WND: ARE ALL FEMALE ACCUSERS TO BE BELIEVED?
Exclusive: Larry Klayman sees women as 'protected species' too often not held accountable
* * *
The hard reality is that there are plenty of legitimate claims by women about sexual harassment and abuse, but there also are multitudes of false claims conjured up by women to strike back at men. This occurs frequently, for example, in our corrupt and compromised family courts, where sleazy divorce and child custody lawyers, to win judgments for their female clients, conspire with them to make false claims that the husband sexually abused or molested his own children. And, statistics show that in about 90 percent of all such cases, these claims were manufactured for strategic reasons. What happens when these women are exposed as having borne false witness against their estranged husbands? The answer is nothing. They just walk off into the sunset with no legal repercussions.
* * *
In many of these cases, the aggrieved men live with the stigma of these false claims for the rest of their lives, and some, given the severe emotional distress, have even gone to the length of committing suicide, as their children and society had become alienated from them. But despite this, the women who made these claims generally couldn’t care less and just go on their merry way in life.
* * *
And, when either a man or a woman testifies and gives false witness to sexual or child abuse allegations that have been strategically conjured up for political, family law or other improper purposes, these false accusers should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Neither gender is above the law, plain and simple. And, even more importantly, we both are clearly equal in God’s eyes.
Klayman's position has and always will be that he was falsely accused by his ex-wife. To the point that Klayman has (unsuccessfully) sued newspapers for reporting on his court case. In addition to suing the judge that made the ruling about Klayman.
So I, personally, see little upside to poking Klayman about this, and much downside.
* * *
And, of course, because Klayman can't stop Klaymaning:
Even my favorite judge, the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, would never allow me to take the deposition of Hillary Clinton in the famous Filegate lawsuit I brought while I was running Judicial Watch. In that case, Hillary was the lead defendant, having illegally ordered up the FBI files on over 900 persons she considered adversaries, to dig up dirt and then smear them. Judge Lamberth, who is a Southern gentlemen, could never summon up the stomach to have me put her under oath, even when it was shown that she not only illegally obtained FBI files, but also hid key evidence as part of the Wicked Witch’s first email scandal.
In this regard, in the late 1990s, thanks to two White House whistleblowers, we learned that over 1 million emails were allegedly “lost” on the server of the White House Office of Administration, likely containing proof of the then-first lady’s and her husband’s crimes. While Judge Lamberth allowed me to conduct a criminal contempt hearing, Hillary was left out of the witness mix, and I was prohibited from even deposing her generally in the case.
Despite this, I do not want to give you the impression that I do not appreciate all the judge did and continues to do to further some integrity in our broken and corrupt system of justice. He is a shining star of judicial integrity and courage – and to be frank, I love the guy. Since I left Judicial Watch and have had the chance to get to know Judge Lamberth even better, as I have not had cases before him, I can’t tell you how much I have come to admire him even more. But with Hillary, he could not pull the trigger.