Replies

To look the other way for the Vice President would be to set a precedent that the Washington elite are above the law. This cannot be permitted if our democracy is to survive,”

Who among the intellectually honest here at FR would not agree with the above? I don't like some of the insinuations in his press release but that is how a (self-proclaimed) 'watch dog' operates...snarl and attack. Most of us here didn't mind these tactics when he was yapping at the cuffs of the i42 and his minions. No, he didn't "win" many cases but was instrumental in yapping loud and long enough so that the media (and Congress) could no longer ignore this "conservative activist."

Before I am branded some kind of 'bot', let me say that I am a big Bush supporter who lost some good FReepin' friends in the Bush-Bashing flame wars of 1999. I am, however and will continue to be, a supporter of JW. I have met Klayman several times and have never observed him to be the rabid, partisan egomaniac as he was formerly portrayed by the media and is now viewed here.

I for one welcome the opportunity for VP Cheney to face his accusers in a court of law instead of being subjected to the whispered, smarmy, innuendo that the libs trade in as a matter of practice. I am confident that Cheney did no wrong and can prove it, and if JW is the instrument of his clearing the air, then so be it.

And if the extra wrath heaped upon JW here is caused by his courting a formerly hostile media to air his case, then please savor the delicious irony there.

Will they be there fawning over him when he goes after the next lib? I think not. But then that would only point out their hypocrisy, not ours.

Lisa, assuming there is any merit to this case (which I do not) according to the docket these people are fairly late purchasers of Halliburton stock. One is from Indiana (although I can find no trace of the man's name anywhere on the net) and the other is from New Mexico. How in the heck did they get hooked up with Klayman?

Again, assuming there is merit (and I do not) WHY are they suing the Vice President? Why are they not simply suing Halliburton?

And most importantly, why is this lawsuit being filed NOW? We are getting ready to attack Iraq. Is this lawsuit SO important that it couldn't wait six months? What is the hurry?

Is Larry certain that this is more important than a united front for the war? Is he going to accuse Cheney of instigating the attack on Iraq as a wag the dog?

I have had zero respect for JW since they attacked Laura Bush for having tea with Hillary during the transition, and accused her of being corrupt. Sorry to disagree with you, and I am certain that Mr. Klayman is very nice to people who are donors and/or visit his office. I do not trust him one bit.

I agree 100 percent. Too bad it's not an honest attorney. I'll go with Fred Barnes, who just called Klayman "a crank." Larry Klayman will not be the instrument to clear Cheney; Cheney and Halliburton will do that for themselves with the SEC; this will just be one more of Klayman's lawsuits that have no end in sight.

I do think it's funny, though, to watch these diehard Klayman supporters trying to justify this new interest in Klayman by the media. Klayman has become a pawn and they just won't acknowledge it. He's trying to play in the big leagues and it's just not going to happen for him, IMO.

I supported Klayman when he was going after Clinton -- after all, REAL crimes had been committed.

I hardly think you can classify Laura Bush having coffee with Hillary Clinton and PROVING she is just as corrupt as Hillary, which is EXACTLY what Klayman said about her.

It's one thing to "go after corruption," quite another to "manufacture it."