Election 2020

A Criminal Organization Masquerading as...

(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

We’ve reached a pretty pass in this country when parents aren’t privy to their newborn children’s blood types or their college-age kids’ grades, but a known criminal can obscure plain evidence of her crimes with the connivance of the judiciary, all in the name of “privacy.” If you were leading a Krime Klan, wouldn’t you want “privacy,” too? I mean, that’s how you stay out of jail.

We’ve just gotten proof the FBI is part of the racket, and now this:

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.

The law also requires tax returns to be kept secret, but that didn’t stop somebody from stealing Donald Trump’s, nor the New York Times from publishing them. There, the argument will be (should Trump choose to sue, and he should) a “compelling national interest” and “the people’s right to know” — but, of course, Hillary’s criminal past is of no national interest whatsoever, especially to younger voters who were toddlers when the Clintons burst out of Arkansas with Owney Madden and the Genovese crime family’s inspiration ballooning their Hot Springs sails, and who might never even have heard of Whitewater.

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. The documents all sit in the National Archives, which fought against their release.

Judicial Watch argued that since the independent counsel’s final report was made public, much of the grand jury information is already known, so releasing more documents wouldn’t hurt. The conservative legal group also said the public’s right to know outweighed any privacy interest Mrs. Clinton retains.

But Judge Walton said Mrs. Clinton wasn’t a federal officer at the time of the events under investigation, and the independent counsel that conducted the probe is defunct, so there’s no public benefit to understanding the operations of government. Without that, Mrs. Clinton’s privacy rights outweigh Judicial Watch’s effort to get a look at information that goes to her character.

Neither was Trump a federal officer in 1995, but that hasn’t stopped the Left from felony theft and journalistic fencing of stolen property. Anyway, as we learned from Hillary’s husband’s presidency, character doesn’t count. So what difference, at this point, does it make?