Skip to comments.
Conservatives (Judicial Watch) turn on Bush over Enron
The Telegraph (U.K.) ^
| 01/12/2002
| Ben Fenton
Posted on 01/11/2002 4:26:46 PM PST by Pokey78
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-244 next last
How long before a Larry Klayman/Judicial Watch cruise celebrating Larry and the rest of his Enron posse?
1
posted on
01/11/2002 4:26:47 PM PST
by
Pokey78
To: summer; Howlin; Miss marple; mombonn; Sabertooth
A Klayman ping.
2
posted on
01/11/2002 4:27:24 PM PST
by
Pokey78
To: Pokey78
A Klayman Barf Alert!
3
posted on
01/11/2002 4:28:30 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: Pokey78
Klayman is like Drudge. He will jump on anything he feels will draw a crowd. With Bush in office, it's time for both of them to switch sides.
To: Pokey78
Tom Fitton, the group's president, said: "The White House has a nice little scandal on its hands with Enron and they have only themselves to blame. Their reaction certainly has shades of Bill Clinton." The dishonesty and unscrupulousness of Judicial Watch are more reminiscent of Clinton's tactics, actually, but thanks for your concern, Tom and Larry.
To: Pokey78
Before they go shooting off their mouth, they might want to check and see the list of donations to all the politicians.. I don't know if Enron missed anyone from what I saw.
To: Pokey78
But Mr Fitton yesterday called on the White House to be more open. "Conservatives are very uncomfortable about the relations between the Bush White House and Enron and I doubt you will see many coming forward to defend the conduct, at least so far."
Really, he does not speak for me and from what I have read he sure does not sound like he speaks for many of the conservatives here. It should read "Democrats are very...." BTW where was the Barf Alert?
7
posted on
01/11/2002 4:35:11 PM PST
by
jf55510
Comment #8 Removed by Moderator
To: Pokey78
Brilliant Democrat deduction by Judicial Watch: Guilt by association not by action.
You knew him, he telephoned you, you must be guilty!
What morons: had the Bush Administration bailed out Enron like Clinton and Rubin bailed out Long Term Capital Management (with taxpayer dollars) to save Rubin's partners at Goldman Sachs millions, then the Democrats and Klayman, I guess, would have howled insider-dealing and cronyism to high heavens. Since they didn't lift a finger to help Enron when Lay called in the week before bankruptcy, they are guilty because they were once in the same business, came from the same state, had talked to them on occasion in the past, and like multitudes of Democrats took campaign contributions (sorry, Enron, money wasted).
Nice trick for Democrats and Klayman scandal mongers: It's a scandal if you do help them and it's a scandal if you don't help them. You are guilty because of who you are. It's all your fault because you haven't spent your entire life sucking from the government teat like good people should.
Comment #10 Removed by Moderator
Comment #11 Removed by Moderator
To: Scott from the Left Coast
Excellent synopsis, and exactly right. I am disgusted with Klayman, and I hope HE goes bankrupt! This is further fuel for my belief that he is funded by someone who is NOT on my side!! Blech!
To: Pokey78; Deport; Howlin, Miss Marple, A Citizen Reporter
Klayman and his group turned on Bush a long time ago -- the Brits are way behind. If Klayman isn't financed by the RATS, I would be surprised. I still maintain he is a front for them. He filed lawsuits, got discovery evidence and provided the clinton lawyers with his evidence, and the clintons were able to find out the evidence against them and the lawsuits always seemed to get thrown out or disappeared.
Klayman gave the impression he was after the clintons but I firmly believe nothing came out that wasn't going to come out anyways, but they used Klayman to get it out there, he made tons of money off conservatives, and did absolutely nothing to bring down the clintons. In allowing Klayman to get the information out, the vast right wing conspiracy could be blamed. Note how he does press releases now against the Bush Administration to make headlines! Something is rotten and I believe it is JW!
As they say -- that's my story and I am sticking to it until someone proves otherwise because it is the only thing that makes sense!
To: Pokey78
"He was particularly critical of Mr Cheney's efforts to prevent the release of the minutes of meetings he and his staff held with Mr Lay and other Enron executives in the process of formulating the administration's energy policy." . . .Conservatives are uncomfortable with this Administration's relationship with Enron?.
Were all the people at JW thrown from the same horse?
Way to many quick-on-the-draw judgements from JW. . .too bad.
14
posted on
01/11/2002 4:48:03 PM PST
by
cricket
To: Pokey78
Blah blah blah blah.....barf barf barf...people talk, ergo coruption! Larry strikes again!!
To: Pokey78
Judicial Watch would normally support a conservative president such as Mr Bush. Larry Klayman is to conservatives as Pee Wee Herman is to wholesome children's television.
16
posted on
01/11/2002 4:51:14 PM PST
by
sinkspur
To: Pokey78
Well, what a big surprise. You know, Larry used to be very tight with this website. He's made appearances at events, and all. Since yesterday there have been hundreds of research threads posting the connections that Democrats had with Enron, as well as Republicans. Yet, Larry didn't see them? I wonder why? And I wonder how many doners to Judical Watch, Larry has taken from this very site.
To: Pokey78
Larry Clymerman's turn in the barrel is coming up really soon. He will be so occupied he won't even have time to sue his invalid mother.
18
posted on
01/11/2002 4:51:44 PM PST
by
hgro
To: cricket
"He was particularly critical of Mr Cheney's efforts to prevent the release of the minutes of meetings he and his staff held with Mr Lay and other Enron executives in the process of formulating the administration's energy policy." The administration's energy policy has done wonders for Mr. Lay, who will now never be in the business again. How opining on long-term policy options equals insider action to prop up a company going bankrupt in the short term escapes me entirely. Particularly when the company in question never got propped up.
Had something been going on behind the scenes, Enron would never have collapsed and Mr. Lay's name in the business world would not now be the equivalent of Medusa's gaze.
If we are at the place where it becomes too inherently dangerous to utilize the opinions of people in the business in long-term policy deliberations (because they might be bad businessmen), then time has arrived where only bureaucrats can have input on such decisions. And the five year plans will be so glorious.
To: Pokey78
Apparently the Telegraph hadn't known much about Klayman's lawsuits. He's targeted Bush before this.
What can you say about a man who would sue his own mother?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-244 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson