BUSH JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BLOCKS RENO DEPOSITION

Latest Obstruction Prevents Scheduled Testimony In Defamation Case Against Accused Spy Wen Ho Lee

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today criticized the Ashcroft Justice Department for obstructing a long scheduled deposition of former Attorney General Reno in whistleblower Notra Trulock defamation case against accused Chinese spy and admitted felon Wen Ho Lee. Trulock, the former chief of the Energy Department intelligence operations, is suing Lee and others for falsely accusing Trulock of racial bias while conducting an inquiry into the loss of America nuclear secrets from Energy Department labs. Former Attorney General Reno, who was subpoenaed last month, was expected to testify that Wen Ho Lee charges of racial bias had no basis in fact and that there was a legitimate basis to investigate Lee. The deposition of Ms. Reno was scheduled to take place tomorrow in Miami. Judicial Watch is representing Mr. Trulock in this matter.

Late yesterday afternoon, the Ashcroft Justice Department, through a fax from Assistant Attorney General Robert D. McCallum, Jr., unilaterally decided that Reno (and other witnesses such as former FBI Director Louis Freeh) would not appear as scheduled. Judicial Watch was told by a Justice Department lawyer that this decision was only made yesterday. (The Ashcroft Justice Department had known that Reno would be testifying in this case since June of this year.)

The Justice Department lawyers know they have no legal basis to prevent Ms. Reno from testifying at the last minute. Yet they think they are above the law and are contemptuous of the Court processes. The Ashcroft Justice Department has continually obstructed this case. Indeed, a federal court has already sanctioned them for similar conduct in this case. "Truth be told, in matters that Judicial Watch has been litigating, the ethics and practices of the Ashcroft Justice Department are no better than those of Reno Justice Department", stated Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman.

"No one is above the law. And Judicial Watch will seek appropriate sanctions and plans to ask for an independent investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility into the way the Wen Ho Lee case has been handled. These repeated obstructionist tactics by this Justice Department are most likely to cover up their ongoing negligence concerning the loss of virtually all of our nation nuclear secrets to China and other nations adverse to the United States", added Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Depositions don't mean ONE THING until you get into a courtroom and enter them into evidence if and when they are CERTIFIED AS EVIDENCE BY A JUDGE.

For those that don't know, here is the part of this thread where Howlin tries to change the definition of "evidence" and use HER definition as the EXCUSE for Bush/Ashcroft not INVESTIGATING the crimes that the democRATS certainly appear to have committed the last 8 years. Her "evidence" definition is THE CORNERSTONE of her "move on" philosophy and refusal to demand an INVESTIGATION. It allows her to IGNORE all the FACTS in case after case, include the FACT that the Bush administration hasn't apparently INVESTIGATED even a single one of the serious crimes the democRATS committed in the first 8 months since taking office. And notice that she steadfastly REFUSES to tell us why she believes Ron Brown was NOT murdered. That's because nothing has yet been "proven in a court of law" so its not EVIDENCE. Talk about spin! Is it democRAT spin? I still wonder.

We've been over this before. You are so obsessed with what you call evidence, you're lost touch with reality.

Yes and as I recall you only ended up claiming that you had to PROVE facts in court BEFORE an investigation could begin. And I haven't lost touch with reality. As I said, your definition is an EXCUSE for ignoring crimes.

And as far as "reality" is concerned, I'm more than willing to debate the FACTS (that's the measure of reality) about Ron Brown, Filegate, Chinagate, Emailgate, the Riady Non-Refund, and all the other Clinton/DNC crimes that the GOP is ignoring. I'll debate them with you ANYTIME.

You are the one who lives in a fantasy thinking that you don't have to EXPLAIN why you BELIEVE Brown was not murdered and will still be BELIEVED when you claim to be conservative who dislikes Clinton and all he stood for.

Yes and as I recall you only ended up claiming that you had to PROVE facts in court BEFORE an investigation could begin.

I never said any such thing. I said -- and have repeatedly said to you -- that any deposition has to be PROVEN in court before you can call it EVIDENCE. Anybody who can say anything in a deposition. Until it's been TESTED in a courtroom, it's NOT REAL EVIDENCE.

This is like the time you denied you said that you didn't believe Ron Brown was murdered. Remember?

Ok, I'm game. Note in particular the portion in BOLD near the end of this.

Recall that you and I were discussing the depositions and FOIA documents that Klayman gathered in Filegate (crimes which for "some reason" you'd rather ignore). You began by stating "A deposition is NOT EVIDENCE nor is it TRUTH until it is admitted to court and CROSS EXAMINED UNDER OATH. DUH."

I responded: "Well no doubt the people that write dictionaries will be surprised. From mine: Ev-i-dence n. 1. The data on which a conclusion may be based, or by which proof or probability may be established. Sounds to me like the data (i.e., evidence) comes BEFORE the proof. I suspect that Ashcroft might even call the material Klayman gathered "evidence" at this point in time (before the trial). There is another definition: 3. Law. The documentary or verbal statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law."

You responded: "That says it all; MAY BE ESTABLISHED -- after it is proven in court. Man, you are dense. " and added "Now I know you're Larry Klayman. Nothing can come before it's proved."

To which I replied: "Dictionary definition #1 clearly says the proof or probability is what is established, not the evidence. The evidence is USED to establish the proof or probability. "

You then wrote: "evidence : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter Tell it to Merriam-Webster. A deposition is NOT ruled TRUTHFUL until it has been so ruled in court. I type depositions all day long. I can damn well tell you it is NOT always truthful. "

To which I replied "evidence : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter. But you just got done telling us that NOTHING comes before the proof. This definition again clearly says the evidence FURNISHES proof."

I then added: " Let's see what the New Oxford Dictionary says.

evidence

t noun [MASS NOUN] the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination.

n Law information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court: without evidence, they can't bring a charge.

Notice that last phrase "without evidence, they can't bring a charge." If what you say were true, no court could charge anyone with a crime because the court would have to meet and prove the facts true inorder to call those facts evidence and bring a charge. Clearly by this definition, the evidence comes BEFORE the charge. Ergo, it comes BEFORE the court proceedings. Ergo, your definition is nothing but an EXCUSE for not investigating democRAT crimes.

No wonder you keep asking the same thing over and over. You're dense.

No Howlin. It is because you NEVER answer the questions. Let's see ... how many times have I asked the questions about who is responsible for investigating CRIMINAL matters ... Klayman or Ashcroft ... without an answer from you? How many times have I asked you to explain why you don't believe Brown was murdered?

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.