Judge orders release of Cheney task force records, criticizes Energy Department

Associated Press / SFGate

[RCW2001]

Judge orders release of Cheney task force records, criticizes Energy Department
PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, February 27, 2002
©2002 Associated Press

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/02/27/national1804EST0818.DTL

(02-27) 15:04 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the Energy Department to release thousands of records on Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, criticizing the government for moving at "a glacial pace."

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler could undermine the Bush administration's effort to keep secret the names of industry executives and lobbyists who met with the White House as it formulated its energy plan last spring.

The General Accounting Office and a conservative group, Judicial Watch, have filed separate lawsuits trying to force the White House to turn over the material.

Starting March 25, the Energy Department must turn over its documents to the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. It must complete the task by April 10.

The department had asked to release the material in stages, beginning March 15 and ending May 15. The environmental group first asked for the documents last April 26 and sued the government in December.

The Energy Department and other federal agencies are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, while the White House is not.

"I don't know that it's possible for certain to tell what the documents will reveal, but obviously the DOE stonewalled us for almost a year and they presumably had a reason to do that," said Rob Perks, a spokesman for the environmental group.

The government says 7,500 pages on Cheney's task force are responsive to the NRDC's request. The department will continue to withhold many documents and will issue a list of them along with the legal reasons they are being kept secret.

"There can be little question that the Department of Energy has been woefully tardy" in processing the nonprofit group's request, wrote Kessler.

"After making a virtually meaningless release of some form letters back in May of 2001, the department has done little of substance -- apart from collecting and organizing responsive documents," the judge added. "What is even more distressing is that" there were at least 11 other requests for the same documents.

The government has no legal justification "for working at a glacial pace."

NRDC attorney Sharon Buccino praised the ruling, saying "the court has protected the public's fundamental right to know what its government is doing."

In a statement, the environmental group expressed confidence that with the court victory in hand, the NRDC "expects to make public -- for the first time since the task force was formed more than a year ago -- the names of participants, dates of meetings, and the topics discussed.

"That information will expose which energy companies or industry lobbyists influenced the work DOE staff did on the Bush-Cheney energy plan," said the environmental group's statement.

©2002 Associated Press  

[rwfromkansas]

You always fight against conservatism, yet claim to be a conservative.....lol

[browardchad]

We should have the right to know what advice is given, by whom and what their interest in the matter might be. The only exception should be national security.

And will you be reading these "documents" yourself, or taking the word of your favorite media as to content? Are you an expert on semantics? energy?

Out of these "documents" we will get such things as, "Cheney said with a laugh"..."the Enron representative responded"...get the picture? It's all in the interpretation, and that's why these vultures are salivating for the kill.

[Revel]

It really makes me sick to see the hypocrisy in such gross numbers on FR. These people don't hold GW to the same standards as Clinton because they don't have the principle to stand up for what is right. I once thought that principle was why they were attacking Clinton, and I was all for that of course. Since GW has been in there it is quite obvious that things don't work here based on principle, or the constitution. It is only a matter of who freepers like, and who they don't like. They are like a bunch of grade school kids. Thankfully there are a few like you who have a clue.

[Howlin]

Not funny at ALL!

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler

I wonder why she didn't think Clinton was moving like a glacier?

[Howlin]

So Klayman is insisting that Cheney give up records he's not legally required to? Why would Klayman do that?

[jackbill]

Lobbyists do not constitute as Dick Cheney's own personal staff, they are lobbyists, not employees of the government!

The law applies to the make-up of the Task Force - not the people that they interview. Why don't you read the law? Not interested in facts?

[lucysmom]

"And will you be reading these "documents" yourself, or taking the word of your favorite media as to content? Are you an expert on semantics? energy?"

Out of these "documents" we will get such things as, "Cheney said with a laugh"..."the Enron representative responded"...get the picture? It's all in the interpretation, and that's why these vultures are salivating for the kill.

Can't say I have a favorite media. I usually seek a variety of sources and check facts on issues that matter to me. "Expert on semantics?"no, however I don't imagine that those referenced in the documents in question are either. Is your point that because words will be misinterpreted and twisted we should not have access to the information?

[mrsmith]

"Klayman is insisting that Cheney give up records he's not legally required to? "

Yeah. But to be fair (kind), Klayman has a right to make his case. Though the law is obviously against him IMO.

[Demidog]

You really live in the alternate universe, don't you?

Dunno. What Universe are you living in? When Clinton was claiming "Executive Privelege" in order to prevent the public from seeing the minutes of secret meetings held by Hillary's health care task force, what was your response? Were you all for that because the President and his First Lady have the "right" to have secret meetings and hide stuff from us peons? Or were you shouting out that Hillary was an evil bitch who needed to be destroyed?

Frankly I think that you Bushbots are scared shitless that there might actually be a smoking gun that the democrats can use to browbeat the Bush administration with.

Contrary to the notion that you folks have all the confidence in the world in Bush and Cheney and their forthright nature, the reality is that you don't trust them and you'd rather not know than have your illusions shattered.

If you are so convinced that Bush and Cheney are on the up and up then you shouldn't be afraid if these notes are made public. What has the administration got to hide? Why shouldn't we know?

[Boxsford]

You make a good point. I think people are just so tired from the Clinton years that it finally feels good to have a decent, moral man in office. People want to think the best of him. Bush is certainly more appealing with his ways and words. He isn't self-absorbed like Clinton. He's handled a major crisis pretty darn well. I can only imagine how Clinton or Gore would have botched things up.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Your right, one has to give credit to Klayman for putting up with people that complain and grip all the time, but really don't do anything about the problem themselves.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

The law can oftentimes be skewed to mean and imply things that it does not.

[Joe_October]

What ever the motives it seems important that "we the people" should have the right to know how the decisions that effect our lives are made.

You won't get an honest answer from a CEO if it is on the public record. The Democrats know this. One could answer "The world is uncertain, I don't know." Or one could answer, "The world is uncertain, I don't know but I think ...". You will always the first useless response if every word, every phrase has to stand up to interpretation by partisans in Congress.

Cheney knew this when they set up the advisory board and they believe they are complying with the law. If the Supreme Court rules (and it will get to the Supreme Court), they will comply and the matter will be settled. There will be nothing in the records from Enron or anyone else. The enemies of the White House will conclude that this is the worst crime of all time. It isn't.

Answer this question, what could possibly have been said to Cheney to change the position of the administration. It appears to me the policy before and after the meetings are consistent. Could they have offered him money or what to make him change his mind on a policy position? What words could the advisors (or any human on the planet) utter that would matter one iota. The policy as published stands on its own. What is missing?

On the other hand, had Cheney had a completely stupid idea and would have benefitted from contributions from industry, forced revelation will assure that no administration in the future can ever get candid advice.

I've looked at this from every direction and it needs to be settled for future purposes but this is a non-issue. I don't care one way or the other what was said or done. I read the policy and it is reasonable to me. I hope the President can get advise in the future but it wouldn't shock me that the government would insist on rules that only guarantees bad decisions will be made.

[Boxsford]

What has been the norm with past presidents in making their notes public? Do you know? Seems I heard Cheney say something about wanting to 'restore' those privacies of the executive branch.

[Demidog]

I've never claimed to be a conservative. I used to call myself conservative but really I've been a libertarian for as long as I can remember. Sometimes conservatives and libertarians agree. And there are some common principles (or used to be) between conservatives and libertarians.

[Demidog]

Seems I heard Cheney say something about wanting to 'restore' those privacies of the executive branch.

Restore them from when? Is he trying to say that since so many court battles were lost by Clinton's myriad of scummy lawyers trying to hide things that *his* people are getting the short end of the stick and "we're trustworthy so we shouldn't have to show our notes?"

I don't really get that sentiment. Who "ruined" Presidential privacy? Frankly that sounds like major spin to me.

We have a right to know. They are supposedly working on our behalf. Let's see if they really are.

[Wphile]

I am confused. This suit deals with the DOE does it not? So, is this the same suit that was filed against Cheney? It lists the GAO has the plaintiff so I am assuming this is the same but am not sure.

On another note, is it just my imagination or is W losing every single domestic battle these days? Sure seems like the Dems are totally in control - CFR, judicial nominees, energy, etc. It's not looking good out there.

Also, TRENT - we don't want a confrontation - LOTT IS SO FRICKIN' WORTHLESS! The Dems never say things like that. No wonder we are losing.

[bybybill]

meaningless ruling...FIA does not apply to GWB or VP

[Boxsford]

It could be spin. Cheney didn't mention Clinton. Actually, he made it sound like the executive branch had lost these privacies a long time ago~pre-Clinton era. I'm still in post-spin mode from the Clinton years. I've not come to recognize the Bush/Cheney spin cycle yet. I'm a slow learn.

[mrsmith]

You did see my earlier reply to you?
I wonder because your mistaken notion was central to your argument, yet you never corrected yourself (that is allowed here) or offered another rationale.

To be honest, I too had been under the impression that Hillary lost the Task Force FACA case.

She won.