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.

Without a doubt you are the single most boring, repetitive poster on this forum.

And I'll go on asking the same questions from now on. Don't think that I'll sit back and let democRATS change the history books as far as Clinton and Klayman are concerned. Don't think that I'll let NEW Republicans act like democRATS without a challenge. I'll keep asking the questions that you won't answer whenever you try to do your part to protect Clinton and the DNC from the crimes they committed.

For the last year, you have typed that same drivel to whoever you can engage in an argument.

Well it must matter to you because you keep trying to defend an indefensible definition of "evidence", and about all you can do vis a vis my questions is call what I say "drivel". You can make snide remarks about Hillary and her looks all all you want and I won't care one way or the other. You can focus everybody's attention on Condit from now till eternity and I won't stop you. You can make nasty remarks about Clinton and keep suggesting that he will "fade away" till he finally does. You can even criticize Klayman's attempts recently to go after Bush (especially if you can PROVE with FACTS that Klayman is wrong) and I might even applaud you. But don't try and suggest that there was nothing to Filegate, Emailgate, Chinagate, the death of Brown, the death of Foster, the Riady non-refund. Don't try and suggest Klayman never did anything to help us learn about the crimes that occurred under the Clinton regime. Don't try and suggest Bush "move on" and ignore credible evidence suggesting those crimes. Because when you do ... I'll be there making people wonder what you are really all about.

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;

What? I should give because you can't dispute the EVIDENCE that suggests Ron Brown was murdered (and 35 others along with him) because he was about to testify that he, Clinton and his party were engaged in actions that many might call TREASONOUS?

What? I should give on Filegate, where SWORN TESTIMONY by many individuals suggests that Hillary Clinton, the Clinton administration and the DNC engaged in a CRIMINAL conspiracy to ILLEGALLY gather data on perhaps THOUSANDS of prominent Republicans, ILLEGALLY put that data in a DNC database, and probably use it to BLACKMAIL those people into doing what the DNC wants?

What? I should give on Chinagate, where SWORN TESTIMONY and documents clearly suggest that the Clinton administration SOLD OUT THIS COUNTRY to the Red Chinese for CAMPAIGN CASH inorder to STEAL several Presidential elections and where the DNC allowed foreign powers to ILLEGALLY influence this countries election process ... a process as sacred as the judicial process which the Clinton administration also clearly subverted?

What? I should give on the Riady Non-Refund where the Clinton and DNC campaign organizations clearly took MILLIONS in ILLEGAL dollars from a foreign power, when caught said they returned the money because they "didn't know", then did NOT return the money but used it to try and steal a Presidential election?

Tell me, Howlin. Why would ANY REAL CONSERVATIVE ask another to give ONE INCH on those matters? Why would ANY REAL CONSERVATIVE be afraid to debate the facts in those matters?

carry on; you'll be the last person on earth who actually believes Larry Klayman.

This isn't about Klayman any longer, Howlin. This is about whether you are really a conservative ... a Republican ... or not. Tell us ... why don't you believe Ron Brown was murdered? Why does suggesting that Vince Foster did not commit suicide at Marcy Park give the GOP a bad name?

Or at least admit it; you're so far into your JW rant,

No. YOU are the one into a JW rant. You show up on EVERY thread having to do with him (unless of course it is something that actually shows his work has/had merit) to blast him. I only appear when you, or someone like you, steps over the line and suggests he never accomplished anything or that the Clinton scandals were "bogus".

You are a bogus poster. And boring, to boot!

Go ahead Howlin. Run like you ALWAYS do from the FACTS. Or tell us why you don't believe that Ron Brown was murdered.

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.

248 posted on 11/10/01 6:32 AM Pacific by BeAChooser

Howlin busted? By whom? You? A Rivero holdover? OTOH, you've been stalking Howlin for quite some time--but far from being observant, since she has stated her real name for quite a long time.

Now about you, Johnny (or Judy) one-note, and your obsession with Ron Brown. Just because one believes or disbelieves that Ron Brown was deliberately killed, or the crash was an accident does not dictate one's politics. OTOH, some of you conspiracy theorists are the ones who are questionable as to your politics, such as finding you on most of Rivero's threads, the same Rivero who voted for Clinton twice.

Your continued attempts to bring Ron Brown to FR isn't working, so you may as well hang it up. This is not due to lack of interest in the topic, rather lack of interest in you; Howlin is correct, you really are a boring person, and without credibility.

To Howlin, who not ignore this creep? He/she's been stalking you long enough, with inane comments about every subject, just to be posting. And about your profession, you are being honest about what you do. These so-called intellectuals may be what they claim, and maybe not--contents of a computer screen is proof of nothing.

You? A Rivero holdover?

