Cheney 'not named due to Iraq war' (Halliburton suit)

[ozymandius]

Dick Cheney (news - web sites), US vice-president, was not named as a defendant in an accounting fraud lawsuit against Halliburton, where he was formerly chief executive, because of political sensitivities with the country at war, a lead plaintiff in the case has said.

Neil Rothstein, counsel for Scott + Scott, said in documents obtained by the Financial Times that Richard Schiffrin of Schiffrin & Barroway and lead counsel in the case, "admitted that Cheney may have risk involved in this lawsuit but he was not named as a defendant because it would be inappropriate to do so in a 'time of war'."

Terrence O'Donnell, private counsel to Mr Cheney, said: "We have never requested anyone to forego litigation against the vice-president because the country was at war."

In court papers, Mr Schiffrin admits meeting with Mr Cheney's attorneys but said: "Lead counsel acknowledges only that these discussions were conducted at a time when this country was focused on its war efforts against Iraq (news - web sites)."

story

[Chico Man]

1. Inappropriate?

Cheney's actions are treasonous.

[dArKeR]

2. The wars over! What's going on? Can he murder his wife but not

be charged because we're at war?

[damnraddem]

18. Why not?

Dubya can have thousands of Iraqis murdered by the war.

[gratuitous]

3. War's over now, "mission accomplished"

The complaint should be amended to add the CEO as a defendant. After all, no one is above the law, right Supreme Court? You clowns voted 9-0 to let Paula Jones' frivolous lawsuit go forward because it wouldn't cause any undue burden on the then President, remember?

[Sophree]

4. And yet

Clinton is not even exempt from a civil trial. I am so sick of this double standard.

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[salin]

5. and clinton's trial

didn't have anything to do with his actions as president. While Cheney's trial - might. Especially since some of the issues have to do with the ways of charging the government - that he (may) still have interest in Haliburton, and that the company has received massive contracts (some no bid?) for Guantanamo, and for rebuilding Iraq (I bet they are also in Afghanistan).

It is worse than a double standard. If the American people were paying attention, they would notice that millions were spent on non-issues related to Clinton - while members of this administration get a free pass on issues related to how they might operate in their current positions, on how a company that might be getting bigger contracts than before (this would need to be checked) due to influence related to Cheney does business and an indication of how tax dollars might be (mis)spent.

What is important.

[ewagner]

6. Absolutely a double standard!

n/t

[Malva Zebrina]

7. Certainly is beneficial to all to have a war

and to have one continuously--this is a brilliant stragegy on the part of the Straussians behing the curtain--Rove knew that,and although Bush probably does not have a clue, at least probably has half a clue when he sees the money profits come soaring in to his campaign. Continuous war--perhaps someone read Orwell's 1984

It is a tragedy here we are faced with on a daily basis. A tragedy that it seems, in the face of the continued fearful or perhaps even compliant, un-opposition, that will continue for a while yet before natural forces depose the despicable people that dare to call themselves humnan beings--they are monsters.

[underpants]

10. Akin to continually suing your employer

so they can't fire you. At least in virginia it is that way.

Oh sorry Dick we don't want to distract you from doing a lousy job.

[DagmarK]

8. And the plaintiffs should now sue their attys for malpractice!!!!!!!

*

[peterh]

17. I agree…Schiffrin & Barroway are obviously playing softball…

In what could be a very politically-charged hardball case….They’re out of their league in this one. The firm of Scott & Scott appear to have the right stuff for this type of case.

[ozymandius]

19. We have not heard the client's reaction to this case have we?

It would seem reasonable that the plaintiffs represented in this case would want their attorneys to go after the man who bears plausible culpability and who, individually, has very deep pockets. I know I would.

Maybe there's a seperate suit against Cheney in the works. Either scenario would please me to no end.

[alaine]

20. For real, are these folks REALLY going to lay down

and take the fall for Cheney???

If they do, I bet plenty of money will change hands over this...

Oh, and their might be a "suicide" or two coming out of this as well.

[jbfam4]

where's Larry Klayman when you need him?

[hedda_foil]

9. Please rate this a 5 at Yahoo

It's so important to get this onto the highest rated stories page.

[ElementaryPenguin]

11. Is this why Prick Cheney said "this war will not end in our lifetimes"??

:puke:

[Q]

12. The Coverup Continues...

...and now perhaps more Americans understand why 9-11 HAD TO HAPPEN for the Bush cabal.

[ElementaryPenguin]

16. BINGO, Q!!! HAD TO HAPPEN!!! That's BushCo's 9-11 in a nutshell!

Could it possibly be any more clear - short of wholesale confessions from the entire BFEE/PNAC Mob??!!!

[RapidCreek]

13. I can't think of anything MORE APPROPRIATE

For christs sake the fucking military is being used as a mecenary army for Haliburton and the weasel Cheney mandated it.

RC

[arcane1]

14. wow, such a fortunate "coincidence" for the Dick!

this reminds me of all those times they stopped persuing Clinton in court due to the wars in Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, etc..

oh wait! :silly:

[Parche]

15. War?

We are at war?
Did congress declare war on some country that we did not know about?
WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH ANYONE
The republicans might think so