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.
BTW, you avoided my main response -- that I never said evidence had to be proved before an investigation could begin.
Howlin ... I'm a total grunt who's spent the last 11 years doing my penance for not going to law school by taking legal jobs in between circus jobs.
I have every respect for what you do ... it still doesn't make you the be-all and end-all authority of whether or not Klayman's an ambulance chaser.
I realize you think he's a smarmy shyster. Fine. Everyone's entitled to their personal opinion.
I'm just asking that -- having clearly established your contempt for the man -- you restrict your "expert" opinion to analyses of the facts.
If I came on every thread only to say "I've been hanging around politicians all my adult life and I KNOW George Bush to be a consummate liar", I'm sure you'd have some problems with that.
You'd accuse me of never having met the man in person, being prejudiced against him just because he believes in taking our money to perpetuate use of the unborn like mulch and ... my personal favorite ... just plain HATING the guy.
That's why I avoid those pitfalls as best I can by buttressing my attacks with the FACTS on which I base my opinions.
Your facts seems to be: Larry was okay while he was dogging Clinton but now that he's targeted Republicans and garnered the ire of "OUR" state department (as they protect Janet Reno), he's an ambulance-chasing shyster.
For all I know, you may well be proven correct one day. You won't get there by sliming the guy, though.
I've already handed you what I think is your best strategem for proving Klayman a fraud. Why don't you run with that?
Nice to hear from you again, I was beginning to pine away for your well-assessed insults! No really, I like hearing from you. I have a very very high respect for Jim Scott, he is both intelligent and articulate. What's more, we agree on about everything 99% of the time, the only thing that we disagree on however, is what to do with the Bill Clinton problem. I want to see the man go to jail in the future and I also want his legacy to be a big failure in the history books, because he deserves it. The problem is that if we don't actively go after the Clinton Crimes and the Chinagate Scandal, nothing will happen in the present, and the American people in the future will not have the benefit of a correct version of history to remind them of avoidable past mistakes. Those are just some of the long-term effects that I can see just by ignoring the Clinton problem. Jim Scott may be right in saying that Clinton will never get caught or put in jail and that will most certainly be true if the majority of Republicans keep up with this type of attitude. Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." And that is exactly what many of us are doing right here.
First, my emotions are in check. My response to you was reasoned, factual and logical. You are not going to be able to dismiss this issue by claiming that I have an "obsession" about Clinton. You are the one suggesting this is all about Clinton. I say it is about an entire party that has become a criminal organization that is endangering our free society and its process of electing representatives.
I'm not 'disgusting', I'm rational but you're delusional if you think that Clinton will ever be imprisoned.
I didn't say you were disgusting. I said the notion that we institutionalize ignorance by cowering from the liberal media and supposedly liberal judicial system is disgusting. And again, you keep bringing up Clinton and only Clinton when this about HUNDREDS of other high and mid level democRAT CRIMINALS. Do you think that if we investigate Ron Brown's death the first to fall would be Clinton? Of course not. If it EVER got to Clinton's level there would already be many others ALREADY turning state's evidence to save themselves from the death penalty. And the same is true in scandal after scandal. In Filegate, for example, we must work our way up through several levels before getting anywhere near Bill or Hillary. You may be right that they will never see jail but at least we would have the satisfaction of having cleaned out the MANY criminal democRATS below them and knowing, finally, what really happened to those files and the information in them.
Your wild-eyed ranting and typing every other word IN CAPS doesn't give it any more weight, By the way.
I may put words I wish to emphasize in CAPS now and then, but you are the one using the loaded and inflamatory language ... for example, "screaming, foaming-at-mouth Clinton/Democrat obsession", "wild-eyed ranting", "delusional". If you are as you claim "rational", then actually address my arguments countering yours, instead of trying to dismiss me with such loaded phrases.
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?
