s why the law requires that it be kept secret.

Multiple draft indictments were prepared by prosecutors thinking of charging Mrs. Clinton for wrongdoing in Whitewater, a failed Arkansas savings and loan. Investigators suspected Mrs. Clinton of obstructing their probe, including concealing documents under federal subpoena, but ultimately declined to pursue the case.

more
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/4/judge-shields-clinton-draft-indictments-release/

[Sanguine]

He said that there is information in the draft indictments that hasn’t been seen by the public — and that’s why the law requires that it be kept secret.

So, we can't know what it says because we don't know what it says?

[HoustonSam]

“Mrs. Clinton has a significant privacy interest in not re-visiting past criminal investigations, particularly when the investigation resulted in an indictment never being filed against her,” Judge Walton wrote in his opinion.

I'm sure the editor of the New York Times will announce immediately that he is willing to go to jail in order to publish this information.

[jmyrlefuller]

I wonder if these are what Wikileaks might be trying to acquire...

[sneakypete]

I'm sure the editor of the New York Times will announce immediately that he is willing to go to jail in order to publish this information.

@HoustonSam

LOL! Good one!

[Just_Victor]

The purpose of a grand jury is to explore potential crimes to determine if charges can be brought.  In order to protect someone during that process who might not be guilty, it was intended that all grand jury proceedings be confidential and only actual indictments be made public. 

[HonestJohn]

Draft indictments are just that, the draft versions of indictments.

If the prosecutor tossed them out, then they were not good enough for the prosecutor to use.  So what's the point in going after them now?

[Smokin Joe]

Draft indictments are just that, the draft versions of indictments.

If the prosecutor tossed them out, then they were not good enough for the prosecutor to use.  So what's the point in going after them now?

If the statute of limitations is not up, they could be a place to re-open investigations. However, that should not be made public until such time as charges are brought, either.

If the Statute of Limitations is up for those offenses, she walks, and the details should be sealed. It should be the same for anyone, whether we like them, think them guilty, or not.

[sneakypete]

If the statute of limitations is not up, they could be a place to re-open investigations. However, that should not be made public until such time as charges are brought, either.

If the Statute of Limitations is up for those offenses, she walks, and the details should be sealed. It should be the same for anyone, whether we like them, think them guilty, or not.

@Smokin Joe

I disagree. The standards should be higher for those who have been in positions where they manage our country and our legal system that for some common burglar or John trying to pick up a hooker. People in positions of political power have the ability to do GREAT damage to our country and the people in it,so they should be held to higher standards of conduct.

They can't bitch about it,either. Nobody ever forced any of them to run.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

I disagree. The standards should be higher for those who have been in positions where they manage our country and our legal system that for some common burglar or John trying to pick up a hooker. People in positions of political power have the ability to do GREAT damage to our country and the people in it,so they should be held to higher standards of conduct.

They can't bitch about it,either. Nobody ever forced any of them to run.

@sneakypete

Hold them to a higher behavioural standard, yes, Legally, I'd be happy if they had to pay their parking tickets, too, and were equally subject to the same laws the rest of us are. 

We already have a two-tiered system, but it actually lets those in positions of political power ignore the laws the rest of us have to go by.

The whole ideal of the Magna Carta was that none would be beyond the law, not even the King of England, and I'd be happy to see our laws enforced across the board with equal vigor.
Hillary should have been prosecuted for anything which would have had charges pressed on a flunky. There are people in prison over one document or e-mail, her a$$ should be prosecuted, too.