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  

[gov_bean_ counter]

FWTW, the DOE is the same agency that implied to Barbara Boxer that there was info in the appointment logs that would sink Bush. Turned out someone in DOE played Boxer for the fool that is as the logs showed much more Clinton attention to Enron. Her own staff had to tell her to leave it alone, though she just knew she would find something. I believe these records will only serve to further implicate impeached #42 in the Enron mess. Be careful what you ask for.

[Recovering_Democrat]

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

Oh, wait, this is a DOE deal, not the White House records? Yawn. Go ahead and release 'em, Spence. Release so much of it that the idiots in the environmental movement have to use a truck to haul away the paper. Then hold a press conference saying how many trees had to die in order for the environmental whackos to get their precious information.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

The Federal District Court referred to in the news article above is not the U.S. Supreme Court. In terms of conservatism v. liberalism, the U.S. Supreme Court is split 4-4 with Sandra Day O'Conner being the swing vote that goes either way. The Supreme Court is not as liberal as people generally think that it is. After all, they still have Renquist, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy.

[gov_bean_ counter]

He**, we still don't know who hired Craig Livingstone.

[thucydides]

During the Clinton years, Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson was found to have been assigning sensitive cases out of the normal rotation to Clinton appointees. Further, the Clinton appointees were shown to have regular meetings that excluded the other judges. There was an investigation, but nothing appears to have come of it. It now appears that certain sensitive cases are ending up in the court of Judge Gladys Kessler, who has been handing down some very strange rulings. It is either a case of remarkable coincidence, or something funny is again going on.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"the Bush Administration [...] won’t win in court and they can’t dodge the law. I would like to believe that they are better than that and hopefully better than the behavior that has characterized the Clinton era." Interesting. A president has no legal duty to tell the American people about his sex life. He does have a legal duty to tell the American people who helped shape his energy policy. OK, suppose you're right. Then it sounds like this is worse than Clinton's failure to disclose his affair with Monica Lewinsky in a deposition during a private civil suit brought by Paula Jones. OK, suppose you're right about that too. Now, what did people think was the appropriate penalty for Clinton's lack of disclosure, which one has to admit was bad -- very, very bad. Was it ... impeachment? OK, now, if I've followed your argument, this is worse, so the penalty should be at least as severe? I'm stumped. The conclusion makes me uncomfortable, but I can't see any principled way around your argument.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

We will never know how much Enron influenced bush energy policy? In case you didn't notice, Daschle pulled the bill off the floor...there is no Bush energy policy. Daschle's only now bringing back an energy bill that will never receive the scrutiny it should receive in committee, and already told the Senate he would not sign anything with ANWR attached, our greatest hope for furthering future energy independence, giving us 250,000 jobs and billions in tax revenue. Daschle went against his own Dem. energy committee after they had done their own consulting with energy experts; the votes were there on the Senate floor for President Bush's bill, R. Rubin, of Citigroup - Enron's big creditor, was Daschle's advisor. Why did Daschle pull the energy bill? Why aren't we allowed to view minutes from all the private meetings of Daschle and his advisors, and the energy committee with the energy experts? Why does the GAO state on its website that the Congress is entitled to privacy to carry on its important work? Why did Enron declare bankruptcy days after Daschle pulled the bill off the Senate floor? Why aren't we investigating Daschle? Who does investigate the Congress?

[FreeLibertarian]

BTTT

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Bill Clinton was by far, the absolute worst and most corrupt president that America has ever had to endure. Besides immoral sexual affairs, the Clinton Administration was also known for dodging the truth. My analogy between the Bush and Clinton Administration restricted and pursuant to their blatant apathy towards the Federal Advisory Committee Act. A law is a law is a law, and one enduring relationship that American citisens and their government will always have, is that we expect each other to obey the laws set forth in the country.

[d14truth]

"Who does investigate the Congress?"

The GAO, well, supposedly. It headed until 2013 by a former Arthur Andersen executive appointed by Clinton, David Walker.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

He was bad. But the troubling data point is that people argued that the failure to discose the affair with Monica in a pretrial deposition for a private civil suit was _sufficient_ grounds for impeachment. Suppose that's right. If that act alone is _sufficient_ grounds for impeachment, and failure to discose here is worse, how can I avoid the conclusion that Bush and Cheney should be impeached? It's a troubling conclusion, but your argument is compelling and I can't see how to get round it in any sort of principled way.

[mrsmith]

HERE

"Constitutional concerns also loomed large in the controversy regarding the applicability of FACA to the ill-fated Clinton health care task force. A D.C. Circuit panel ultimately concluded in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Inc. v. Clinton (1993) that the task force was not an advisory committee because Hillary Clinton was an “employee” for purposes of FACA—meaning the group was composed wholly of federal employees. Judge James Buckley, concurring in the judgment, would have held FACA applicable. But, like the three concurring justices in Public Citizen, he viewed FACA’s open meeting requirements as unconstitutional in light of their interference with the president’s ability to obtain “candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions.” Not surprisingly, other lower court decisions have determined that FACA raises constitutional concerns. "

It amazes me how so many people think she lost that case.

They were punished by Judge Lambert for lying, but I'm not even sure that that wasn't over ruled on some technicality.

[Right_in_Virginia]

"Why does the GAO state on its website that the Congress is entitled to privacy to carry on its important work?"

Because the inmates are running the asylum.

(PS...Thanks for a great post.)

[ConsistentLibertarian]

I mean, if you're right about the law, it seems more important that the President disclose what the law requires him to disclose in his capacity as our number one public servant than that the President disclose what the law requires him to disclose as a private citizen in a civil suit. That's why your argument about the law is giving me fits.

[perez24]

I think the real big deal is that DOE was criticized by a judge. DOE hasn't been criticized by anyone in days (other than Yucca Mountain), and probably was feeling neglected.

[jackbill]

The executive branch of government can seek the advice of whomever they wish, but you are wrong in saying that the legislative branch has no authority whatsoever to demand to ever see these records. The fact is, is that it actually depends on whom they are consulting for advice. The vice-president has the ability to claim executive privilege for deliberations on policy with his own staff, but he cannot legally, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, claim executive privilege for his contacts with private lobbyists. The U.S. Supreme Court has already upheld the Federal Advisory Committee Act as constitutionally sound.

I believe that you should go back and read the Federal Advisory Committee Act. It doesn't matter WHO the task force talked to. It matters WHO IS ON THE TASK FORCE. If the task force is made up entirely of government employees, they DO NOT have to provide any information. The Federal Advisory Committee Act was relevant in Hillary's "Health Care Task Force" because she, and many on the task force, were not government employees.

Cheney will win!

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Bush has and formulated an energy policy. The point is that Daschle did not violate the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 90% of people miss the entire point about the GAO and Judicial Watch lawsuits. These lawsuits, which by the way, have pretty much the same legal strategy, primarily deal with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. I and most others do not care if Bush goes to outside lobbyists to form an energy policy, the issue at hand here, is that Dick Cheney cannot claim executive privilege for his deliberations with lobbyists because of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Cheney can only claim executive privilege for his deliberations with his own staff.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

The GAO's own webpage states that they're an investigative arm of the Congress, that their job is to investigate the Executive Branch and investigate federal spending. They go on to analyze everything from airline security, the INS, election fraud...very little to do with $$$. They are accountants. They are suppose to report on missing and misspent federal $$$$. We know how much taxpayer money is missing and misspent. While the GAO is not spending time, evidently, on its mandated job...while the missing billions in HUD funds, the other over 3 billion a month lost in DC is unaccounted for and no one is punished, the GAO has time to play universal government police. It isn't their job. So, who investigates Congress?

To quote a popular man among the press elites, "NEA makes Enron look like a bunch of pikers," Pat Robertson.

Who investigates the GAO?

[perez24]

I think the real big deal is that DOE was criticized by a judge. DOE hasn't been criticized by anyone in days (other than Yucca Mountain), and probably was feeling neglected.