Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 07/19/2002 11:14:21 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:

Flame war.



Skip to comments.

Halliburton Responds to Larry Klayman's Supersillyous Suit(My Title)
CBS Market Watch "Big Charts" Web Site ^ | 7/10/2002 | MarketWatch.com

Posted on 07/10/2002 11:04:03 AM PDT by SierraWasp

12:57PM Halliburton responds to Judicial Watch lawsuit (HAL) by Michael Baron Halliburton (HAL) is off 30 cents, or 2.1 percent, to $13.82, in midday action. The company is out with a press release responding to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a Washington, D.C.-based legal watchdog group. The suit alleges fraudulent accounting practices at Halliburton took place during the period when current vice president Dick Cheney served as its chairman and CEO. Halliburton called the claims in the suit, "untrue, unsupported, and unfounded." The company continued: "We are working diligently with the SEC to resolve its questions regarding the company's accounting procedures. Halliburton has always followed and will continue to follow guidelines established by the SEC and GAAP, General Accepted Accounting Principles."


TOPICS: Breaking News
KEYWORDS: vpdickcheney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 3,801-3,815 next last
Comment #401 Removed by Moderator

To: Torie
I hope you're being sarcastic. Cheney is in no way dumb.
402 posted on 07/10/2002 10:39:29 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: SamBees; Admin Moderator
Your whole premise presumes Cheney in some kind of "moral equivalance" with the Clintons! Furthermore, already guilty of something and required to prove his innocence. I Reject that idea out of hand!!! It will never be entertained by this Freeper. It's just too bizzare to even consider, period! You gave yourself away by starting right off with: "Sad to say..." and other presumptive verbalizations. That's not "denial" on my part, or anyother persons part that sees this as a total farce!

Now, I'm even more sorry you posted something from that other website as every time someone does that it screws up the self-search feature of FreeRepublic.com for anyone who enjoys using Netscrape Nagitator as a browser.

It took days to clean up the mess on the last thread this happened on. In fact, I think the thread just had to be abandoned by those using Netscape. Oh well... this thread has certainly out lived it's usefullness as it's turned quite juvenile in some of the commentary.

403 posted on 07/10/2002 10:39:58 PM PDT by SierraWasp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Well I grant you he is smarter than I am. Whether that takes him out of the dumb category is for others to decide.
404 posted on 07/10/2002 10:40:34 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

Comment #405 Removed by Moderator

To: Howlin
. . . how David Keene has a real "thing" for Klayman.

Does that extend to Jason Zengerle as well?

Navigate
LARRY KLAYMAN, THE GOP, AND "BLOWBACK."
Friendly Fire

by Jason Zengerle

Post date 05.17.01 | Issue date 05.28.01    

This week, Larry Klayman wasn't in Washington, the city where he made a name for himself and his conservative legal watchdog group by filing scores of lawsuits against the Clinton administration. Instead, the Judicial Watch chairman was catching rays on the deck of the MS Masdaam as she toured the Caribbean. On the trip, billed as the "Cruise to Clean Up Corruption," Klayman, along with special guests like Gennifer Flowers and Donato Dalrymple, regaled about 30 Judicial Watch supporters--who paid between $2,000 and $5,000 apiece for the ride--with tales of Clinton administration corruption. Before embarking on his cruise, which included a port of call at Grand Cayman, the Judicial Watch chairman had predicted, "By the time we're done, we will have renamed this tropical island the `Grand Klayman Island.'"

A growing number of Republicans would be happy if Klayman stayed on his island. That's because ever since Bill Clinton left the White House, Klayman has been turning his fire on the GOP. In recent months, Judicial Watch has lambasted President Bush and other "gutless Republicans" for not carrying on the Clinton inquisition. The group has launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding China's return of the American spy plane's crew to "find out if any secret promises were made to the `Butchers of Beijing' behind closed doors." And, most ominously, Judicial Watch has initiated legal action against House Majority Whip Tom DeLay and the National Republican Congressional Committee (nrcc) for their fund-raising practices. "It can now be understood why the Republicans and the Bush administration have used the mantra `Move on,'" Klayman declared at an April press conference. "But, ironically, we'll move on--we'll move on to the illegal activities of the Republican Party ... and Tom DeLay."

The standard view of Klayman's recent strafing of his fellow conservatives is that it represents a cynical, calculated bid to stay relevant. Klayman has realized, the theory goes, that without Clinton to kick around anymore, he needs a new high-profile target to keep himself in the news and the donations pouring in. But there's a problem with this view: It assumes Klayman is acting rationally. When he says Ron Brown did not die in a plane crash but was murdered because he was about to air the Clintons' dirty laundry ("[T]hey found a bullet hole in Ron Brown's head"), he's not doing it for effect; he really believes it. Klayman's rantings aren't careerist or partisan; they stem from an overwhelming urge to believe the worst about those in power. And, unfortunately for Republicans, that now means them.

 

here's no arguing with the fact that Klayman built himself on the back of Bill Clinton. Before founding Judicial Watch in 1994, Klayman was an obscure trade lawyer. But thanks to the Clinton scandals, he became a fixture on talk shows like "Crossfire" and "Rivera Live," and his exposure turned Judicial Watch into a cash cow. In 1996 the group took in a mere $67,620 in donations; two years later its annual haul had shot up to $12.4 million and, two years after that, to $17.6 million--most from direct-mail donations and grants from Clinton haters like Richard Mellon Scaife.

But while the end of the Clinton presidency represents a blow to business for Klayman, it isn't necessarily crippling. After all, with Hillary Clinton in the Senate and Terry McAuliffe at the Democratic National Committee, there are still plenty of Clinton-related scandals for Klayman to monger--and lots of lingering anti-Clinton sentiment to mine for contributions. Indeed, Judicial Watch has already filed complaints with the Senate Ethics Committee and the Federal Election Commission against Hillary Clinton over her role in Pardongate. And the group still has about 80 cases ("I don't count on a daily basis," Klayman says) pending against Bill Clinton. Just last week Klayman deposed Doris Matsui, the wife of California Representative Bob Matsui and former Clinton White House deputy liaison, as part of his ongoing Chinagate litigation.

But Klayman's outrage has spread way beyond the Clintons. Judicial Watch now has branch offices in Dallas, Houston, Miami, and San Marino, California, and is delving into state and local matters. Klayman even has global ambitions: He hopes to open a European office in the future. (Closer to home, Judicial Watch is currently representing Paul Weyrich in a defamation suit against The New Republic.) The group inserted itself into the Florida recount, inspecting ballots in six counties; in California, it recently sued Governor Gray Davis for access to documents that, the group alleges, show Davis and other pols have taken "political payoffs" from utility companies; and last month in Texas Ross Perot's former right-hand man Russ Verney left his Reform Party post to head Judicial Watch's new Southwest regional office. "We're becoming the ACLU of government corruption," Klayman crows.

And Klayman sees government corruption everywhere, as his complaint against DeLay and the NRCC makes clear. On behalf of the NRCC, DeLay invited small-business owners to Washington earlier this month to take part in something called the Business Advisory Council, made up of smallbusiness owners who give money to the nrcc. "As an honorary member [of the council]," DeLay said in a recorded telephone solicitation, "you will be invited to meetings with top Bush administration officials, where your opinions on issues like tax reform will be heard." DeLay's solicitation was no different from thousands of other fund-raising schemes. While carefully avoiding an explicit quid pro quo, he promised access to those who gave money. That's how fund-raising works. But, according to Klayman, this run-of-the-mill solicitation runs afoul of federal anti-bribery statutes, federal election law, and House ethics rules. By Klayman's logic, then, practically all political fund-raising is illegal.

 

iven that view, it's no surprise Judicial Watch is going after Republicans on other fund-raising fronts. The group hounded House Speaker Dennis Hastert for his involvement in the nrcc fund-raising event--he was a scheduled participant, and a fax promoting the event had been sent out under his name--so ferociously that he ended up skipping it altogether. Judicial Watch has threatened to sue the National Republican Senatorial Committee for setting up similar meetings between donors and Bush administration officials. It recently initiated litigation over the Bush administration's awarding of diplomatic posts to campaign contributors. It's investigating the possibility that Trent Lott is using the Trent Lott Leadership Institute at the University of Mississippi as a conduit for political contributions. It's looking into a New York Times report that Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson met with political donors in his government office. Judicial Watch is even dredging up a decade-old charge that Dick Cheney, as secretary of defense in the first Bush administration, held fund-raisers at the Pentagon. "The Pentagon claims they have no records," huffs Klayman, "so we brought a lawsuit."

