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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Legal group submits plan to depose 7 top Clinton, State Dept. aides in email battle [View all]OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)38. Klayman (and the Sierra Club) sued Cheney over his secret NEPDG meetings.
-The Issues in the Case: FACA's Scope, and Permissible Discovery
The core issue in this case is whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) applies to the National Energy Policy Development Group. If so, then the Group's proceedings must be revealed. Cheney's position is that FACA does not apply, by its own terms, since the president appointed only federal officials to serve on the panel.
But the plaintiffs in the case -- Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club - argue that in fact, it's not true that only federal officials served on the panel. To the contrary, they say, a number of energy industry lobbyists (such as Enron's Ken Lay) were so deeply involved in the work of the Group, they were effectively members. And the D.C. Circuit ruled in 1993, in Association of Physicians & Surgeons v. Clinton, that in such a situation, FACA does apply.
The Court left the question whether FACA applies for the Court of Appeals. But it did speak, at least to some extent,to the discovery issues the case also raised. The plaintiffs had served discovery requests--principally requests for documents, and written interrogatories - on Cheney.
Cheney refused to respond. He also refused to invoke executive privilege. Thus, were it not for his decision to seek Supreme Court review, he would have had to either invoke executive privilege, or produce documents and respond to the interrogatories. On this issue, the Court sided with Cheney. It held that: "Given the breadth of the discovery requests in this case , our precedent provides no support for the proposition that the Executive Branch "shall bear the burden" of invoking executive privilege with sufficient specificity and of making particularized objections."
But it also pointed out that the federal trial courts in the District of Columbia had previously fashioned discovery requests from the Executive that did not require an invocation of executive privilege, and caused no separation of powers problems. Thus, the Court left the ultimate issue of whether similar requests could be fashioned in this case, to the D.C. Circuit. (Dean, 2004, p. 2)
The core issue in this case is whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) applies to the National Energy Policy Development Group. If so, then the Group's proceedings must be revealed. Cheney's position is that FACA does not apply, by its own terms, since the president appointed only federal officials to serve on the panel.
But the plaintiffs in the case -- Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club - argue that in fact, it's not true that only federal officials served on the panel. To the contrary, they say, a number of energy industry lobbyists (such as Enron's Ken Lay) were so deeply involved in the work of the Group, they were effectively members. And the D.C. Circuit ruled in 1993, in Association of Physicians & Surgeons v. Clinton, that in such a situation, FACA does apply.
The Court left the question whether FACA applies for the Court of Appeals. But it did speak, at least to some extent,to the discovery issues the case also raised. The plaintiffs had served discovery requests--principally requests for documents, and written interrogatories - on Cheney.
Cheney refused to respond. He also refused to invoke executive privilege. Thus, were it not for his decision to seek Supreme Court review, he would have had to either invoke executive privilege, or produce documents and respond to the interrogatories. On this issue, the Court sided with Cheney. It held that: "Given the breadth of the discovery requests in this case , our precedent provides no support for the proposition that the Executive Branch "shall bear the burden" of invoking executive privilege with sufficient specificity and of making particularized objections."
But it also pointed out that the federal trial courts in the District of Columbia had previously fashioned discovery requests from the Executive that did not require an invocation of executive privilege, and caused no separation of powers problems. Thus, the Court left the ultimate issue of whether similar requests could be fashioned in this case, to the D.C. Circuit. (Dean, 2004, p. 2)
The Washington Post reported that representatives from Chevron, Conoco Phillips, and Royal Dutch/Shell among other oil companies met with the NEPDG and "gave detailed energy policy recommendations to the task force.91
One of the first visitors, on Feb. 14, was James J. Rouse, then vice president of Exxon Mobil and a major donor to the Bush inauguration; a week later, longtime Bush supporter Kenneth L. Lay, then head of Enron Corp., came by for the first of two meetings. On March 5, some of the country's biggest electric utilities, including Duke Energy and Constellation Energy Group, had an audience with the task force staff.
British Petroleum representatives dropped by on March 22, one of about 20 oil and drilling companies to get meetings. The National Mining Association, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and the American Petroleum Institute were among three dozen trade associations that met with Cheney's staff, the document shows. (Abramowitz & Mufson, 2007)
British Petroleum representatives dropped by on March 22, one of about 20 oil and drilling companies to get meetings. The National Mining Association, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and the American Petroleum Institute were among three dozen trade associations that met with Cheney's staff, the document shows. (Abramowitz & Mufson, 2007)
-Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, sought documents from the NEPDG beginning on April 19, 2001. JW was forced to file a lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) when the government failed to comply with the provisions of the FOIA law. U.S. District Court Judge Paul J. Friedman ordered the government to produce the documents on March 5, 2002. The documents, dated March 2001, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts. (JW, 2003)
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
59 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Legal group submits plan to depose 7 top Clinton, State Dept. aides in email battle [View all]
Jarqui
Mar 2016
OP
We could simply nominate Bernie Sanders. His integrity, honesty, and candor vs her baggage.
peacebird
Mar 2016
#2
Actually MATH says there is a path to pledged delegate victory for Bernie. We are in this fight
peacebird
Mar 2016
#10
Note that the courts haven't agreed all of the lawsuits were "frivolous"....
PoliticAverse
Mar 2016
#26
Klayman's sole purpose has been to use the court system to smear democrats for decades.
Trust Buster
Mar 2016
#29
I'm not a Klayman supporter. I'm just pointing out that you can't dismiss all the legal action
PoliticAverse
Mar 2016
#32
You support Klayman's INTENT which is to destroy any Democrat in positions of power. Congratulations
Trust Buster
Mar 2016
#34
Pointing out that Klayman has had some success in the courts is no more "supporting" him...
PoliticAverse
Mar 2016
#35