Posted on 11/08/2001 1:57:39 PM PST by Rebeckie
11/8/2001
202-646-5172
BUSH JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BLOCKS RENO DEPOSITION
Latest Obstruction Prevents Scheduled Testimony In Defamation Case Against Accused Spy Wen Ho Lee
Last Minute Gamesmanship No Better than Clinton Justice Department
(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.
You recall wrong. That's a very stupid argument; and it's a really stupid argument to make to a woman who spends ALL her time marking evidence in depositions and in a courtroom. I know what I am talking about; you don't.
Do NOT lecture me; especially about things you know nothing about.
We all witnessed the unprecidented support the Clintons received throughout all the scandals. Hitlery's litany of a right wing conspiracy began to ring true in the minds of too many voters -- it was only politics, she claimed. As appalling as it was, we all saw our fellow Americans put their morals aside and vote according to their pocketbooks. They didn't pay enough attention to politics to know that it was Bush 41's policies that Clinton rode in on, that Bush 41 was more responsible than Clinton for the prosperity of the 90's.
So generally, the public has shown its ignorance in its continued support of the Clintons. And maybe Bush 43'rd doesn't want to tread back into those waters. Maybe he just wants the Clintons out of the picture so that they do not get the opportunity to lie their way out of another scandal or prosecution, casting another dark cloud on republicans.
I'm not sure what to think about the lack of attention to the crimes of the previous administration....it may simply be a matter of timing, rather than completely shutting all of this down for good...
I can understand not wanting to dive into the muck of the Clinton Administration, but I also think that it should not be overlooked indefinitely. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that eventually all of this stuff will be brought to the surface, but it is a bit concerning...
President Bush promised to restore honor and dignity to the White House, I hope that he's not thinking that in order to do that he should ignore the criminal activity of the previous occupant...
There's also the possibility that he doesn't want to pursue some of this stuff while Congress is in session--after all, if Hitlery has a lot of power in the Senate, he could wind up with even more trouble on his hands than he has already with those children...
-penny
He is the biggest fraud there is...period.
*******
New Oxford Dictionary says: evidence
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.
******
Again ... 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. How else can one interpret this? Just because you are a court "reporter" doesn't mean you can ignore MULTIPLE dictionary definitions and simple logic. This isn't 1984 where 2+2 = 5.
My recollection isn't wrong. These are quotes from the discussion we had. And you know what? After I pointed out this last bit of logic to you ... you RAN. You had NO response. And you STILL apparently don't. EVERYONE can see that you are making up a definition of "evidence" to suit your purpose ... that of making sure that no crime committed by the Clintons and DNC is ever properly investigated. Like I said, I don't care what you call the circumstances surrounding Ron Brown's death and all these other scandals ... FACTS, DETAILS, EVIDENCE, QUESTIONS ... whatever. There is STILL sufficient reason to DEMAND an investigation. That is unless you think MURDER and TREASON by democRATS is something we should IGNORE.
And since you claim to be such an "expert", let's hear your reasons why YOU think Gormley and Dickerson were not lying in the Brown case? Let's hear YOUR reasons why you think Cogswell, Janoski and all the other whistleblowers in the Brown case were untruthful. Let's hear YOUR explanation for the failure of the Air Force to conduct a Safety Board and instead rule the crash due to pilot error and weather BEFORE any investigation has begun on the ground. Should be a simple matter for someone with you VAST expertise at watching people lie (as you claimed) and handling EVIDENCE. Come on, Howlin, stop RUNNING from the Brown case and tell us why you don't think he was murdered.
SPIN SPIN SPIN. EXCUSES EXCUSES EXCUSES. The TRUTH is that the public didn't show its ignorance, the media showed its BIAS. The media never even told the public a fraction of the facts in most of these cases. I'll bet you that if you take a sampling of 100 people you MIGHT find 2 or 3 who know the circumstances surrounding Ron Brown's death. And you know why that is? Because the media NEVER reported those circumstances. They did just want the Clintons and DNC wanted them to do ... report it as an accident due to bad weather. NOT ONE major media outlet has EVER mentioned the statements of the pathologists, the x-ray and photos that suggest a bullet wound, the unusualness of no safety board, the lies of Gormley and Dickerson, the testimony implicating Clinton, etc. etc. etc. In fact, NOT ONE of the major media outlets ever even told the public during the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton that 2 of the 3 witnesses the House Managers were allowed to call were caught LYING UNDER OATH to protect themselves and Clinton, in a trial about LYING UNDER OATH! The major media (and GOP) has not even reported the Riady non-refund! And you can't deny this.
