Posted on 05/23/2002 3:40:35 PM PDT by Amelia
COURT: JUDICIAL WATCH LAWSUIT CAN PROCEED CONCERNING ENERGY TASK FORCE MEETINGS
BUSH ADMINISTRATION LOSES COURT EFFORT TO DISMISS LAWSUIT
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced that a federal court judge ruled today, over the objections of the Bush Administration, that Judicial Watch’s lawsuit against Vice President Cheney and his Energy Task Force can proceed to discovery. The Bush Administration had asked the court to dismiss Judicial Watch’s case and allow no discovery. The ruling, by The Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan, was thus a “devastating defeat” for the Bush Administration. Judicial Watch began its quest to obtain information about the Energy Task Force over one year ago and was force to file a lawsuit under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (open meetings law) when it was rebuffed in its requests for information by Vice President Cheney. Several months later, the Energy Task Force was sued by the Sierra Club, which is now a co-plaintiff in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit.
Judge Sullivan ruled today that the case will proceed and that he will order Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club to propose a discovery plan for the Cheney Energy Task Force.
“The court’s ruling lifts the veil of secrecy from Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force. Judicial Watch will now proceed to discovery about the Task Force’s composition and operations, and we intend to question individuals under oath,” stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.
LOL !!! JW and Larry must have a bulk rate that dwarfs all others.
You conveniently missed my point in post 13, so I presume that it's your position to have all "executive level" activity ditto-cammed to the entire world. Right?
You would, wouldn't you? Even a blind squirrel gets an acorn every now and then....
Really? Then perhaps you can explain to me why Starr allowed the Clinton administration to keep the illegally obtained FBI files in the Whitehouse for YEARS after Starr told the public that it was illegal for them to have them and YEARS after the Whitehouse and FBI told the public they had been returned? Perhaps you can also tell us why Starr did such a poor job of investigating Filegate ... never even calling many of the key witnesses? Did he EVER answer Bob Barr's letter to him about it? And the same is true of Fostergate where Starr basically just rubber stamped Fiske's report (after adding a few FABRICATIONS like the oven mitt of his own).
No, the reality is that a good case can be made that Starr was a Clinton plant from day one. His was the #2 name (after Fiske) on a list of suggested Independent Counsels submitted by Clinton. Do you imagine for one moment that Clinton would have put ANYONE in that spot that he couldn't control? And did you notice that Starr was about to wrap everything up and retire when the Ron Brown matter surfaced. Then all of a sudden, Monica was discovered and everyone, the black community included, forgot about Ron Brown. A sorbid affair trumps a mass murder any day, I suppose.
So I imagine Starr didn't welcome Klayman digging around ... but for a different reason.
This sure would be a good reason for an appeal!
NO. All you have to do is explain why an officer of the court would knowingly allow the Clinton Whitehouse to keep the FBI files (which that officer told us publically were illegal for the Whitehouse to have) for YEARS after the Whitehouse and FBI publically stated that the files had been returned. These are not "theories". Both are FACTS.
It is also a fact that Starr was the #2 name on Clinton's list. Do you want to tell us that you think Clinton would have put as the 2nd name on that list someone who they thought would actually investigate ... given the many illegalities that we all know they committed? Or don't you think there were illegalities?
They simply can't be persuaded.
I can be persuaded by facts. Do you have any to offer?
Ken Starr is a good guy and a Republican on the planet that I live on.
Then explain why he allowed an illegality as significant as gathering blackmail information on Republicans to continue even after the Whitehouse told us the files were returned? Explain why few of the major figures in Filegate were ever questioned by Starr ... or why the few that were questioned were never asked the right questions. If you don't believe me ... then believe Tripp, because that is what she said about Starr's "investigation" of Filegate.
Hope you're enjoying the weather on your planet.
Sure. Just RUN from the debate once FACTS actually get mentioned. You see, that is what ALL the move-on'ers on this thread do anytime the crimes of the Clinton's and their associates get discussed. Isn't it curious that those who are most vocal attacking Klayman are also the same ones who want us to just move-on where those crimes are concerned. How about you? You satisfied with the investigation into Filegate, or Chinagate, or the deaths of Foster and Brown?
You still sound like you're for ditto-camming -- publicy broadcasting -- all White House activities.
FreeTheHostages says he's familiar with this judge, and the judge tends to be fair. I didn't think Klayman would appear before anyone but Judge Lamberth though!
Nothing; you seem to have an agenda seeking information in an area where privacy is desired.
A germane question wthin our own debate, for example, is ... Who did you vote for in the past three presidential elections?
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.