How interesting that your response STARTS with a democRAT debating tactic; that of trying to link me to someone else who you believe discredited? You act like ABC News, who rather than tell their viewers the facts in the Brown case (for example, about the pathologist statements, x-ray and photos that suggest he died from a bullet wound), tried to associate those who believe Ron Brown was murdered to UFOologists.

you've been stalking Howlin

"stalking"? I simply show up when she or others (who generally and curiously advocate Bush "move on") try to suggest either that there was nothing to Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate, Ron Brown, Vince Foster and the like or that the facts we learned about those matters thanks to Klayman are completely bogus (as she just did in this thread).

Just because one believes or disbelieves that Ron Brown was deliberately killed, or the crash was an accident does not dictate one's politics.

And why not? If there were credible evidence that the politician and political party that you support were involved in a MASS MURDER and TREASON would you still support them? If there were credible evidence that your political party was not pursuing credible evidence that indicates the other political party committed mass murder and treason (among other crimes), would you continue to support them? Your answer (not that I expect one) will say a lot about you.

some of you conspiracy theorists are the ones who are questionable as to your politics, such as finding you on most of Rivero's threads, the same Rivero who voted for Clinton twice.

You are using democRAT debating techniques again. First you AGAIN try to link me to Rivero, with whom I have no more association than I have with Howlin or for that matter, you. I NEVER even chat with him as you seem to do with Howlin and the others who espouse the "move on" philosophy around FR. Second, you are dishonest when you say that I showed up on most Rivero threads. That is demonstrably untrue. I did appear on some threads when people, like you, violated those two conditions I mentioned earlier. Third, you try to imply that because Rivero voted for Clinton twice (a fact you have yet to cite any proof of despite being challenged), I must somehow have done the same ... which is again totally FALSE.

Your continued attempts to bring Ron Brown to FR isn't working, so you may as well hang it up.

As much as you and Howlin might like it, I'm not going away. I think most would agree with me that it is "rather" interesting that Howlin says she does not believe Ron Brown was murdered but will not tell us why. I think the Ron Brown case is a good litmus test for stealth democRATS and NEW Republicans who seem to have about as much respect for our judicial system as democRATS.

Furthermore, perhaps I should refresh everyone's memory about the exchange you and I had about Ron Brown so they know where you are coming from. We first crossed swords when you came to the rescue of guy737sw, in much the same manner as you have Howlin. In response, I asked you:

"Now get him to explain why he LIED when he claimed that there had been a Safety Board on the Ron Brown crash. Get him to explain why he has NO INTEREST in the testimony of 6 pathologists (who are no less QUALIFIED than he is in their field and some of whom were even PRESENT at the examination of Brown's body) who say Ron Brown appeared to have a bullet wound in his head and should have been autopsied. Get him to explain why he shows NO INTEREST in the PROVEN LIES of AFIP management concerning the Ron Brown case and why he says he TRUSTS the AFIP management despite that. Get him to explain why he INSISTS that the plane went down due to bad weather when the OFFICIAL Air Force ACCIDENT REPORT (remember, there was NO safety board) states that weather played "NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE" in the crash. Get him to explain why he stayed around to be Clinton and Hillary's personal pilot given all we know about those two. I certainly wouldn't have."

You responded by DEMANDING that I cite my evidence:

"Well, you seem to have all the answers, so why do you want me to ask him. Ask him yourself; if you have **evidence** to prove him wrong, I expect he will be man enough to admit it. Keep this in mind, do you actually have evidence? I agree there is something suspicious about the timing of his death, but have no proof."

So I did. I provided you with the same list of 48 factual items (with sources) that I provided guy737sw. These items clearly suggest that Brown's death was a murder and not an accident.

Here is your response:

"I didn't read your next post;" (meaning my list and sources)

So, like Howlin, you weren't open minded enough to even read and debate the evidence. You just RAN from it, like she ALWAYS does. You then added

"I know where to find data as easily as you."

to which I responded: "But then have you?"

Your reply was evasive, to say the least, calling what I posted "opinion". I replied:

"Well first of all, the facts I posted are NOT 'opinion'."

So you buried yourself even deeper:

I don't find any facts you've posted, but then I didn't find you interesting enough to look, and doubt you posted any.

Now I'd be happy to provide the URL in which this exchange took place and the fact that I did post the information just as I said I would.

So let's recap. You brought guy737sw's name into a thread by quoting from a post made to me by Diotima ... using it to suggest that the others in that thread had unreasonably attacked guy737sw credibility. When I posted back to you why his credibility was being attacked and challenged you to perhaps save his credibility by doing what he would not do ... discuss the evidence in the Ron Brown case ... you did the same thing as him. You would not even look at the evidence and sources I posted, even after DEMANDING that I supply them. Then you closed by saying you "doubt" I posted any facts. You "doubt" ... just like democRATS "believe". Apparently neither you or they base views on facts. Perhaps, like them, you are too lazy.

And just like so many "move on'ers", you are now trying to dismiss me by resorting to nothing more than calling me names ... like "creep".

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.