You are dreaming if you think this is going away. As long as Bush and the GOP will not investigate the Clinton crimes, then they can expect charges of coverup and corruption from LIFE LONG REPUBLICANS like me. NO EXCUSES. Exhume Brown's body and autopsy it in the presence of some of the whistleblowers, or be called to task for helping democRATS cover up an apparent MASS MURDER involving treason. Investigate the crimes or many life long REPUBLICANS will be wondering if we can EVER trust EITHER party again.
Howlin ... with all due respect, I'm asking that you please try to refrain from such ludicrous statements. It's not just that they're entirely unsupported but your continued speaking thus "as a court reporter" makes you look like some kind of Wanda Mitty of the courtroom. You take dictation and you sticker exhibits. Period.
Believe me ... as a Wanda Mitty of sorts myself, I understand entirely. But I don't try to pretend I've some professional expertise or understanding when all I've done is hang out in the war rooms and closely watch the legal craft from backstage over a dozen years from my Della Street sort of perspective.
Why don't you abandon your "hatred" of Larry Klayman and see if you can't found (like a "real attorney") a solid defense of the Daddy's party's continued covering of Clinton's backside.
I know I'm interested in all the good reasons we can't imprison -- or hang -- those guilty of treason.
You'd think a nation bloodlusty enough to trounce Third Worlders in revenge surely would have no qualms about exacting an "eye for eye" from the treasonous and wholly corrupt administration that slaughtered Americans at Waco and (according to most) was WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE for allowing the WTC disaster.
My general opinion on Klayman, Judicial Watch and the attempts bring Clinton(s) to justice are this;
I don't believe that Clinton will ever be truly brought to justice in his lifetime. I believe that because I don't see any interest on the part of the American people, as a whole, to see that happen. Yes, the media covered up for all the crimes we know were committed but what makes anyone believe they won't keep right on doing that, especially if real charges were ever brought against either or both Bill and Hillary? The legal and PR attempts to protect Clinton would rival the impeachment circus and with the same result. No convictions. Dreams of the Clintons in prison are just that, dreams. It won't happen.
In my opinion, President Bush knew that a year ago and had no interest in chasing Clinton, being accused by the Democrats of seeking some sort of revenge and losing all media and much public support in the process. There is no public demand to make Clinton the criminal he really is. Bush must know that 25 years ago, Richard Nixon was hated by the liberal media and they wanted him - not just humiliated - but in prison.
It didn't happen, even with a rabidly anti-Nixon media, a Democrat-run Congress and a 20-something popularity rating during Nixon's last weeks in office. It didn't happen becuase the public really didn't want it to happen. They were disgusted with Nixon by that point but there is something about seeing an ex-President in jail that may thrill his enemies but doesn't resonate with the general public. They probably feel that such a thing would demean the country more than the ex-President. Thay are probably correct.
The liberals also hated, really hated, Ronald Reagan. They thought they 'had' Reagan with Iran-Contra. They 'got' Ollie North, Poindexter, Casey (sort of - he died), Weinberger, etc. They tried to get Reagan but his popularity was way too high for the libs to have much effect on President Reagan, although, until Clinton came along, the Dems used Iran-Contra as a whip to beat Republicans with for years.
Look, a year out of office, the Special Prosecutor was attempting to (privately) interview former President Reagan about Iran-Contra. Well, he tried, but Reagan, his Alzhimers already beginning, remembered nothing and it went nowhere. Just as well, but the point is that ex-Presidents don't go to prison. A good chunk of the public still admire Bill Clinton and they don't want him in prison or even pursued. I believe Clinton will be disgraced by the slow but steady revelation of some of the things he has done. I expect that in a decade or so, Clinton will have all the relevence of Gerald Ford and the negative baggage of a Nixon but he won't be prison.
I see a lot of sincere anger here from folks knowing how much blood is on the Clinton's hands and how badly they damaged our beloved country. I share the anger and frustration of those who want - with all our being - to see them exposed, tried, conviced and punished. That said, again, I don't believe it will happen. There are a thousand ways to stop it and Clinton knows them all. He has hundreds of rich and politically powerful friends in high places and the full support of the media. He may be embarrassed and even reviled eventually, but Clinton will not go to jail.
Now, some want to use the non-pursuit of Clinton by the Bush DOJ as a reason to slam Bush, John Ashcroft, the Republican Party and anyone else in sight, it would seem. That's their right but aside from the fakes masquarading as conservatives on FR and using Clinton as a means to rip Bush a new one every day I think the anger and frustration is wasted. I believe that Bush is not going to pursue Clinton in court as there is no benefit in it. Politically, it's suicide. Some folks here don't see that or don't care but I prefer Bush succeed as President, not be destroyed by chasing down Clinton in cases that come to nothing and waste his political capital - and everyones time. That kind of realistic attitude is a red flag to some who demand justice - now and we see their anger-filled postings here. Well, I don't live my life to see Clinton in jail. I know that justice is precious but I also know that we're dealing with man's justice, and man's justice is spotty and often flawed. We see that every day. As a Christian, I know the Clinton's will answer to God for their deeds and there will be, at last, perfect justice for Bill and Hillary. I comfort myself with that thought.
As for Judicial Watch; I used to admire Larry Klayman but I've grown skeptical of him and his operation. It seems like an endless fund-raising deal where he does try to obtain justice but it's so slow and so often unfruitful (and expensive) that nothing ever happens that has any real consequences. This could continue for many years. I don't say that he should stop but since I've never given Klayman or Judical Watch any of my money, I have no reason to complain if he isn't successful. At least he seems to have good intentions and if he turns up some kind of real evidence that can actually touch the Clinton's, good for him. We'll all rejoice, I'm certain. Meanwhile, I see no reason to attack the man or his group.
If you don't like him or trust him, don't contribute to him.
You know, I read through these Judical Watch threads and I see the frustration of so many with the fact that Clinton seems untouchable after he has done so much harm. I think of the old movie 'The Invasion of the Body Snatchers' (the original 1956 version) and I think of the last scene where Kevin McCarthy is running down the highway, banging on peoples cars, screaming that "You're all in danger, they are here, they are going to take us all over, you must stop them" while people roll up their windows, give him funny looks and speed away. It's moving and makes me feel like Kevin McCarthy; telling people what Clinton did (treason, murder, etc) and yet, no one listens or seems to care much. That's the problem. President Bush knows that, Ashcroft knows that, The Republican party leadership knows that and I know it too. People don't care.
They like Clinton. They don't think he belongs in jail. They don't want to hear him called a murderer. That offends them. After all, he was our President. That's what we're up against and waving our fist, yelling 'Justice' and blaming Bush for not throwing away his Presidency to pursue Clinton is unrealistic, although I realize that doesn't compute with some people. Klayman may have some luck but it's an uphill battle.
I wish him well.
Because you can't touch actors of the State with a ten foot pole.
Here in Louisiana their protections entitle them -- quite literally -- to get away with murder.
So what are we to do from now on? Cower before our fear of the liberal media and liberal juries? Investigate and prosecute ONLY those crimes that the leftest media wants to cover and liberal juries will be sure to convict? THAT is a prescription for the demise of this country.
Dreams of the Clintons in prison are just that, dreams. It won't happen.
Why do you suggest this is only about getting Clinton? This is about an entire party gone bad. It is about HUNDREDS of democRATS who willfully violated SERIOUS laws the last 8 years. Are we to just ignore that? What if they commit a crime now. Should we just ignore that too? Where will you EVER draw the line if your not willing to uphold the law in cases of MURDER and TREASON and ELECTION TAMPERING and BRIBERY and God knows what else the last 8 years. If you are not willing to prosecute democRATS in the Riady Non-Refund, a clear felony (involving an attempt to subvert our very election process using illegal money from COMMUNISTS who openly state they are out to destroy our country), why should we believe you will EVER be willing to prosecute democRATS for ANY crime they commit?
Why should we believe that if Republicans are willing to ignore credible evidence of VERY serious crimes by democRATS, they won't ignore similar crimes (or even lesser crimes) by Republicans while THEY are in office? Heck, why should we believe that Republicans wouldn't COMMIT such crimes to stay in power. Afterall, the EXCUSE you are using is that by investigating and prosecuting these crimes it would be bad for the Republican power base (due to liberal media bias in the reporting of those investigations and their outcomes). If one, why not the other.
