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
 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
38. Klayman (and the Sierra Club) sued Cheney over his secret NEPDG meetings.
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:07 PM
Mar 2016
-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 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)


-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]
I thought this was over? tomm2thumbs Mar 2016 #1
We could simply nominate Bernie Sanders. His integrity, honesty, and candor vs her baggage. peacebird Mar 2016 #2
Math says there is NO Path to Victory for Bern. Cryptoad Mar 2016 #9
Actually MATH says there is a path to pledged delegate victory for Bernie. We are in this fight peacebird Mar 2016 #10
Sanders will stay in but there is no viable path for victory. NONE riversedge Mar 2016 #30
Except, of course, if your immoral beloved, Herman4747 Mar 2016 #42
You really need to stop this nonsense. Baitball Blogger Mar 2016 #19
Just the facts Cryptoad Mar 2016 #25
These are the facts: Baitball Blogger Mar 2016 #27
math says even the number on ur graph are incorrect. Cryptoad Mar 2016 #31
Your post lacks substance. Just the usual soundbites. Baitball Blogger Mar 2016 #33
Numbers say it aint going to happen. Cryptoad Mar 2016 #40
Show me your links. Baitball Blogger Mar 2016 #49
I can count without a "link" Cryptoad Mar 2016 #53
Just what I thought. No real substance to your opinion. Baitball Blogger Mar 2016 #54
Judicial Watch doesn't dictate my vote, thanks. Codeine Mar 2016 #11
What's In A Name? cynzke Mar 2016 #24
I Agree w/ Peacebird. Myrina Mar 2016 #15
... peacebird Mar 2016 #16
Perhaps you're prepared to leftynyc Mar 2016 #18
Bernie didn't set up a private server NWCorona Mar 2016 #20
LOL leftynyc Mar 2016 #21
Did you read my reply NWCorona Mar 2016 #23
Hillary Can Get Things Done LeFleur1 Mar 2016 #39
Some complain that Obama shouldn't let Republicans pick his justice Democat Mar 2016 #28
Exactly. NO BAGGAGE WHATSOEVER WITH BERNIE. Herman4747 Mar 2016 #41
Right-wing Republican poli-psychopaths seek to undermine US elections AxionExcel Mar 2016 #3
Exactly. This is just like Whitewater. Kingofalldems Mar 2016 #4
Yes, just like Whitewater. Nitram Mar 2016 #43
Which tied up the Clinton administration for 3 years. Le Taz Hot Mar 2016 #47
I don't get it. Tying up Clinton for 3 tears was a good thing? Kingofalldems Mar 2016 #48
Oh, my god. Nobody said this was a good thing. Le Taz Hot Mar 2016 #50
I get it. You think she is going to be Kingofalldems Mar 2016 #52
Nooooo. Le Taz Hot Mar 2016 #55
Okay. Kingofalldems Mar 2016 #56
Judicial Watch was founded and is run by a man named Larry Klayman. Trust Buster Mar 2016 #5
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
Klayman (and the Sierra Club) sued Cheney over his secret NEPDG meetings. OnyxCollie Mar 2016 #38
Bernie fans cheering on Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #6
I do not see anybody cheering this on Jarqui Mar 2016 #13
yeah, and nothing like this would happen to Bernie Sanders nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #14
I think to a degree it would. I can't imagine the GOP operating any other way. Jarqui Mar 2016 #17
Jarqui, you actually don't know. Nitram Mar 2016 #44
"Jarqui, you actually don't know." I think we've got a darn good indication Jarqui Mar 2016 #46
Larry Klayman is no longer with Judicial Watch. Archae Mar 2016 #36
eh, same shit different pile nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #37
Translation: RW group wants Donald Trump to be president. leftofcool Mar 2016 #7
It's what they do. Codeine Mar 2016 #12
Because it is news. Not good or great news but news just the same. Jarqui Mar 2016 #59
Ohhhh NO,,, EMAILS,,,,, Oh the horror of it all!,,Drink! Cryptoad Mar 2016 #8
She will be win jparke1599 Mar 2016 #22
She will lose. peacebird Mar 2016 #45
"A conservative" vdogg Mar 2016 #51
So by May the media will be in the business of explaining several different investigations Babel_17 Mar 2016 #57
It's always the OOJ that gets them. leveymg Mar 2016 #58
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Legal group submits plan ...»Reply #38