More loaded phrases "scream", "screeds", "hysterical attacks". And now, it seems, you are trying to suggest that talking on the internet about the Clinton crimes and questioning why those crimes are apparently being ignored by the GOP is valueless. I disagree. This is the best place for someone to voice such concerns since potentially tens or even hundreds of thousands of people may read those remarks. Do you honestly believe that any major paper or radio station would give me such access to their readers or listeners? We are talking about the liberal media, you know, most of which hasn't even told their audiences that Clinton was credibly accused of RAPE by the FBI ... that NEVER have told the public the facts in the Ron Brown case. Do you suggest I go to the RNC? Believe me I have ... repeatedly and each and every time they say "uhhuh" and then nothing follows. I've even left my name and phone number and NOT ONCE have the called to follow up. They won't even address the question why the RNC website has never even mentioned the Riady non-refund. It is like talking to a stone wall and THAT'S THE POINT.
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.
More loaded phrases ... "idiotic attacks" "absurd" "unfounded" "considering the source" "pointless". And this is YOUR EXCUSE for not responding to my points? And, up till now, I didn't attack your "character". I attacked your ideas and your point of view. But now that you are using debating tactics like a democRAT ...
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.
More loaded phrases ... "bombast" "shrill" "screeching" "nonsense" while not addressing a single one of the points I made about your arguments. Why don't you quote me then respond to that quote? For example why don't you respond to my response about your statements regarding Nixon? Why don't you answer my questions about Ron Brown or the Riady non-refund? Why not answer this 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?"
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.
More loaded phrases ... "screaming" "personal" "pipe dreams" but nothing that specifically addresses the points I made. My arguments were not personal although you are certainly attempting to make them so. I simply disagreed with your "move on" philosophy and you don't appear to like that. As to my insistance that the liberal media could not coverup the trials of these criminals, I can point to the fact that they no longer control the airways. Look at the affect Fox News had on the reporting of pardongate. The media took a lot of heat for ignoring it, didn't they, and in the end they reported a lot, and even did some investigating of their own.
It would be Bush and Ashcroft who would be reamed daily by the media and we saw what happened during the impeachment.
"Reamed" about what that they are not already criticized for? What you witnessed in the impeachment was a POLITICAL process where half of those involved VIOLATED their oaths and the other half were weighing angels on the heads of pins to decide how it affected their reelection chances. What you witnessed in the impeachment process was the result of some GOP members (and probably some democRATS) being BLACKMAILED by the information in their FBI files. Or would you care to defend Lott's pronouncement at the very beginning of the Senate trial process that the House Managers were not going to lay "THIS GARBAGE" on them?
What I'm suggesting is a CRIMINAL process where the rules are quite different ... where ALL pertinent witness will be questioned with severe penalties for lying and if necessary called to testify ... where hard evidence really matters and investigators have consider power to obtain such evidence ... where the jury is NOT motivated by their reelection dreams or desires to keep their own skeletons from being exposed to public view by the other side. Why do you fear such a process?
I suspect that you're a DNC troll playing conservative and using the Clinton crime record to attack Bush and the Republican party.
Oh this is really funny. Do you think the lurkers out there will believe you ... when I'm the one whose is accusing the democRATS of murder and treason and election tampering and asking that the DOJ and FBI investigate many of the crimes FOR THE FIRST TIME? When I'm the one who has been broadcasting the facts that point to their guilt in matters such as Filegate and the death of Brown? I'll ask you again ... should Ron Brown's body be exhumed and autopsied ... or not? It is a simple question to answer. I say yes. What do you say?
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.
More loaded phrases and a debating tactic I'm sure the democRATS INVENTED. I haven't said one word about Bush not being "conservative enough". I haven't said one word about "hating" Bush. I happen to like most of what he stands for. But I'm not willing to let him, or any other leader for that matter, ignore crimes like murder and treason just because it will keep his party in power. That's a recipe that would surely spell the end of a free REPUBLIC ... as it did Rome.
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.
And I responded POINT BY POINT. You, on the other hand, seem more comfortable with loaded phrases than addressing my challenging arguments. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but your opinion isn't worth much if it can't be defended.
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.
That's a certainty if you just "move on". You have the advantage over me. You can prove yourself right by creating the conditions that guarantee your expected outcome. How convenient.