In my opinion, President Bush knew that a year ago and had no interest in chasing Clinton, being accused by the Democrats of seeking some sort of revenge and losing all media and much public support in the process. There is no public demand to make Clinton the criminal he really is.
I challenge you, like I did the other poster to deny that the reason there is no interest is that the public DOES NOT KNOW how big a criminal Clinton is. That is not only because the media didn't mention the crimes, it is because the Clinton justice system never investigated the crimes. I contend that if the Bush administration investigates, no matter how hard the media tries to cover up what is going on, the word will get out. And the end result will be not only the realization by the populace at large that the Clinton admininstration and democRATS are BIG TIME CROOKS (and worse) but that media was DELIBERATELY hiding their crimes from the populace ... and that will only help our cause. Ignoring democRAT crimes only makes the public even more sure that there isn't a dimes bit of difference between the two parties ... that they are BOTH corrupt.
It didn't happen, even with a rabidly anti-Nixon media, a Democrat-run Congress and a 20-something popularity rating during Nixon's last weeks in office. It didn't happen becuase the public really didn't want it to happen. They were disgusted with Nixon by that point but there is something about seeing an ex-President in jail that may thrill his enemies but doesn't resonate with the general public.
The crimes of Nixon PALE in comparison to what Clinton and the DNC has done. NOONE accused Nixon of TREASON. NOONE accused Nixon of MURDER and MASS MURDER. Even the individual who drew up the articles of impeachment against Nixon has stated that Clinton's abuse of the IRS and FBI are MUCH WORSE than anything Nixon did. EXCUSES EXCUSES. Either we a nation of laws or we are not. And believe me the people know that and will act accordingly. And by the way, in the Nixon case they did put one person in jail for several years over the possession of a single illegally obtained FBI file. Why shouldn't we follow example and at least try to put the people involved in Filegate (which involved 1000's of files and for reasons that were significantly worse in motive than that man) in jail?
A good chunk of the public still admire Bill Clinton and they don't want him in prison or even pursued.
No. A good chunk of the public are IN THE DARK as far as the facts are concerned. All you suggest is that we institutionalize that ignorance by doing just what the liberal media wants you to do. Disgusting.
I believe Clinton will be disgraced by the slow but steady revelation of some of the things he has done.
Again. Why the obsession with Clinton? This is NOT just about Clinton. It is about something much more important, the very sanctity of our electoral and judicial processes. Ignore the crimes of the democRATS and you only establish the precedent for ALL parties to do the same from now on ... and God help us if that happens.
I believe that Bush is not going to pursue Clinton in court as there is no benefit in it. Politically, it's suicide.
That is only your opinion. We are still waiting for ANY OF YOU to address the question ... if Bush is willing to protect murdering and treasonous democRATS because there is no benefit in it, why should we believe he won't protect his own administration and Republicans when they cross the line. Why should we believe that he won't cross the line? TRUST? Trust in what? By ignoring serious crimes, they would only violate our trust.
I prefer Bush succeed as President, not be destroyed by chasing down Clinton in cases that come to nothing and waste his political capital - and everyones time.
How do you know they will come to nothing. Are you afraid to exhume and autopsy one body, that of Ron Brown's? Yes or no?
That's the problem. President Bush knows that, Ashcroft knows that, The Republican party leadership knows that and I know it too. People don't care.
No. People don't KNOW. And they never will when the GOP is helping HIDE the facts from the people. Tell me why with the exception of Dan Burton NOONE in the GOP has even mentioned the Riady Non-Refund? Is it because they don't think the democRATS using MILLIONS of ILLEGAL dollars from COMMUNISTS to try and steal an election is a problem? Or it because they are doing the same?
I'm not 'disgusting', I'm rational but you're delusional if you think that Clinton will ever be imprisoned.
Your wild-eyed ranting and typing every other word IN CAPS doesn't give it any more weight, By the way.
I would be interested to know what you have done to further this investigation into the Clinton/Democrat corruption and criminal offenses you scream about (and that I acknowledged). Is it all just internet screeds and hysterical attacks on anyone who doesn't see it your way or have you actually done something, anything, concrete?
