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.
LOL...no I was being sarcastic. That is what Bush said when he became president. He didn't want to confront Clinton's sins and he said..we should "move along".
The only problem with that is he's NEVER in front of a judge, according to what I've heard; he hasn't tried a case in years.
And the only time he's been in court lately was in Judge Saul's courtroom last year during the recout; he stood up and introduced himself as "Larry Klayman, from the public interest law firm Judicial Watch, a non-partisan group."
I bet they are STILL laughing; everybody in the courtroom burst out laughing, including the judge.
And, btw, I don't have to be a doctor to recognize malpractice when I see it either. If you've ever SEEN a good lawyer, you know when you're looking at one that's not.
I guess your view of the facts and my view of the facts are different; the facts are, regardless of how you dress them up, Larry Klayman has milked his supporters for over 30 million dollars in the last two years, and has spent less than 2 million dollars on investigation and legal expenses.
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.
Leaving out the part about you saying you hang around politicans, you do that very thing. I've SEEN your web site. Evidently what you do is collect ever fact you see that can possibly be twisted and spun into being detrimental to the Bush family and post it as the gospel according to Askel.
BTW, you've NEVER seen me say Klayman was all right as long as he was going after Clinton. He's lawsuits, regardless of whoever they are against, are bogus. And that is EXACTLY what I've been saying since the very beginning. You know, back when it was just a few of us saying it; not like now, when the positions have changed and there are only a few of "you." I guess we just saw the light sooner than you did.
It's already started; read his speech and the reaction to it this very week.
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.
And in the end, Clinton would have rather gone to prison than not "be liked." He's still in high school, running for Most Popular.
Thank you Howlin for stating what I have been claiming about you for a long time. You do see NO MERIT in ANY of the work of Klayman, even though it was Judicial Watch which provided us with most of what we know about Chinagate, Filegate and Emailgate. Your statement either means you haven't a clue what Klayman was trying to do using depositions and subpoenas in CIVIL cases to find out information about CRIMINAL activities by the democRATS (and I don't think you are that ignorant) ... or you would rather we had remained in the dark about those criminal activities. And the latter is an attitude that ONLY a democRAT would have had back in 1996 (because there were no "new" Republican's back then).
Face it Howlin, you are busted.
You don't believe Ron Brown was murdered because you are a democRAT. You don't believe Linda Tripp's testimony in Filegate because you are a democRAT. You argue like a democRAT because you are a democRAT. You are chummy with so many others on this forum who act like democRATS because you are a democRAT. And you don't like Klayman, now or EVER, because you are a democRAT.
I generally avoid these kinds of threads because they usually consist of a handful of zealots and true believers that have a narrow point of view and will 'Yes, but' endlessly, long after anyone cares much anymore. It's useless. We both know that you would not move one iota from your point of view no matter what I posted to you because you believe you're 100% in the right. I think you are being irrational but so what? You, and others, seem to treat this issue as a religion and are searching for the Holy Grail in attempting to bring all these Democrats to justice. Fine. You're all politically righteous and us heathens who see little chance of justice happening no matter how hard we yell and stomp our feet wish you well but take a more pragmatic point of view. I've made that as clear as I know how but you and a few others don't accept it and seem to consider it political blasphemy. Too bad. People will differ. That's the reason we have FR.
The only point I really contend is that President Bush is some kind of evil bad man for not doing what you think he should do in pursuing the entire Democratic party on criminal charges. I resent the negative implications and I assume they come from folks who who never came within a hundred miles of supporting Bush and never will, so I have to consider you as committed Bush-bashers and this criminal investigation crusade a great way for you to ream Bush Republicans and yet pose as White Knights seeking justice.
I don't buy it but no matter, Bush will do fine without you.
I say again that I wish Mr. Klayman well and you too for that matter but I have other interests and do not choose to sit here typing out long paragraphs of responses that are instantly dismissed. Some lurkers will agree with you and some with me. So be it. You can respond with a nice long post and call me anything that you believe validates your sense of righteousness and moral superority. I've stated my opinion. The rest is just a pointless rehash of the same argument. Enjoy your crusade.
No. We both do NOT know that ... can not know that ... because you won't argue the challenging points. You are the one whose debating tactic consists of stating an opinion (and admittedly providing SOME rationale to support it, unlike many others), then REPEATING that OPINION again, when your rationale is challenged by actual facts. You ignore anything that doesn't fit YOUR opinion whereas I have addressed every claim you have made, point by point, not only with my OPINION but with facts to support my position.
Whether you wish to believe it or not, I can be convinced by people who will argue the facts. I could, for example, be convinced that Ron Brown's death was an innocent accident IF ANY of you would provide ANY facts to support such a contention. But no ... instead, those who wish to "move on" NEVER argue the facts in that case. They run from it. Unlike many "move on'ers", Howlin has actually stated that she does not believe Brown was murdered AND that people like me, who think he was, give the GOP a bad name. But she won't tell us the basis of her belief. See what I mean?
I think you are being irrational but so what? You, and others, seem to treat this issue as a religion and are searching for the Holy Grail in attempting to bring all these Democrats to justice. Fine. You're all politically righteous and us heathens who see little chance of justice happening no matter how hard we yell and stomp our feet wish you well but take a more pragmatic point of view.
More loaded phrases. You are the one who brought "religion" into this discussion ... as an EXCUSE for ignoring a possible MASS MURDER committed to hide possible TREASON. Your "pragmatism" is to ignore past democRAT crimes. I've asked and you've not answered whether that same pragmatism means we ignore future democRAT crimes too.