Is that bad for our system of justice, yes.
Well I'm glad you agree. But its not just "bad", it is awful. When you can't/won't answer my question about why we should trust the GOP if they "move on" when there are credible charges of murder and treason, then that strikes at the very soul of of our justice and political system. You can't convince me that you will now enforce the law when you advocate doing just the opposite in very serious cases. Now we will have two parties that we can't trust, for whom the ends justify any means.
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.
Oh. So now the EXCUSE is that we should just accept our plight ... because that's the way it is and the way it's always been (although you certainly haven't proven that) and will always be (again UNPROVEN). If what you say is true, why should any of us care about politics or particular candidates? Why shouldn't we all just care about ourselves ... and become a nation without laws.
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.
Well I'm happy for you ... that your faith will allow you to be "realistic" and ignore such things as mass murder and treason ... and get on with your life. Why do you even bother to post on this forum if you have so little faith that men can control their destiny through politics and honest discourse? Why don't we just elect a king and be done with it?
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.
And this just proves my case. The system didn't collapse but because they investigated and prosecuted in the face of a jury system that was obviously destined to let him off, at least the truth came out and we all KNOW that he was guilty. Thanks to that trial and the evidence that was presented, his legacy will forever be that of a murderer. Clinton's, on the other hand, because even the GOP is helping to hide the really serious crimes he and his administration committed, will always be thought well of by democRATS (HALF THE VOTING POPULATION) and history will simply view him as a morally "flawed" person rather than the rapist, murderer and traitor that he really is. Investigate and prosecute, no matter what a liberal jury does, and history will record the truth about him and his associates.
The Union will survive Clinton and all the illegal garbage that accompanied his eight years in office. </I?
At this point, I'm not worried about the Union surviving Clinton's crimes ... I'm worried about the Union surviving the fact that what he did is no longer considered a crime so that future administrations can take even greater liberties with our lives and rights and freedoms.
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.
More loaded phrases. I've only called people democRATS or NEW Republicans who view the law the same as democRATS when they demonstrably act that way. That's not name calling. Name calling is stating that someone has a "hysterical", "nasty" attitude. You claim I insist you agree with me 100%. I don't, but I do expect a TWO WAY exchange where each of us debates the specific arguments leveled by the other. I've done that. You, like so many others who advocate we "move on" seem more interested in loaded phrases and "name calling".
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.
That's an example of what I mean.
I'm curious to know if you've passed the BAR exam in your state or any state. If not, you are a secretary regardless of how long you've done it or how well you do it.
This much can be said, If Larry Klayman is in front of a judge making an argument he is much more of an expert in law than you are. Get over it, move on.
---max
No Howlin. That's a statement that I'm sure the other side would easily dismiss under cross examination ... unless it turned out that I was a credible witness who perhaps witnessed the crime in question or someone who can offer verifiable facts that show your motive, opportunity and means. Now, why won't you discuss the pathologist's statements and the x-rays and photographs in the Ron Brown case?
BTW, you avoided my main response -- that I never said evidence had to be proved before an investigation could begin.
Oh yes. Unless you say the EXACT words, you never said it. You like to parse your words just democRATS do. But you had the opportunity to contradict the logic that I posted which shows this is what you think (and its not twisted at all) and you RAN.
Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. You people sure are obsessed with Clinton. What about all the other democRATS that were involved in the last 8 years of serious crimes? Should we just turn the other cheek in their cases too? Even if they remain in positions of power in the government, the democRAT party and the liberal media? And if so, what if one of those people should commit some new crime tomorrow? Should we do anything about it? And if so why? Why ignore one crime and not the other? Surely you don't think you could charge the person for the new crime and get away with any less of an attack by the liberal media? Surely you don't think the public would care any more about jaywalking than MURDER?
Just curious ... what's the basis for you screen name? It wouldn't happen to have something to do with your feelings about the Clinton impeachment?
You may be young but you are wise.
Don't let the "Bush Damage Controllers" get you down.
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.