Naturally, all this isn't sitting so well with some of Klayman's old supporters. Although Judicial Watch has occasionally gone after Republicans in the past--it once called on Newt Gingrich to resign, and it has lobbed criticisms at Rudy Giuliani and Orrin Hatch--the group's bread and butter was always Clinton, and, now that it isn't, some in the GOP are worried. According to a recent report in Roll Call, congressional Republicans are pressuring one long-standing Klayman ally, Georgia Representative Bob Barr, who has publicly promoted Judicial Watch (and who is being represented by the group in a violation-of-privacy suit against Clinton), to end the association. And David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, recently penned an op-ed in The Hill castigating Klayman for behaving more as "a super litigious Common Cause type than as a conservative" and raising the question of "whether he can get conservatives or others to write checks to his operation while he attacks DeLay rather than Clinton." (Klayman calls the article "defamatory" and, according to Keene, has made noises about suing.) "The people who gave money to Judicial Watch gave money because it was a way to go after Bill Clinton," Keene elaborated to me. "They weren't interested in creating another good-government, Common Cause-type group."

But that, in a loonier version, is what they've gotten. While Klayman's bipartisan scandal-mongering may eventually hurt his bottom line, for the time being he has enough money to wreak some serious havoc. In this sense, his recent turn against the GOP is a political form of blowback. Much as the CIA suppressed its qualms about arming Islamic radicals to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan, Republicans ignored their doubts about funding a serial suer like Klayman, so long as he was suing Clinton. But, just as some of those Islamic radicals now visit their terror upon the United States, Klayman, with Clinton gone, has trained his sights on the GOP. For years, Klayman has insisted that "Judicial Watch is nonpartisan." Who knew he meant it?

SOURCE

406 posted on 07/10/2002 10:41:37 PM PDT by henbane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: one_particular_harbour
Well, I imagine whatever happens, this is one suit that won't get lost in the files at JW. Cheney will want his name cleared. We'll surely hear about this one.

Klayman better enjoy his time on the networks.

407 posted on 07/10/2002 10:42:19 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: henbane
He's not claiming to be conservative OR nonpartisan anymore.
408 posted on 07/10/2002 10:44:09 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Klayman looked great on the tube. Wealth and fame must be agreeing with him. He at last is getting an adequate dosage for his fix.
409 posted on 07/10/2002 10:45:54 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Torie
He had on his Matlock suit!
410 posted on 07/10/2002 10:46:42 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Klayman will always be a buffoon, as far as I'm concerned. The night he told a strategist for the Democrats to get a new hairpiece on national television, he revealed himself.
411 posted on 07/10/2002 10:48:15 PM PDT by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
"He had on his Matlock suit!"

Oh good lord, I saw that too......it reminded me of the Mr. Rodger's sweater!

412 posted on 07/10/2002 10:52:16 PM PDT by A Citizen Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Well McCain managed to trash just Pitt (for opposing the Senate Dem reforms) without going after Bush, at least so far. Whatever Pitt opposed before, if anything, he won't be in the future. Putting aside McCain's motives, sometimes ago I decided that McCain was not an intellectual powerhouse. He simply lacks an ability to parse detail in a persuasive manner, probably because he doesn't understand it due to complexity or laziness. JMO.
413 posted on 07/10/2002 10:53:31 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: ProudAmerican2
Simple explanation: Judicial Watch initially only sued Democrats. Now Judicial Watch is much more bipartisan.

The Clinton Administration was the target of the majority of the suits by JW. However, Klayman did sue to discover details of the multi-million dollar book deal between Newt Gingrich and HarperCollins. HarperCollins is owned by Aussie media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who was allegedly seeking help to fight off legal challenges to his ownership of an American TV network.

