Posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:14 PM PST by Rebeckie
11/15/2001 Press Office
202-646-5172
COURT ASKED TO SANCTION BUSH JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FOR OBSTRUCTIONIST CONDUCT IN WEN HO LEE CASE
Repeated Obstructions In Defamation Case Against Accused Spy Wen Ho Lee
Contrary to Court Rulings, Bush Justice Lawyers Refuse to Make Witnesses, Documents Available
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, filed today a motion for sanctions against Bush Justice Department lawyers for obstructing discovery in a defamation case against accused spy and admitted felon Wen Ho Lee. Judicial Watch represents Notra Trulock, the former chief of the Energy Department’s intelligence operations, in his defamation claim against Lee and others for falsely accusing Trulock of racial bias in requesting that Lee’s actions be investigated.The case is before a federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia.
(A government inquiry, the results of which are known as the Bellows Report, found no racial bias. Over government objections, the Bellows Report was ordered released this past September by the court in this case.)
As but one example of the Justice Department’s obstructionist conduct, despite knowing since June that Reno would have to testify in this case, Justice Department lawyers waited until a little over a day before the Reno’s testimony was to take place before deciding that Reno would not be made available for testimony. Reno’s testimony was scheduled for last week. In the meantime, as former FBI Director Louis Freeh himself literally runs from Judicial Watch process servers, the Justice Department, contrary to any rule or law, has unilaterally said Freeh can not give testimony in this case. (If they testify truthfully, both Freeh and Reno are expected to provide helpful testimony for Trulock, by affirming that the government investigations of Lee were not racially motivated.)
“As with the Clinton Justice Department, there are many in the Bush Justice Department who believe they are above the law. We hope a federal judge will remind them otherwise,” said Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel.
A copy of the Judicial Watch motion for sanctions is available at http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/trulockmtc.htm.
We have to do something government corruption and not just sit around and expect apathy to fix the political corruption here in the United States.
And as for that lawsuit being frivilous, that is your opinion. I as well as many others, do not think that it is. And also as for comparing slave reparations to a defamation lawsuit, that is an inaccurate comparison with very flawed hermanutic. Logic 101.
GOJUDICIALWATCHGO!
That MAY be the goal of JW NOW but I hope you aren't trying to suggest that Judicial Watch's efforts during the Clinton years in such matters as Filegate, Chinagate, Emailgate and the death of Ron Brown were part of Clinton's agenda ... because that would be wholly UNTRUE.
The questions I have for you are these:
YES or NO? Did Klayman uncovered many serious CRIMINAL violations in Filegate, Chinagate, Emailgate, etc?
If so, can Klayman do anything about CRIMINAL violations?
If not, who now has responsibility for investigating and prosecuting CRIMINAL matters of the sort uncovered?
If the answer is Bush/Ashcroft, then provide us with ANY indication that the DOJ was or is investigating ANY of these matters?
If you can't, then why aren't you critical of Ashcroft and Bush?
Surely you don't think it is ok to ignore credible evidence of treason, murder, election tampering, blackmail, intimidation of witnesses and other serious CRIMES. In particular, why aren't you demanding to know why Ron Brown's body hasn't already been exhumed and autopsied?
The same can be said of the Ashcroft DOJ as far as Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate, Pardongate, the Riady Non-Refund, the death of Foster and the death of Brown are concerned. But unlike Klayman, the Ashcroft DOJ has NO EXCUSES. They can't claim that they don't have jurisdiction over CRIMINAL matters (Klayman can). They can't claim they don't have the resources to investigate (Klayman can). They can't claim the federal government was working against their efforts (Klayman can). In fact, Bush and Ashcroft have the whole weight of the DOJ, FBI, IRS, Military and Executive Branch on their side and they STILL haven't WON a case. And unlike Klayman, they don't even appear to be investigating OBVIOUS criminal activities. I wonder why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.