This from the BBC: US Vice-President Dick Cheney is to be sued by an anti-corruption pressure group for alleged fraudulent accounting practices. The group, Judicial Watch, claims Mr Cheney deceived investors while he was a director of the oil company Halliburton in the 1990s. In a case being filed in Dallas, Texas, Mr Cheney is alleged to have engaged in practices which led to the overvaluation of the company's shares. The move comes only a day after President Bush tried to distance himself from corporate fraud, proposing tougher penalties in an effort to restore confidence after the recent business scandals that have shaken the US. Judicial Watch is also suing for access to records of Mr Cheney's energy task force that drew up the Bush administration's energy policy last year. "To look the other way for the vice-president would be to set a precedent that the Washington elite are above the law," said Larry Klayman, chairman at Judicial Watch. But Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said, "We don't believe the case has any merit." Further details of the lawsuit are likely to emerge during a news conference in Miami on Wednesday at 9am local time (1300 GMT).
Good to know that he is spreading things around evenly. Since the first people he sued were Democrats, it's easy to label it as partisan.
Rocketman Tex, Klayman has sued Republicans before. It is just that the Clinton administration was so incredibly amoral, which kept Klayman so busy, that it appeared as if Klayman was partisan. I have respect for Larry Klayman, and I believe he is motivated by his sense of justice. If the Vice President did something wrong, he should confess now. Cheney won't have the benefit of a liberal media (80% Democrat) or an unethical Justice Department to cover for him.
I have to confess, I didn't know who or what Judicial Watch was when I heard the Cheney story last night. So I did some searching and was surprised. This story from 1998: By Brooks Jackson/CNN WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 10) -- Larry Klayman, leader of the group Judicial Watch, calls himself a conservative watchdog. He denies he is in it for the money and says he is just after the truth about the Clinton Administration. "I take it to heart when I see the government not telling the truth, not doing the right thing and covering up," Klayman says. Klayman subpoenaed Clinton fund-raiser John Huang in 1996. This year he forced former Clinton aide Harold Ickes to testify and got Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon to admit under oath he leaked damaging information about Clinton accuser Linda Tripp. Tax records show Klayman's tax-exempt group, Judicial Watch, was just a shoestring operation in 1996, with total revenues of less than $68,000. But now it comes out that Judicial Watch received $550,000 in 1997 from the Carthage Foundation, funded by Pittsburgh billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Scaife is intensely conservative and intensely anti-Clinton. He gave $2.6 million to American Spectator magazine to dig up Clinton dirt, then cut off the money when it published a story he didn't like. But Klayman says Scaife's money comes with no strings attached, and Scaife isn't paying them to beat up on President Bill Clinton. "Absolutely not," Klayman said. "Our cases were filed long before we received any support from the Carthage Foundation." Klayman has sued the Commerce Department, the Justice Department, the White House, the FBI and even Hillary Rodham Clinton. He is a frequent guest and dependable Clinton-basher on CNN and other networks, including a network linked to the conservative Free Congress Foundation. Scaife gave it nearly $1.7 million last year. Clinton allies were silent about the news that Scaife is financing Klayman. Some said they saw nothing wrong. Others suggested they want to avoid any more Klayman subpoenas. So yes, Klayman is partisan. He, in fact, calls himself "conservative." I'm not sure how this can be "written off" though since he is suing a member of the Republican administration. And no, Cheney won't have the "liberal" media to repress all coverage of this (remember how we never heard anything about the Clinton scandals ). But he's always got FOX to give him the love.
where's the argument from the lefties that we shouldn't be troubling our vice presidents and presidents with civil suits during the pendency of their term of office!??? NO ONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW!!!
I don't think we should Max, but a horrible precedent has been set, IMO. It seems to me that Cheney and Bush may have better things to do than to worry about a lawsuit right now...I see no reason why it can't wait until they're out of office.
My friend, the Clinton Administration was no more "amoral" than the current Bush Administration, or the first Bush Administration, or the Reagan Administration, etc. etc. ad nauseum. You're "liberal media" comment has been addressed by previous posts. All it does is make me giggle. When you have politicians bending over backwards for money, it corrupts them all, no matter what their party affiliation is. Money is truly the root of all evil. The current corporate scandals we are witnessing is just more proof.
