Hillary Clinton’s Judges Destroy Attorney Client Privilege
What are a few civil rights violations between friends?
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.
Hillary Clinton picked Judge Kimba Wood to be her husband’s Attorney General. According to various accounts from the period, Hillary was looking for someone “loyal” who would allow her to stack the Justice Department with her own political allies. It was still early in the game, but Hillary had always been Bill’s main plumber and she was anticipating all of the Clinton scandals that were yet to come.
Hillary had interviewed Kimba Wood for twice as long as her husband did. But the Clintons had also been allegedly encouraged to pick Wood by Michael Kramer who had been _Time_’s chief political correspondent and the judge’s husband. After interviewing Bill for _Time_’s fawning Man of the Year piece, he allegedly suggested that the President of the United States make his wife his Attorney General.
But even though Kramer had compared Bill Clinton to Lincoln and FDR, it was not to be. Between Wood’s employment of an illegal alien and her past as a Playboy bunny, it was all over. Kimba Wood, whose “rectitude” the media never stopped praising, went on to be involved in a sleazy scandal. She became known as the “Love Judge” for her role in her current husband’s affair. She filed for divorce accusing her former husband of withholding sex. Rectitude doesn’t get more old-fashioned than this.
“Wood is universally described as a woman of almost old-fashioned rectitude” (New York Magazine) and “Kimba Wood’s rectitude is something between a legend” (Detroit Free Press).
It’s a legend alright.
But Hillary Clinton never goes away. Neither do her coterie of political allies.
In court, Judge Kimba Wood decided that not only isn’t President Trump entitled to having a special master protect attorney-client privilege, but insisted that Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer, disclose that Sean Hannity was one of his clients.
The media is having a field day smirking at these sleazy violations of confidentiality. But the woman overseeing them is one of the sleaziest judicial figures in Clintonworld. And a political figure whom Hillary Clinton allegedly believed would make a reliable stooge for Clinton political interests at the DOJ.
Imagine John Mitchell being allowed to expose the private papers of Bill Clinton’s lawyers.
Using friendly judges to expose private damaging materials about your political opponents is not a new development. But it isn’t usually accompanied by gun-toting raids and civil rights violations.
Obama ran the country into the ground for 8 years because a California Dem judge decided that his political opponent and ex-wife weren’t entitled to have their divorce records sealed. But shredding attorney-client privilege just to spread sleazy scandals about your political opponents is a new low.
Last time around, Judge Beryl Howell, a Loretta Lynch pal appointed by Obama, had decided that Paul Manafort wasn’t entitled to attorney-client privilege. Howell was far more generous with Hillary Clinton when she allowed the State Department to delay disclosing her official records until after the election.
This is the rule of law that the media keeps blathering about. One law for the Clintons and another for their political opponents. One law for Democrats and another law for Republicans.
That’s not the rule of law. It’s a banana republic.
The Clinton campaign invented the Russia conspiracy theory. Then it injected its opposition research dossier into the FBI and the DOJ. The opposition research was used to justify spying on political opponents by a friendly administration. It helped generate the Mueller investigation which is following the Clinton dossier’s framework by targeting Trump’s lawyer.
The Mueller coup spun off the Clinton-Steele dossier’s obsession with Michael Cohen into the SDNY raids on the office, home and hotel room of the president’s lawyer. We’ve gone from the Russian collusion conspiracy theory to Stormy Daniels to a Hillary Clinton ally exposing Hannity’s name in court.
But what exactly is the justification for exposing Hannity’s name in court? Malice, spite and political allegiances to America’s leading political crime family?
You pick one.
We are in the midst of a crisis manufactured by Hillary Clinton and her allies for their own political gain.
We’ve been told that we have to put aside all the niceties like, the Fourth Amendment or attorney-client privilege, because America had suffered the worst attack since 9⁄11 at the hands of Russian trolls.
If we don’t lock up all the Republicans now, they might win another election.
Forget 3,000 people dead. Russian trolls on Facebook compel us to throw away all our civil rights. We have to break into the office of the president’s lawyer and steal his private paper before passing them on to the Washington Post based on a pretext generated by some shady British guy paid by Hillary.
If you disagree with these banana republic tactics, the Washington Post will accuse you of treason.
The emergency measures to deal with this crisis have included reverting to paper ballots (which are a lot easier to stuff), censoring political opponents on Facebook (to fight the spread of “fake news”), accusing anyone who questions the Clinton conspiracy theories about Russia of treason (Senator McCarthy is alive and well, and writing for the Washington Post), and dragging anyone into court who might be responsible for Trump winning (those 63 million raids and subpoenas would impress even the Stasi.)
Not to mention extensive eavesdropping on political opponents based on Clinton opposition research.
No amount of dead Americans could ever justify a Muslim travel ban, but seeing attorney-client privilege relegated to a dead letter is just the price we have to pay to justify Hillary Clinton’s conspiracy theories.
There was a legal election in 2016. No credible challenge to its outcome has been presented by anyone. That includes Jill Stein, Rob Reiner, Hillary Clinton, Robert Mueller and your crazy Aunt Sally. No amount of Russian Facebook posts or groups will ever justify the abrogation of our civil rights by the Clintons.
The only basis for this illegal assault is the Clinton campaign’s smears and conspiracy theories.
Every time a Clinton or Obama judge violates the civil rights of Americans to perpetuate Clinton conspiracy theories, it’s an attack not only on our political system, but on the rule of law.
No one can view the disgusting sight of Bill Clinton’s nominee for Attorney General shredding the civil rights of her political opponents as anything other than reducing the rule of law that the same farce that it is in Venezuela, Cuba or Russia. If you want to see Russian influence on our political system, go watch Mueller and his cronies at work. There’s nothing they’re doing that would be out of line in Moscow.
The media’s chorus of, “You have nothing to fear from our grotesque violations of your civil rights if you have nothing to hide” only hammers the same point home.
“Well, Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a Monarchy?” Benjamin Franklin was famously asked at the Constitutional Convention.
“A Republic, if you can keep it,” he replied.
We no longer have a Republic. We have a banana republic ruled by the Clintons and their political allies.
The Clintons and their political allies have built a machine for destroying the winners of an election they lost while violating the Fourth Amendment and attorney-client privilege. They have made their own banana republic. We will see in the coming months and years whether they will be allowed to keep it.