 |
 |
 |
|
|
JW Victory Judge Warns Cheney: Do Not Destroy Docs Justice Department lawyers showed up at court on February 12 on behalf of Vice President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force hoping to have Judicial Watch’s case dismissed. Instead they received a verbal lashing from a federal judge who chastised the Administration for not taking the case seriously, and warned and ordered the Justice Department not to destroy documents pertaining to the case. At issue in Judicial Watch’s legal action is nothing less than the public’s right to know what took place at Energy Task Force meetings. As Judicial Watch had pointed out in its argument before the court, a federal advisory committee, by law, must conduct its business in public and must disclose the names of those involved, along with the topics discussed and decisions made. Thus far the Bush Administration has refused to disclose the substance and details of the meetings, including the very basic information regarding who was involved. The Administration has admitted that energy and environmental industry executives, including officials from Enron Corp. were in attendance, but will go no further. They lamely argue that any efforts to force the Administration to provide further details would represent, “a direct intrusion by the other branches into the process by which the president carries out his constitutional functions,” an argument that goes to the core of the separation of powers and far beyond the traditional claim of executive privilege. Conservatives in Congress and in the media, such as the National Review, have joined Judicial Watch in calling on the Bush White House to release the documents. “The Administration’s argument is frivolous and it will not stand up to judicial scrutiny,” said JW Chairman Larry Klayman. “Their code of secrecy has little to do with presidential effectiveness and everything to do with an attempt to cover up a politically embarrassing situation.” The hearing on February 12 came by way of a tremendous victory for Judicial Watch. Judge Sullivan had ruled on January 28 that the Administration must offer specific constitutional reasons as to why JW should not be granted access to the information. According to the judge, Justice Department lawyers had provided “insufficient guidance to the court to analyze the constitutional concerns implicated by potential discovery in this case.” He then gave the Administration until the February 12 hearing to provide an adequate response. Despite the production of a 23-page document, the Administration fell far short of Judge Sullivan’s request. For more than one hour, the Bush Justice Department lawyer, the same lawyer who defended the Clinton Administration time in and time out in court against JW, was quizzed closely by Judge Sullivan, and in the end, their answers were found wanting. “You say there’s no factual dispute in this case just because you say there’s no dispute,” said Judge Sullivan. “That’s an incredible statement.” The Judge graciously gave the Administration an extension to provide them with an opportunity to better explain their position. “Judge Sullivan is taking this case seriously even if the Administration is not,” continued Klayman. “The law is clear on this matter which is why the Justice Department is having such a difficult time making their case.” The General Accounting Office has detailed a lawsuit. However, by the time the GAO’s case is adjudicated it will likely be a moot issue. Judicial Watch filed its case last July and is far ahead of the GAO in the judicial process.
info@judicialwatch.org • 1-888-JW-ETHIC
Site hosting and technology by Cory Consulting, Inc. © 1997-2004, Judicial Watch, Inc., All rights reserved. |
