This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
|
Locked on 07/19/2002 11:14:21 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Flame war.
|
Skip to comments.
Halliburton Responds to Larry Klayman's Supersillyous Suit(My Title)
CBS Market Watch "Big Charts" Web Site ^
| 7/10/2002
| MarketWatch.com
Posted on 07/10/2002 11:04:03 AM PDT by SierraWasp
12:57PM Halliburton responds to Judicial Watch lawsuit (HAL) by Michael Baron Halliburton (HAL) is off 30 cents, or 2.1 percent, to $13.82, in midday action. The company is out with a press release responding to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a Washington, D.C.-based legal watchdog group. The suit alleges fraudulent accounting practices at Halliburton took place during the period when current vice president Dick Cheney served as its chairman and CEO. Halliburton called the claims in the suit, "untrue, unsupported, and unfounded." The company continued: "We are working diligently with the SEC to resolve its questions regarding the company's accounting procedures. Halliburton has always followed and will continue to follow guidelines established by the SEC and GAAP, General Accepted Accounting Principles."
TOPICS: Breaking News
KEYWORDS: vpdickcheney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,221-1,240, 1,241-1,260, 1,261-1,280 ... 3,801-3,815 next last
To: Mo1
You are right on that one. Nixon did have the dignity to resign, because he knew what was best for the country. Clinton however, didn't.
To: FreedominJesusChrist
Call your buds at the watch and find out when the next big announcement is due. Let us know so we can be on the look out......
To: Fred Mertz
I believe the term they used was "finessed." LOL.
To: FreedominJesusChrist
No, he could not have. DUH.
To: Mo1
No .. Nixon did the right thing .. instead of dragging this country through that mess .. he resigned. Who did worse, Nixon or Clinton?
I rest my case.
To: Howlin
I don't think they can. I'm positive it has to be something done while in office.
Unless they go entirely insane. Well I am not an expert in this area .. is there someone around here that knows for sure
1,246
posted on
07/11/2002 10:33:18 PM PDT
by
Mo1
To: Fred Mertz
1,247
posted on
07/11/2002 10:34:19 PM PDT
by
Mo1
To: Howlin
That is a bridge term, actually. Good players often know which finesses will work, because they have absorbed and processed all the clues. Bad players just hope for the best. I am closer to a bad player than a good player.
1,248
posted on
07/11/2002 10:34:31 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: Mo1
Yes .. but the depositions were givin while he and hillary were in officeA charge of lying under oath would have been a "new" charge, having nothing at all to do with Whitewater, just as the charge against Clinton had nothing to do with Paula Jones, except that it was a deposition taken while he was in office.
And I agree with you on Gore.
To: Howlin
Should Cheney be charged with some crime and convicted while in office, he would not wait to be impeached, he would resign of that I am sure. However; this idiotic lawsuit is not going to do it because no criminal action is involved. I will be surprised if the court does not throw the thing out as soon as it receives Cheneys answer.
To: FreedominJesusChrist
Clinton only knows what best to do about HIMSELF
1,251
posted on
07/11/2002 10:35:16 PM PDT
by
Mo1
To: Right Wing Professor; rdf
You two might know the correct answer to this question.
Can a public official be impeached for high crimes or misdemeanors that occured before they were elected into their current position.
There is a split opinion on this. Your input would be great. Thanks.
To: Mo1; Torie; Howlin
There, I pinged some credible people on this subject.
To: Howlin
A charge of lying under oath would have been a "new" charge, having nothing at all to do with Whitewater Yes .. it would be a new charge .. that related to old charges
Does that make sense???
1,254
posted on
07/11/2002 10:37:00 PM PDT
by
Mo1
To: Texasforever
Actually that scenario would require a demurrer in lieu of an Answer on the grounds that even if everything Klayman alleged were true, it failed to state a cause of action. Absent that, we get an answer, and then at some point a motion for summary judgment, or motion to dismiss in federal court.
1,255
posted on
07/11/2002 10:37:27 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: Texasforever
I will be surprised if the court does not throw the thing out as soon as it receives Cheneys answer. I'm certain it won't go anywhere. Cheney owns the judges.
Watch and see.
To: FreedominJesusChrist
There, I pinged some credible people on this subject.
The credible people on this subject would be the 435 that would sit to decided if they would issue impeachment findings..... Any others are just blowing in the wind
Now are you going to ask your buds about the next big announcement? Would it be coming in the next few days? Maybe next week?
To: Torie
Damn I need to stop playing lawyer on the internet. LOL
To: Texasforever
Agree with both points .. Cheney would step don't first
And yes this will be thrown out real fast
1,259
posted on
07/11/2002 10:39:10 PM PDT
by
Mo1
To: Mo1
He would have lied under oath; the case wouldn't have been relevant.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,221-1,240, 1,241-1,260, 1,261-1,280 ... 3,801-3,815 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