Posted on 02/20/2002 4:21:45 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
If there ever was a vast right wing conspiracy, this much is now clear: it certainly never included President Bush - whose Justice Department is now defending New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in a lawsuit brought by Clinton White House whistleblower Sheryll Hall and Judicial Watch.
Over their objections, "the Bush Justice Department represents Hillary Clinton in this lawsuit free of charge, saying that it is in its 'discretion' to represent private parties," the legal watchdog group said in a press release Wednesday.
Hall was the White House computer expert who alleged that Mrs. Clinton was part of a conspiracy to force her out of her job after she told investigators about a data base compiled on the former first lady's instructions that illegally used White House social lists for Democratic Party fund-raising.
Hall also exposed the White House e-mail scandal, where millions of subpoenaed e-mails on some of the most serious Clinton scandals were withheld from investigators.
But despite her heroic efforts to expose Clinton White House wrongdoing, Justice Department lawyers were arguing against Hall yesterday - and instead for Hillary Clinton, a sight that was nearly too much to take for Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman.
"I had to shake my head in wonderment at the sight of the Bush Justice Department working hand in hand with the DNC to defend the Hillary Clinton-led conspiracy to use the White House computer systems for illegal fund-raising," he complained.
"Rather than improperly giving Hillary Clinton free legal representation in this private lawsuit, the Bush Justice Department ought to be prosecuting her for this illegal database and retaliation."
And from your post, I take it you are in favor of good health care only for those you decide are worthy of it?
BTW, I stand by those statements.
And since we're admitting things, why don't you admit that there isn't anything Bush could do that you'd like, absolutely nothing.
I'd rather be a Bush-Bot than a hater, period.
Exactly. What give those who disagree with you the actual facts of the case.
No, that's what Larry Klayman says.
Evidently the court has already decided, huh? I hardly think Klayman would be appealing a case he won.
I hate to break up your groove, but that one statement right there removes any hint of credibility you might have had on this forum.
What UTTER trash. I know people who were in Skull & Bones and that is a total load of crap.
For objectivity, you might ask yourself if Nancy or Laura were accused- in a matter that should be decided in the Civil Service- should the DOJ go to court to so argue.
I think the DOJ has a responsibility to defend Civil Service law.
(I say that this is a Civil Service matter only because the two courts have ruled so- that is pretty convincing.)
I hope Cheryl recieves satisfaction from the Civil Service, I don't know what the status is of her case there. Sadly, given the time elapsed, I assume she has been cheated by them.
The appellent case isn't posted yet, but (here are the arguments for DOJ authority) in the original case:
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/99-3281.pdf
March 28, 2001 (Note the date, the judge is referring to the Clinton DOJ.)
" DOJ argues that the former First Lady is a “quasi” or “de facto” employee. DOJ cites the D.C. Circuit case that found Clinton to be a de facto employee for purposes of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Assn. of Amer. Physicians and Surgeons v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1993), as well as the congressional authorization for the spouse of the president “in connection with assistance provided by such spouse to the President in the discharge of the President’s duties and responsibilities.” 3 U.S.C. § 105(e). ...Clinton now states that DOJ is not providing her with representation pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.15(a)(1), but, rather, under the department’s broader authorization to provide representation to protect U.S. interests. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 516, 517. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 516 gives the Attorney General responsibility for the conduct of litigation in which the U.S. is a party or U.S. interests are at stake. Section 517 states that the “Solicitor General, or any officer of the Department of Justice, may . . . attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United States . . . .”
...The Circuit in Booth also noted that Congress has tacitly sanctioned the appearance of DOJ in many cases between private persons where a U.S. interest is involved. See id. at 682. Thus, it appears that the discretion afforded to the attorney general under §§ 516, 517 is as extensive as contemplated by DOJ. Accordingly, the Court concludes that a decision to provide representation subject to §517 is non-reviewable or, alternatively, that the government has articulated a sufficient interest to pass muster under the flexible mandate of that statute."
Exactly. You notice he didn't bother to respond to that. LOL.
Clinton was the master of the criminal act, and this is his legacy. Rape, in particular, with the rapist always killing or effectively suppressing the victim's testimony, is the hallmark of all criminal systems.
The crime starts, then the witness must be supressed, which means another crime is commited, which other witnesses witness, but which are supressed also effectively indefinitely.
It is the death spiral of free nations to totalitarian and cursed levels. Crime starts but it never ends there.
Socialism's theft of the bourgeois is only the start. Once the bourgeois resists, intimidated, smeared and ridiculed - sometimes even killed.
It is sad to see such panic or fear of panic.
And does anyone know how her Civil Service case turned out?
That's not fair. It's not as if Bush has been shy about brandishing the faith he has in his "favorite philosopher".
Anyone who watched Bush quote Scripture in Prime Time knows full well the God he worships looks kindly on our "hopeful" use of the Unwanted Excess Human lives we manufacture.
Do you find 30 years of Roe's being upheld in the court's likewise convincing?
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.