414 posted on 07/10/2002 11:02:54 PM PDT by L.N. Smithee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: henbane
Klayman's rantings aren't careerist or partisan; they stem from an overwhelming urge to believe the worst about those in power. And, unfortunately for Republicans, that now means them.

Is it your opinion that the GOP is never guilty of some of the charges? Do you believe that no one should be shouting if Bush officials are acting Clintonesque?

"The people who gave money to Judicial Watch gave money because it was a way to go after Bill Clinton," [David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union] elaborated to me. "They weren't interested in creating another good-government, Common Cause-type group."

This is a very revealing quote. What was the motivation of going after Clinton? To expose the corruption, spur reform, and impeach if any laws were broken? Or was it all to just wreck the Clintons politically?

Much as the CIA suppressed its qualms about arming Islamic radicals to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan, Republicans ignored their doubts about funding a serial suer like Klayman, so long as he was suing Clinton. But, just as some of those Islamic radicals now visit their terror upon the United States, Klayman, with Clinton gone, has trained his sights on the GOP.

This comparison is profoundly unfair. The US trained the Islamic terrorists to fight off Soviet invaders, not to enter the USSR and blow things up or commit random acts of violence. There is no principle that the Bin Ladens of the world had that would have made it likely they would turn on their benefactors the way they have.

For years, Klayman has insisted that "Judicial Watch is nonpartisan." Who knew he meant it?

The better question is, why didn't people believe him when he said it? Because they thought that was what he had to say to be taken seriously?

Before some of you start accusing me of being a DU plant, click here. My disdain for the Clintons and their garbage is well-documented, and if the threat of a Klayman suit will make Bush's cronies from aping the Slick crew, GO LARRY GO!

415 posted on 07/10/2002 11:42:23 PM PDT by L.N. Smithee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
"You have any idea who the contact person in Larry's PR office?

Larry.
416 posted on 07/11/2002 2:52:22 AM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
"Well obviously TEXASFOREVERANDEVER has those Halliburton accounting books sitting right on his nightstand. What's more, he also has the accounting training and experience to be enabling him to interpret all those trickly financial transactions HIMSELF."

TEXASFOREVER has far more basis for voicing his opinions on this subject than Larry Klayman.
417 posted on 07/11/2002 2:58:15 AM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
"Larry Klayman may very well rue the day he decided to take on Dick Cheney."

We could finance the War on Terror by selling tickets to the deposition of Dick Cheney by Larry Klayman. Cheney will humiliate Klayman. Come to think of it, Klayman would humiliate Klayman. He has always been his own worst enemy.
418 posted on 07/11/2002 3:26:36 AM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Or is it just easier to post your farcical opinions under the convenient disguise of anonymity?

And your real name is?

419 posted on 07/11/2002 4:08:28 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
body>

Here's the Aaron Brown interview with Klayman:

BROWN: Larry Klayman is a full-service pain in the rear. He spent much of the Clinton years suing the president, the president's wife, and a fair number of others in the White House.

So, if you thought the change in administrations meant the end of Mr. Klayman, you were not listening carefully. He has sued the administration for the release of Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force notes, and now today, sued the vice president and the company the vice president used to run, Halliburton, for fraud, cooking the books essentially.

The company says it's all nonsense, though that is not the first time Mr. Klayman and his group, Judicial Watch, has heard that. Mr. Klayman joins us from Miami tonight. It's nice to see you.

LARRY KLAYMAN, GENERAL COUNSEL, JUDICIAL WATCH: Aaron, thanks for inviting us.

BROWN: Thank you for joining us. The White House kind of gave this thing the back of the hand today, said without merit. What do you make?

KLAYMAN: Well, that's what you'd expect under these circumstances, but you know that in and of itself, Aaron, shows the sensitivity, the defensiveness because it's very unusual for a president to comment on an ongoing legal proceeding. In fact, it's considered to be improper.

What he was, in effect, doing was signaling his Securities and Exchange Commissioner Harvey Pitt not to look into Halliburton. He was signaling his Justice Department, under John Ashcroft, not to investigate, and he was talking to the court and the jury in our case, and frankly it's improper and it shows that there's something there. Where there's smoke, there's fire.

BROWN: That is the most cynical take you could possibly make, the dismiss it without merit, would you agree with that?

KLAYMAN: Well, not coming from the president you see. Now the president should not be intervening in private matters. Just yesterday, Aaron, he said he's going to let the chips fall where they may and no matter who's involved, they're going to be held accountable.

Now, he's saying on behalf of Vice President Cheney, and he's accountable for his own vice president, that there's no merit. Yesterday, he was saying he was going to investigate, so what is it? It shows a certain hypocrisy.

BROWN: As simply as you can state it here, what is it that you believe you will find?

KLAYMAN: Well, as we set forth in the complaint, what Halliburton did was, is that they categorized his profits, certain transactions that were in dispute, and that resulted in an overvaluation of the shares.

Now, they did not disclose to the buying public that they made this change in accounting principles and this was such a significant change that it had to have been discussed and, in fact, passed upon by Vice President Cheney.

As the complaint also says, and you can see it on our Web site at judicialwatch.org, the vice president has done promotional videos for Arthur Andersen. He said they were a creative accounting firm. Well, I guess they really were creative.

Unfortunately, as alleged in the complaint, it was a creative fraud.

BROWN: Now, whether it was a fraud or not -- that's the allegation, we'll find out -- the vice president has said...

KLAYMAN: That's right.

BROWN: ... or the vice president's office has said, and Halliburton has said that whatever accounting changes they made, that the vice president, when he was the guy running the company, did not know about them.

KLAYMAN: Well, and if you believe that, we're in deep trouble in the war against terrorism. This is a hands-on vice president. He is the de facto president. And he runs this country, in effect. He's a very sharp guy. He's known for his hands-on management style, particularly when he was secretary of defense during the Persian Gulf War.

This is not someone who lets go of the reins of power. And even as CEO, he's legally responsible for what went on at Halliburton.

BROWN: Someone raised an interesting -- what at least to me was an interesting question. In talking about, they said, Look, why, Larry, are you doing this? The country's at war. The economy is fragile. The market, stock market's worse than fragile. The last thing the administration needs is to be distracted by this, to have to deal with what in this person's view was a frivolous lawsuit.

KLAYMAN: Aaron, the...

BROWN: Are you concerned about any of those things?

KLAYMAN: No. In fact, Aaron, I'm glad you asked the question, because in the words of John Adams, perhaps our greatest American president, our second president, he said, "Statesmen, my dear sir" -- he said this 13 days before the Declaration of Independence was signed -- "you can change your rulers and your forms of government many times, but without ethics and morality, you will not have liberty."

And unless we have an honest government that we can trust, and more than ever we need to trust the vice president and the president, then you will not have a strong nation. And to allow corruption to continue in our government -- and this is a president and vice president who, after the Clinton years, said, Move on, we now know what they meant, they didn't want anyone looked at, whether it was Democrat or Republican, everybody scratches everybody's back in Washington, D.C.

The American people have lost trust. And today on your network you have -- on your Internet site at cnn.com, "MONEYLINE," you've asked the question, Lou Dobbs asked it, Should the vice president answer questions? It's running 94 percent yes. That's, in effect, an endorsement of this Judicial Watch lawsuit that we're going to make the vice president answer questions and be held accountable under the rule of law.

BROWN: About 20 seconds. I assume the next thing we do is discovery, and do you intend to depose the vice president?

KLAYMAN: Oh, absolutely. And of course the vice president will have very good lawyers, and I'm sure he'll be able to defend himself. And let the jury decide whether or not there was a fraud committed here. But at least the American people will know, and our clients will get justice, that in fact all the facts came out, and that the right decision was made by a court of law.

BROWN: Larry, it's good to talk to you. I suspect you don't get invited to any of those Washington dinner parties any more by anyone.

KLAYMAN: As Groucho Marx said, Aaron, I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that would have me as a member.

BROWN: Thank you, Larry, it's nice to talk to you.

KLAYMAN: You're welcome.

BROWN: Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch, sued the vice president and Halliburton today.

420 posted on 07/11/2002 4:18:45 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 3,801-3,815 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson