Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

zalinda

(5,621 posts)
25. JW also has sued people in the Bush Administration
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 06:50 AM
Jun 2016

according to Wiki.

Bush Administration

Judicial Watch's consistent investigations against Democratic figures have led to accusations that the group's lawsuits are focused on being politically motivated to help Republicans rather than enforce the law.[9] However, in July 2003 Judicial Watch joined the environmental organization Sierra Club in suing the George W. Bush administration for access to minutes of Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force.[10] After several years of legal wrangling, in May, 2005 an appeals court permitted the Energy Task Force's records to remain secret.[11][12] Judicial Watch called the decision "a defeat for open government" and Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch said the ruling fit the trend of increasing secrecy in the Bush administration.[13] Judicial Watch was involved in a similar legal dispute with Vice President Dick Cheney in 2002 when the group filed a shareholder lawsuit against Halliburton. The lawsuit, which accused Halliburton of accounting fraud, alleged that "when Mr. Cheney was chief executive of Halliburton, he and other directors inflated revenue reports, boosting Halliburton's share price." [14] As reported by the Wall Street Journal the court filing claims the oil-field-services concern overstated revenue by a total of $445 million from 1999 through the end of 2001.[15]

In 2006 Judicial Watch sued the Secret Service to force the release of logs detailing convicted former lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits to the White House. This resulted in the release of a number of documents.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch


But, yeah, I wish they were more balanced. They do tend to go after dems more than repubs.

Z

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Just plain shocking. libdem4life Jun 2016 #1
You just got to love this Right Wing Wellstone ruled Jun 2016 #2
Judicial watch is a great idea...has great supporters DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #6
Judicial Watch is a creation of Larry Klayman Zorro Jun 2016 #13
This message was self-deleted by its author JDPriestly Jun 2016 #15
Yea and its sole purpose is to blow the whistle on gov corruption DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #21
JW also has sued people in the Bush Administration zalinda Jun 2016 #25
Good. nt msanthrope Jun 2016 #3
I bet the FBI liked dealing with these attorneys unc70 Jun 2016 #4
Your theory goes against the cover-your-ass rules. MisterFred Jun 2016 #18
"Vague" my ass. 7962 Jun 2016 #5
He's just doing what a lawyer does. It's maddening alfredo Jun 2016 #7
The lawyers are doing their job. Judicial Watch, the rightwing org, is on one of pnwmom Jun 2016 #8
PLEASE, let's stop this stuff finally, okay? George II Jun 2016 #9
Lawyers object to questions all the time at depositions. geek tragedy Jun 2016 #10
True. Was the question answered in spite of the objections? JDPriestly Jun 2016 #16
I dunno. I ordinary litigation the witness answers unless instructed not to geek tragedy Jun 2016 #17
Not true..counsels cannot guide testimony laserhaas Jun 2016 #22
Kick Babel_17 Jun 2016 #11
Accountability is for the little people. moondust Jun 2016 #12
Seems to be laserhaas Jun 2016 #23
What are the exact ethnic origins of the judge and lawyers in this case? Midnight Writer Jun 2016 #14
Keep stirring the Ring Wing Shit Pot! Cryptoad Jun 2016 #19
Kicked and recommended. Major Hogwash Jun 2016 #20
Agree..mucho danka's laserhaas Jun 2016 #24
Most excellent. Darb Jun 2016 #26
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»State Department official...»Reply #25