Skip to comments.
Judge Warns White House: Specific Reasons Needed to Block Release of Records on Energy Task Force
Associated Press ^
| August 2, 2002
| By Laurie Kellman
Posted on 08/03/2002 7:04:02 AM PDT by tgslTakoma
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-98 next last
The two groups had filed separate lawsuits; the court joined the two cases into one( whatever the legal term for that is I have no idea).
To: tgslTakoma
Corporate confidence in the White House is already shakey, but having the courts order these documents released will completely subvert and destroy any faith and trust the corporate world might have left.
2
posted on
08/03/2002 7:13:38 AM PDT
by
rintense
To: rintense
I'm hope the information is released. It might explain this administrations unwillingness to prosecute the Enron crowd. Lay still walking the streets is making a joke out of our DOJ, if these guys can't get the job done they should resign.
3
posted on
08/03/2002 7:16:51 AM PDT
by
steve50
To: steve50
How about Enron can't be fully investigated until Lieberman orders Rubin to testify as well. This is more then just the president's unwillingness to release documents.
4
posted on
08/03/2002 7:33:50 AM PDT
by
Mfkmmof4
To: tgslTakoma
Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Court for the
District of Columbia
Washington, D.C.
Born: Washington, D.C.-June 4, 1947.
Education: Howard University (B.A. 1968; J.D. 1971).
Judge Sullivan was appointed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on June 16, 1994. He was appointed by President Clinton.
5
posted on
08/03/2002 7:38:18 AM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: tgslTakoma
The Sierra Club, an environmental organization, and Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, have filed lawsuits ....And every time I get a request from Judicial Watch asking for a donation, I take their SASE and send it back with a note telling them to stop harassing this white house.
To: Mfkmmof4
Rubin can always take the 5th so I guess it can never be investigated, doesn't wash with me. Sounds more like they are afraid of what Lay might try as a plea bargain. The DOJ has the power to call Rubin in for questioning, why don't they?
7
posted on
08/03/2002 7:41:33 AM PDT
by
steve50
To: tgslTakoma
I have a feeling that the White House is eventually going to win this one. The writer of this piece (surprise, surprise, AP) did not include comments by the White House lawyer.
According to my understanding, if the "task force" is made up entirely of government workers, the minutes do not have to be revealed. The reason why it was considered that Hillary's "healthcare taskforce" should reveal their documents was that there were definitely non-government workers on the taskforce.
The White House lawyer was quoted elsewhere as telling the judge that, in his opinion, Klayman had to prove that a non-governmental individual had been on the task force - and he had not.
From the little I know about the case, I'm not impressed with the judge and I suspect an appeals court will agree.
8
posted on
08/03/2002 7:42:48 AM PDT
by
jackbill
To: rintense
will completely subvert and destroy any faith and trust the corporate world might have left. Which is EXACTLY what this judge and Larry Klayman want.
9
posted on
08/03/2002 7:44:08 AM PDT
by
Howlin
To: rintense
Voter confidence in corporate America is already shaky, and having the court order these documents released might completely subvert and destroy any faith and trust the voters have left with the White House.
To: tgslTakoma
>>A federal judge warned Bush administration lawyers Friday he would reject efforts to block the release of records on Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force unless the White House provides specific reasons.<<
Here's two:
1) I don't want to
2) I don't have to
Now go away you Clinton hack. . .
To: Gunrunner2
They don't want to release the names of the people the Task Force met with. They don't want to release the SEC report on President Bush. They don't want to release documents from Reagan's presidency as required by law. They don't want to release the names of people held in federal custody. I think they should run on that platform: "We'll decide how much you need to know."
To: steve50
"I'm hope the information is released. It might explain this administrations unwillingness to prosecute the Enron crowd. Lay still walking the streets is making a joke out of our DOJ, if these guys can't get the job done they should resign." You should know better. This is like the cocaine question that Bush with hounded with during the election. If he had answered it, there would have been a follow up, then another and another. Then the press's whole facade of "equal time" to Republicans would have been dominated with drug talk.
If Bush releases this, it will be the dominant media topic through the elections, regardless of anything contained in it.
13
posted on
08/03/2002 8:02:58 AM PDT
by
elfman2
To: elfman2
In that case they should stop releasing information on the the deficit or anything else that's bad news politically.
To: ConsistentLibertarian
" I think they should run on that platform: "We'll decide how much you need to know."" Unless that degree of government disclosure is simultaniously and retroactively implemented across all agencies and elected officials. It would be suicide for one to do it. Information is power in this case because it can be mis-characterized and used to destroy.
Actually, that might be a good thing for Bush to call far and shut the whole fraudulent effort down with!
15
posted on
08/03/2002 8:08:15 AM PDT
by
elfman2
To: ConsistentLibertarian
"In that case they should stop releasing information on the the deficit or anything else that's bad news politically." The amount of information Bush releases is normal and following precedent. Expecting details regarding meeting with private citizens is extraordinary and a giant fraud that only works of the naïve.
16
posted on
08/03/2002 8:12:35 AM PDT
by
elfman2
To: rintense
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan told government lawyers that simply citing special presidential privileges or the Constitution would not be enough. Wow. What a shame, used to be a day when the Constitution mattered! Unfrickinbelieveable.
More reason why we need to take back the Senate.
17
posted on
08/03/2002 8:12:58 AM PDT
by
Wphile
To: rintense
but having the courts order these documents released will completely subvert and destroy any faith and trust the corporate world might have left. Gee, that doesn't sound good for what might be in those documents does it? By the underlying theme of your writing they don't deserve our "faith and trust".
To: elfman2
Ahh ... I see. If only Bush could GET AWAY with a government that operates completely in secret. Well, if that's the basic premise of people who side with the White House on this dispute, I think they should make this case loudly and clearly on TV, radio, in print, etc. It could be a billboard ad in an election cycle "Don't worry. We won't tell you anything that can be used against us."
To: Wphile
"U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan told government lawyers that simply citing special presidential privileges or the Constitution would not be enough." Yep, that's just a piece of paper
20
posted on
08/03/2002 8:16:14 AM PDT
by
elfman2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-98 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson