« Corruption, Business as Usual in the Financial Markets | Matthew Saroff's Blog | Sounds to Me Like Another Republican Spending a Few Days In the Closet »
Obama Not Just Cheney in Drag, but Cheney's Guardian Angel
Great googly moogly, their latest brief in court is even more absurd than their DOMA brief.
Hell, it's more absurd than the Twinkie Defense, it's the Jon Stewart Defense:
Making this even more absurd is that this argument was first put forward by Bush's now disgraced acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel Stephen Bradbury. (See also here and here)
Cross posted from 40 Years in the Desert.
Hell, it's more absurd than the Twinkie Defense, it's the Jon Stewart Defense:
A federal judge yesterday sharply questioned an assertion by the Obama administration that former Vice President Richard B. Cheney's statements to a special prosecutor about the Valerie Plame case must be kept secret, partly so they do not become fodder for Cheney's political enemies or late-night commentary on "The Daily Show."Gee, I wish that I could tell police investigating a crime to go pound sand because somehow it might be embarrassing.
...
....He told the judge that if Cheney's remarks were published, then a future vice president asked to provide candid information during a criminal probe might refuse to do so out of concern "that it's going to get on 'The Daily Show' " or somehow be used as a political weapon.
Making this even more absurd is that this argument was first put forward by Bush's now disgraced acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel Stephen Bradbury. (See also here and here)
Cross posted from 40 Years in the Desert.
Advertisement
Un-dirtyword-believable.
June 19, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
We get it, its your blog after, all.
June 20, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would comment, but I'm afraid it might come back to haunt me on the teevee!
June 19, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember that expression, "the gloves will come off", before one of his pathetic debates with Hillary?
He actually meant to say "the mask", but the writers loaded the wrong speech on the teleprompter.
June 19, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This defense is predicated on a supposition that Cheney has some sort of reputation to protect.
That's pretty absurd.
June 20, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given the increasing demand that we cannot have transparency in either the Executive Branch or the Nat'l Security agencies, it is easy to see that there is really no accountability for either. "Well, the CIA may well have violated your human rights, Mr. Arar, but you cannot seek justice because we'd have to release State Secrets in order to get to the bottom of just what went on. If the rest of the world found out what happened to you, they would be really pissed and maybe even try to press criminal charges against the CIA! We certainly can't have that!"
I am not exaggerating when I say I feel 100 times more threatened by our shadow government made up of the Executive and the CIA than I do by Al Qaeda.
June 20, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
No evidence, no crime. If the various documents and testimonies were made public, Obama would be forced to either prosecute or openly endorse the crimes of the government by not prosecuting. Obama is providing legal cover for what he knows is criminal behavior. The question is why?
June 20, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because if he pulls the thread, we'll end up with a big old ball of yarn.
June 20, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Obama personally reviews and approves each and every brief in each and every case being handled by the Justice Department before it is filed.
Wait, did I say "reviews?" That's incorrect. In fact, he personally writes each and every brief submitted by the Justice Department in each and every case it is currently handling. He devotes the most time to the response briefs to motions in civil matters in the 89 federal district court, because those are the ones that are the most important.
In fact, although he had a Justice Department attorney sign it, he actually personally wrote, the specific DOJ brief in response to CREW's motion for summary judgment submitted on 11/8/08 which was the motion being argued at the hearing referenced in the WaPo story you rely on.
Given that that brief was submitted only four days after the election, he really had to bustle, but, honestly, he didn't have much else going on at the time, so why not? That's how amazing he really is. It just goes to show how complete, and, indeed, omnipotent, his control over the routine functioning of the federal bureaucracy has been since, really, even before he was actually elected.
June 20, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, saved me time!
June 20, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing the sort of double standard we have when our betters go to court vs what happens to the average schmoe who finds him or herself subject to or participaing in a criminal investigation. Should we just quit pretending and admit that we actually have a noble class in this counrty that doesn't have to submit to the same rules as the rest of us? Maybe we should ask the Emperor if it's okay?
June 20, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I read about this.
unbelievable
June 20, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I think a timeline here might aid discussion.
-11/10/2008 - Bush era - DOJ brief filed in response to CREW's motion for summary judgment. The argument offered by Bradbury was that release of the notes would '...deter senior WH officials from participating fully and frankly in voluntary interviews in such investigations...'
-6/18/2009 - Obama era - hearing before U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Jeffrey Smith, same career DOJ attorney who filed the original brief, now embelished said argument adding the spurious defense said release might become fodder for Cheney's political enemies or late-night commentary on "The Daily Show."
-1/21/2009 - Obama era. I have removed this from the timeline because of its significance. And have included it in totality because I think this is something we should all read and make up our own minds as to what it means.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Freedom_of_Information_Act/
Wednesday, January 21st, 2009 at 12:00 am
Freedom of Information Act
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: Freedom of Information Act
BY: President Barack Obama
A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government. At the heart of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the Government and the citizenry alike.
The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.
All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.
The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.
I direct the Attorney General to issue new guidelines governing the FOIA to the heads of executive departments and agencies, reaffirming the commitment to accountability and transparency, and to publish such guidelines in the Federal Register. In doing so, the Attorney General should review FOIA reports produced by the agencies under Executive Order 13392 of December 14, 2005. I also direct the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to update guidance to the agencies to increase and improve information dissemination to the public, including through the use of new technologies, and to publish such guidance in the Federal Register.
This memorandum does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
In President Obama's own words "...The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears...."
The argument offered by DOJ on 6/18/09 (Obama era) is directly contrary to the above memorandum. This is going on Obama's watch, with Obama's DOJ. Just as we should see the notes, the torture photographs should also be released. Or do Obama's words mean nothing.
I would also like to point out the following:
The 2009 $105.9 billion supplemental war spending bill has just been passed with little mention of a particular machiavellian agreement. As I wrote on Carol Gee's blog "...The White House made a pact with the devil, more specifically with senators Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman. These two gentlemen proposed an amendment to block the release of photographs depicting torture. Rahm Emanuel personally gave President Obama's assurance to these senators that not only could they attach this rider to a future bill but, should the amendment fail, the White House would use all means at its disposal to prevent the release of these photographs, including but not limited to using an executive order and declaring the photographs a state secret. So much for transparency..."
Let me repeat, SO MUCH FOR TRANSPARENCY.
June 20, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink