Fourthbranch folds. Or does he?

by Kagro X

The Politico reports that Rahm has helped Cheney see the light:

Dems force Cheney flip-flop on secret docs By: Mike Allen June 27, 2007 10:36 AM EST Dick Cheney's office is abandoning a justification for keeping the Vice-President's secret papers out of the hands of the National Archives. Officials working for Cheney had tried to claim he is separate from the executive branch, but they will no longer pursue that defense, senior administration officials tell The Politico. The decision follows a threat by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the No. 3 House Democrat, to try to cut off the office’s $4.8 million in executive-branch funding.

Rrrrraaaah!

But is this what it purports to be?

David S. Addington, Cheney’s chief of staff and counsel, wrote in a three-paragraph letter to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) on Tuesday that the executive order on classified national security information does not give the archivists authority over the president or vice president. Addington said that therefore it “is not necessary in these circumstances to address the subject of any alternative reasoning.”

Now look how author Mike Allen treats this:

That amounted to throwing in the towel, according to administration officials speaking on condition of anonymity. The White House has no plans to reassert the argument there is any vice presidential distinction from the executive branch, the officials said.

How exactly is a letter saying the Archivist has no authority to make the OVP comply with this executive order "throwing in the towel?" Did someone in the White House tell Allen that, and so he just wrote it down? Did they just "Healthy Forest" us here? "We're throwing in the towel! Except for the part about the towel. And throwing it."

Here's what Raw Story reported was actually in Addington's letter:

"Constitutional issues in government are generally best left for discussion when unavoidable disputes arise in a specific context instead of in theoretical discussions," Addington adds. "Given that the executive order treats the Vice President like the President rather than like an "agency," it is not necessary in these circumstances to address the subject of any alternative reasoning, based on the law and the history of the legislative functions of the vice presidency and the more modern functions of the vice presidency, to reach the same conclusions that the vice president is not an 'agency' with respect to which ISOO has a role."

What that means: OK, my argument was stupid. But here's the thing: we're not going to comply, and the reason is.... look over there!

Congressman Emanuel needs to continue with his amendment, and funding should be contingent on the OVPs compliance -- retroactively for the years they've skipped -- both with ISOO protocols and with reporting requirements regarding the number and nature of employees in Cheney's office. Because OVP's been skipping out on that, too, on the same stupid neither-fish-nor-fowl basis, namely this:

The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code).

So let's make sure we see an actual towel fly, shall we? (And then frisk him for the hidden towels he retains.)

Comments

[P J Evans]

Put evidence tags on the towels as you confiscate them, so he can't claim 'you already counted that towel'. And do a strip search, not just a frisking.
(I sure hope that the news media catch one to this sort of 'well we really meant to say ...' bit. I'm tired of all the 'restatements' and 'misspeakings' and all the other euphemisms for 'we lie the way we breathe: constantly, automatically, and even when we'd be better off not doing it'.)

[Jodi]

Cheney

is just a distraction. And seemingly a good one.

[steve]

A distraction from what?

[Kagro X]

Why, from "good governance," of course!

[bmaz]

I made this comment below, but think it applies here as well. People keep talking about the "exception for the President" and whether or not it also applies to the OVP. I have read the original EO, as well as the EO entered by Bush modifying the original, and do not see an exception for either President or OVP. This is just bullshit they spewed out their rear ends. They may wish there was an exception, but there is not. Even the lying sophist Tony Snowjob admitted that you would have to "infer" it; well, that is not how a rule or regulation of this type is interpreted. So, please folks, do not give them the legitimacy of discussing an "exception"; there is none.

[Kagro X]

Hey jodi, your distraction just got subpoenaed.

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=6717605&nav=9qrx

[Mimikatz]

Hey--doesn't the Constitution say that the Prez and the VP don't have to comply with the law because they are, aftr all, the law--as in, "la loi c'est moi." Maybe those French had something good there after all.

[bmaz]

Hey - Didn't the French think Jerry Lewis was the most genius comic ever?

[apishapa]

Cheney and Bush may not be an "agency" in the Executive branch but they are "entities" which are covered by the EO. Of course, you can bet Addington is busy this week writing out a new Executive Order which will supercede this one, and will exempt both and cheney from any and all oversight of any kind forever.

[William Ockham]

You have to remember that while Addington might care about his pet constitutional theories, the only things Cheney cares about are outcomes. He literally has no principles other than the unrestrained use of executive power.

I have advice for the Congress. Don't compromise on anything. The only thing this Administration has run from are court fights they know they will lose that establish precedents that limit executive power. The Constitution, the law, and public opinion are all on our side. Keep pressing the advantage.

[Anon]

Kagro X,

Thank you for your tremendous work. I respect your writing and appreciate your work on many initiatives. Rather than suggesting no towel has been thrown, I would argue the opposite: Addington's towel is on fire, and isn't stuck to him.

There may be some information Addington and others are not aware.

A. Code of Federal Regulations invokes Executive Orders

[ 32 CFR 2800 ] specifically imposes legal duties on the OVP in re security matters; and EO signed after 9-11 specifically site OVP has being part of the Executive Branch.

32 CFR 2800 requirements on OVP:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

B. Audit Requirements Remain

[ 3 USC 105 ] forms the basis to audit the Comptroller audit papers of OVP: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000105----000-.html

C. VP Clearly Established As Executive Officer Post Sept 2001

Contrary to myth, Addington-Perino "confusion" over the Constitution is moot: The EO Signed after Sept 2001:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13228.htm

The Council shall have as its members the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Transportation, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Director of Central Intelligence, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, and such other officers of the executive branch as the President may from time to time designate.

Take Advantage of GOP Confusion

It's not disputable that Addington and the VP are delusional spewing forth non-sense and picking and choosing. The problem is that just because Addington and the VP have -- until now -- ignored the law with the false hope it would not be enforced, they've more than backed themselves into a corner. By asserting that OVP is "not" part of the Executive Branch -- despite clear language post 9-11 that the EOs do include Cheney as an executive officer -- the basis for the "state secrets claims" in re 9-11 falls away.

Cheney In the Pre 9-11 World

Rather, given the above EO was signed after 9-11, we can reasonably conclude that the claim of state secrets and privilege was not to protect something related to national security, but to not comply with a legal requirement on Cheney as an Executive officer, which Addington and Cheney should have known was part of the "new post 9-11 world."

Same OVP-DOJ Arguments Failed in Re FISA Violations

As with FISA violations and retroactive excuses to pretend that the AUMF created a power to trump FISA, the same can be said of the 9-11-linked Executive Orders: No longer can Addington argue, "We're in a new world," in that the new world Addingotn defines includes the very Executive Order he would have us believe does not exist: Specific language contradicting what Addington freely wrote.

Addington's Legal Problem

This does not sit well for Addington. It appears his conduct is linked not with efforts to protect anything, but to hide evidence that he -- as counsel, and Chief of Staff -- has been complicity with illegal violations of the law; and despite EOs that gave OVP fair notice that Cheney was an executive official, the OVP ignored 32 CFR 2800, and pretends that the Title 44 requirements do not apply.

Adverse Inferences Warranted

The archivist has a job which includes auditing per Statement on Accounting Standard 74. Addington cannot change the requirements that his office had fair notice applied in the post 9-11 world; but then pretend that the "new world" compels secrecy. No, it's more likely that the effort to assert privilege, and block audits, has nothing to do with secrecy but will unlawful efforts to hide evidence of illegal activity, which is in itself a crime.

More Evidence Supporting House Rule 603

The goal going forward is to go back to the States Legislators, present them with this new evidence, and ask them why they are not pushing for a State Proclamation calling for impeachment. If the evidence is there, then the States will have done their job; but to circularly argue "we have no time" while the evidence is mounting would ask that the public put up with at the State level what was rejected November 2006.

Prosecute Cheney, or be Prosecuted

Yes, Congress may bungle this. But the way forward is to expand the net of people who have a job to do: Either they compel Congress to impeach; or they move to work outside Congress to prosecute Cheney. IF they refuse, then they themselves may be prosecuted for failing to assert their oath. Again, it is 2007, more than 17 months before the 2008 election. The time for compelling state officials to assert their oath is now; and if they fail, they too may be lawfully prosecuted and replaced with people who are marginally more competent in looking at the evidence, and asking their leadership at the State level to pass a proclamation calling for impeachment. If the State officials refuse -- despite this evidence -- that inaction can be entered into evidence in re oath of office prosecutions against State Officials.

Public officials must decide if they are going to fully assert their oath; or have that oath asserted against them. Inaction is, as the case with House Rule 603, evidence legislative officers at the state and local level have not fully asserted their oath to defend the Constitution. Saying, "We have no time to do our job, or more important things to do" misses the point: This isn't an excuse, but evidence of 5 USC 3331 violations.

Thank you for your many posts and diligence across the political spectrum. You are a forced to be reckoned with, and I applaud you public service. Best wishes.

[freepatriot]

The Constitution, the law, and public opinion are all on our side. Keep pressing the advantage.

good point WO

we got another ally on our side

TIME

dopey george and dead eye dick are running out of time folks

all of cheney's smokescreens will be blown away no later that 12:00, January 20, 2009

on the other hand, there IS no Statute Of Limitation on Crimes Against Humanity

so TIME isn't on george's side

no matter how dead eye flails, he's running out of time, and there ain't much he can do to stop the clock

the real problem that dead eye and dopey face is the fact that TIME is working against the repuglicans in congress too

the repuglicans are at the beginning of a giant canabalistic feast

that's why out shit stain is flailing too

time and tide are running against the repuglicans, and they no it

by January 2009, the repuglican party will be high and dry, just like a beached whale