Setting aside the classic "moral" or "amoral", liberal or conservative arguments for a moment, if this is true, doesn't it piss you off as A CONSUMER??? I mean, when Reliant is dropping rates by 17 percent in winter and then jacking them up by 35 percent in SUMMER in Texas, I gotta wonder. If oil companies and their policies created rolling blackouts in California or overinflated market values as a way to line their pockets, I want to KNOW! We already know that they pollute our air, ground and water. The cases of chemical companies doing that at risk to the health of the people who live nearby is documented time and time again. If that isn't enough to piss people off, the fact that light bills in some parts of the country have doubled in the past five years ought to. By the way, assuming Clinton did purjor himself, what is the max penalty for perjury versus fraud, tax evasion and insider trading?
honestly, i'm not sure...the federal sentencing guidelines would dictate that...you can probably find those online somewhere...try findlaw.com
The media was polled three years ago, and over 80% of them identified themselves as Democrats. In my opinion, there is a definite Liberal bias. If you disagree, I can live with that, but my opinion is firm. Rocketman says- When you have politicians bending over backwards for money, it corrupts them all, no matter what their party affiliation is. Money is truly the root of all evil. The current corporate scandals we are witnessing is just more proof. I agree 100%. The current accounting scandel can be traced to both parties, with the 94 Republican congress, Chris Dodd (D), and Joe Lieberman (D) leading the way. My only point here is that Larry Klayman has either been smeared or ignored by the U.S. press. He sued the Clinton White House over 100 times, yet most people have never heard of him. If he has a good case against Cheney though, Klayman will become a household name- just watch.
i agree entirely....this is a much better indication by what most of us mean when we speak of a liberal press than any poll numbers ever taken. when you attack liberals, you're labelled as a right wing freak ("vast right wing conspiracy")...when you attack conservatives, you're crusading hero. that's pretty much the way the press has treated these kinds of things for some time now.
Let me guess, I republican did the poll? I STILL don't get the paranoia of "liberal medai", when there is no proof of that. The media just ripped into Clinton, now if the theory of liberal media held true they would have blew the entire thing off. Instead the "liberal media" are STILL ripping Clinton to this day! Seriously, for anyone who thinks there is a "liberal media", what proof is there? Because I guarantee that for every "media bias" towards Democrats someone can come up with one for republicans. And the number of 80% of the media is Democrats doesn't hold water because the majority of political shows are conservative shows (like Rush Limbaugh".
For those who continually rail about the "liberal media", here is something for you to think about.... Did you know that over 90% of the media outlets in the world are owned by only 6 mega-corporations? What does this mean? It means that 90% of the media outlets in the world are force feeding you what they want you to hear. It doesn't matter if it is CNN on one side of the "bias" (owned by the AOL-Time Warner monster) or the FOX News Channel on the other side of the "bias" (owned by Rupert Murdoch & friends). Independent news sources are more important now than ever before. Bias doesn't matter. Truth matters. And you are only getting the truth from 10% of the media outlets in the world. Think about it.
Remember, there's no such thing as liberal bias in the media. But FOXNews is biased towards conservatives.
Remember, there's no such thing as liberal bias in the media. But FOXNews is biased towards conservatives. Well, if you accept the fact that CNN is "unbiased" and you accept the fact that FOX is "right of CNN", then FOX becomes conservative. On that note, I saw an analysis of guests on various news shows (this was always an argument for the "liberal media" -- that shows always brought mostly liberals on). If I remember thing, it showed that CNN brought something like 55% Democrats; FOX was ~75% Republicans. The media is all about $$$. They cover the stories that are popular. It's as simple as that. In the 80's, the media LOVED Reagan because the people did. In the early 90's, the media disliked Bush because the people did. In 1994, the media loved the new Republican Congress beause the people did. In the mid-90's, the media loved Clinton because the people did. People want to hear things they agree with ... It's pretty easy to see the pattern here...