People will differ. That's the reason we have FR.
The reason for FR is not to just state opinions, however. The democRATS have plenty of those. In my view, FR exists to counter the lies and disinformation promoted by the mainstream media ... to provide a place where people like us can get all the facts, not just those the liberal media want us to know or believe. I don't mind differences of opinion ... I just want them backed up with FACTS.
The only point I really contend is that President Bush is some kind of evil bad man for not doing what you think he should do in pursuing the entire Democratic party on criminal charges. I resent the negative implications and I assume they come from folks who who never came within a hundred miles of supporting Bush and never will, so I have to consider you as committed Bush-bashers and this criminal investigation crusade a great way for you to ream Bush Republicans and yet pose as White Knights seeking justice.
Then you have assumed wrong. Again based on an unwillingness to deal with the FACTS. I voted for Bush and if you'd take the time to go back and look at my posts prior to the election you would find that I was a vocal defender of him against any 3rd party candidate efforts. But that does not mean I will continue to support him if he demonstrates the same willingness to ignore serious crimes (like MURDER and TREASON) that Bill Clinton and the DNC did.
I'm busted because I said what I've been saying for years -- that Klayman is an ambulance chaser? You've droned on and on about all of Larry's accomplishments; and I, like the rest of the people on these threads, have kept asking the same thing for months: what has he DONE? what has he WON? when will he EVER win?
Why do you insist on twisting people's words to make it sound like if they don't agree with Larry they must be Democrats and unpatriotic.
Are you typing from an insane asylum?
Your problem is that you actually BELIEVE Klayman's press releases. I never have. Ever.
No Howlin. Not because he is acting like an ambulance chaser (recently). Read what YOU wrote: "He's lawsuits, regardless of whoever they are against, are bogus. And that is EXACTLY what I've been saying since the very beginning." You either refuse to believe that his Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate and Ron Brown suits were about more than the actual CIVIL accusation (he CLEARLY was using them as a vehicle to uncover CRIMINAL violations) or you as suggesting that he should have restricted his Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate and Ron Brown cases to ONLY the CIVIL matters and that those matters were bogus. The first means that you don't have a clue what he was about and the second means that you would rather that WE have remained in the dark about the many Clinton/DNC crimes he helped expose. The latter also means you claim those CIVIL matters were bogus when Judge Lamberth allowed them to proceed for YEARS ... something that I doubt he would have allowed had the matters just been so obviously bogus, as you suggest. I'd rather not accuse you of being too "dense" to understand that (as you have accused me) so I'll assume that you are quite intelligent and therefore your intent must be to keep us in the dark about the Clinton/DNC CRIMINAL matters and defend Clinton from the CIVIL accusations. That suggests you are a democRAT.
You've droned on and on about all of Larry's accomplishments; and I, like the rest of the people on these threads, have kept asking the same thing for months: what has he DONE? what has he WON? when will he EVER win?
And in response I have listed multiple times some of Clinton/DNC CRIMINAL crimes that his efforts exposed. THAT is his accomplishment regardless of whether he has brought the CIVIL matters to a conclusion or not. You on the other hand, when asked repeatedly to discuss those matters that Klayman exposed have RUN. You won't discuss Brown. You won't discuss Chinagate. Your discussion of Filegate consisted of implying that Linda Tripp lied in her depositions. As anyone reading this thread will see, I always attempt to address the specific points made the other side. You NEVER address the points raised by the other side. Instead you debate like a democRAT would.
Why do you insist on twisting people's words to make it sound like if they don't agree with Larry they must be Democrats and unpatriotic.
For the most part, I have no problem with people criticizing Klayman's recent methods and targets. I've said so on many occasions. I only chime into these threads when the discussion strays to suggesting that NOTHING Klayman did ever had merit. That's a lie that deserves to be challenged. Now, eplain why you don't believe Ron Brown was murdered.
Are you typing from an insane asylum?
Stop using democRAT debating techniques and explain why you don't think Ron Brown was murdered and why people who suggest he was give the GOP a bad name.
Your problem is that you actually BELIEVE Klayman's press releases. I never have. Ever.
I guess you were too lazy to actually go read the depositions that Klayman took or look at the documents he discovered during the Clinton years. Many were published on the web so you have no excuse. They cooberate everything he claimed in his press releases about Filegate, Chinagate and Emailgate. Other information that has been published here from time to time, from other sources, has also cooberated his press releases. For example, I guess you were too lazy to go listen to the interviews with Janoski that cooberates Klayman's press releases about Ron Brown. If you weren't lazy, then what reason can you have for not believing the press releases BACK THEN than a democRAT's dislike of Klayman?
For the most part, I have not tried to defend Klayman's recent behaviors because they do smack of chasing ambulances in some cases. But why do you insist on claiming that anything he ever did was worthless when that OBVIOUSLY is not true? The explanation I keep coming back to is that you are a democRAT and that is why you believe any Republican who thinks Brown was murdered or that Vince Foster didn't commit suicide at Marcy Park gives the GOP a bad name.
To make it short and sweet, you're not even worth posting to; as somebody said up the thread, you have never in all these months given ONE INCH on your agenda; carry on; you'll be the last person on earth who actually believes Larry Klayman. Or at least admit it; you're so far into your JW rant, you'll never be able to come on this board and admit you've been wrong.
I swear, if there were no Klayman threads, you'd post it to yourself.
You are a bogus poster. And boring, to boot!
That's our special case Howlin...callin the kettle black.
Yep, that's our low I. Q. Howlin - sure is, poor thang.
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.