I'm overlooking your idiotic attacks on my character because (a) They are totally absurd and unfounded and, (b) considering the source, expected and pointless. That said, your bombast and shrill screeching at anyone who doesn't fall into line with you - totally and without reservation - gets the same nonsense attacks, I've noticed. You really weaken your position with the screaming, the personal attacks and the insistance that 'if only the Bush DOJ would pursue Clinton it would all come out, all the crimes exposed, the media would be forced to cover it', etc . Pipe dreams. It would be Bush and Ashcroft who would be reamed daily by the media and we saw what happened during the impeachment. Clinton came out of it fine. Republicans had to play catch-up to regain public trust, which they did.
What's with all this 'you' stuff? I'm a Republican but I have no affiliation with ther party leadership. I suspect that you're a DNC troll playing conservative and using the Clinton crime record to attack Bush and the Republican party. Wouldn't be the first time, and it's a great and often-used cover on FR. Play the angry, frustrated ultra-ultra-conservative who blasts Bush and every other Republican for not being 'conservative enough' on some level and get the other Bush-haters to join in. Very divisive and familiar, too. I'm not buying any thanks, I gave at the office.
I offered a reasonable and coherent opinion of why the Bush administration hasn't pursued the Clintons and the Democrats over the crimes of the last eight years. I agreed that they were certainly guilty, as are many Dems. I also observed that in the world of politics, one chooses targets carefully and although I would like to see the crimes and criminals you listed punished, I don't expect to see that happen, ever. Is that bad for our system of justice, yes. Has it been going on for a very, very long time, long before 1993? Yes. Where have you been? Grow up and face reality. This is how the world works. It stinks. That's why, as a Christian, I do not put my faith in human justice, as I said. I don't obsess over who got away with what. Not because I don't think government-connected crime shouldn't be punished, but because I'm enough of a realist to understand that, as I said, politicians, Attorney General's, Judges, lawyers and even juries are not always interested in doing the right thing.
Look at O.J. Simpson. A joke trial with a third-rate prosecutor team, a boob for a Judge and a obviously biased jury. Despite that verdict, the system didn't collapse. The Union will survive Clinton and all the illegal garbage that accompanied his eight years in office. Should someone, somewhere go to jail for one of the many, many crimes that occured from the Clinton White House, great. I'll applaud it. Meanwhile, I won't lose sleep waiting for that to happen, or decide that the entire U.S. government, all three branches, are now about to collapse. They won't.
My friend Rebeckie pinged me on this thread. It took awhile but I read it and offered my opinion. Tough if you don't like it. I don't like yours or your name-calling, hysterical and nasty attitude toward anyone who doesn't pat you on the back and agree with you 100%. Get over your shrill self-righteousness and calm down a bit. Politics are interesting and important but not the totality of life. Speaking of life, you might consider getting one. I suspect that anyone as fervent and angry as you are over things you have little to no ability to control needs a hobby and/or some R&R, as well as remedial civility lessons. Either that or go back to the DNC.
Oh, that's right. I'm just a secretary.
With all due respect to YOU and whatever YOU do, I've been doing this for over 20 years; I'm very good at what I do and have more work than I could possibly do because I AM good at what I do.
I may not have a legal degree, but I've worked with THOUSANDS of attorneys and I know a phoney ambulance chaser when I see one. Larry Klayman, and the people who support HIS kind of "lawyering" are the people that give lawyers a bad name.
If you think Larry's such a great lawyer, that pretty much tells me what your values are in regard to the law -- that you mock it; I'm sure you're one of the ones who, if and when you're ever caught breaking the law, screams about the law and lectures those in the courtroom about how unfair the law and the government is. You're one of the posters on this forum that is continually bashing George W. Bush and his family, insinuating that they are crooks, all the while standing up for a man who is cheating the people who donate to him right in front of your eyes; very telling.
Yes, Askel, some of us are MENIAL LABORERS that you intellectual elite like to look down your nose at. But no matter how you would like to belittle what I do, at least I'm honest enough not to try to pass off Larry Klayma as an upstanding member of the legal community OR life. If you believe that suckering people for money and then not using that money for the purposes he stated it was for, while continuing to issue press release after press release declaring "victories" that fly in the face of facts is an ideal for your life, that's your business.
But those of us in the great unwashed masses still can recognzie a fool when we see one,
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.