« Subpoenas | Main | Grossly Beyond the Scope »

June 27, 2007


Shall. In 2015.

Well, AGAG is going to have to at least respond to what he's doing here. I wonder how long it'll take to find someone in OLC that has absolutely no self-respect who is willing to write an opinion reinforcing Addington's latest "not an agency" claim.


Correct. They say its gonna kill me, but they don't say when.

Dear EW,
In your honour, I'm thinking of changing my name to flattire. Mostly 'cause I'm just about out of breath from talking to anyone who'll listen, and some who won't, about how venal Cheney and his fallen angels truly are. Dante had no idea! Milton would have been surprised! But I digress. They ARE just running out the clock, grounding the ball, ragging the puck, putting 11 men in the box. Cheney knows there won't be any impeachment. Saint Henry and the two Patricks are up against a very thick stone wall. And I'm very afraid that unless someone on the inside suddenly gets a conscience, subpoenas won't do it. We're gonna have to wait until they're out of office. So, from now on I'm resolved to save my breath for the day these assholes are hauled up in front of the International War Crimes Tribunal for their heinous adventure, and watch as the class-action law suits bury Haliburton, AT&T, and whoever else has profited illegally from this illegal war, and from the subjugation of the America people.
Sleep tight.

Talking about Waxmen, you can hear Waxmen speak tonight on The NewsHour in a segment called CHENEY'S ROLE.

Gwen Ifill reports on the power of Vice President Dick Cheney, a theme examined in a recent series in The Washington Post. Then, Ifill speaks with guests including: Barton Gellman, the co-author of The Washington Post series; Representative Henry Waxman (D- Calif.), chairman of the House committee on oversight and government reform, which is investigating the Vice President’s office; and, Lee Casey, a former Justice Department official during the Reagan and first Bush administrations, who now practices law and writes opinion columns for The Wall Street Journal and other publications.

Hmm. Nope, I can't. I've got to go do brick and mortar politics. Plus, seeing as how it's not football season, I've got no teevee schedule.

A "Responding to Oversight Committee Document Requests" was attached to the Conyers/Waxman letter to Gonzo. Very snarky of Henry!

There is a major problem: Executive Orders passed after Sept 2001, specifically defined the Vice President as an Executive Officer.

b) 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.


It's very interesting what Addington and Cheney are pointing to, but irrelevant: At best evidence of their denial; at worst, evidence of their aim to hide illegal activity they were personally involved. Their problem is the President has defined them as being what they would have us believe they are not: Executive Officers.

Adverse Inferences

Once the smokescreen lifts, it's more likely Addington's memo was not a bonafide effort to protect a secret, or assert a credible legal position with respect to audit compliance, but to hide evidence of illegal activity which Addington, himself, was complicit.

This invokes DC Bar Rule 1.16, compelling counsel to resign when their legal services are, as it appears the case here, to e used for illegal activity.

I reject any notion that there is "confusion" in any EO about where the OVP sits; or that Addington does not know about the EOs passed. The above EO was passed in the post 9-11 era, which Addington knew, or should have known. These are issues of disbarment for the DC bar; if the Congress refuses to impeach -- as they have done -- the question goes back to the 50 state legislatures: When are you going to document your proclamation calling for the Congress to impeach Addington; and work with your state attorney general to prosecute Addington and Cheney outside impeachment?

Either State officials assert their oath, call for impeachment, and provide leadership to prosecute this sitting President and Addington outside Congress; or they too may be subject to prosecution for failing to assert all lawful options to defend this Constitution.

Prosecute, or be prosecuted.


I kind of like that argument, even me with my sick fascination and belief that Addington recognizes the rule of law.


I've asked the powers that be to watch for good clips--thanks for that heads up and the earlier one.

Marcy - the AP story mentions that Leahy is looking to get information on the contacts/agreements between the administration and the telecoms. But I went and looked at the press release on Leahy's website, and he evidently didn't subpoena the companies directly, just the administration. Am I understanding this right? Wouldn't it make sense to get the telcos to divulge whatever it is that they've been doing? Not sure if he has that authority...

TPM is all over this also:


Anon and EW - Only problem is that the Addington letter does not rest on that theory (or any other one for that matter) it just obfuscates and moves on. Furthermore, a mere letter to someone, even if it is Kerry, would not be a basis for the action and liability you desire; you would need something more formal to even contemplate that in my opinion. I could be wrong, but this looks weak to me.

Brick and mortor... hmm. You do all the heavy lifting plus fit the pieces together.Nobody does it better. Football season... hmm. Lions fan? No. Chargers or 49ers? Am I in the right league. Wolverines? Jeffs? Here's a brief diversion, a photo. I'm keeping my eyes open for one circa 1990 - a picture of the better half (side) whatever.


Thanks for your arguement. Can you give more details on "how" you would guide one to approach an Attourney of State to prosecute? Ohio's has been quite active in "looking back" and addressing illegal activity of the past Gov's administration in Ohio. She may be a good place to start such a move. However, didn't the state of Vermont start this process? And on June 20th didn't word come out on DailyKos that Dennis Kucinich has 8 sponsors for a vote to investigate Cheney for impeachment?

I'm gonna go off-topic here to ask a single question:

ain't we on a "scooter watch" or something ???

what's up with that ???

I saw ew mention something last night, what happened ???


BMaz, I hear you. Than you. However, look at the date of the EO: 2001; the same time when Gonzalez was WH Counsel. The Conyers/Waxman letter of today asks what happened: Did AG not have a view of OVP in re Executive Branch?

Here's the EO from 2001, which AG and Addington have not addressed, but are stuck with:

If we assume Gonzalez as WH Counsel in 2001 had something to do with this other EO; and that EO did include guidance -- which has not changed -- that identify VP as an executive officer, the question is: Why is AG enforcement, and OVP interpretation not consistent with what WH Counsel in 2001 agreed with the EO: That VP was an executive Officer?

Looking at 32 CFR 2800 throws the issue into the air: OVP never addresses whyit blocked auditors from reviewing the CFR requirements which related to the same issues in the EO: Security. OVP has not addressed the CFR requirements which remain in force.

All EOP Memoranda for the 2001 EO would support the opposite conclusion, and compel AG to answer: Why despite the EO in 2001 that found OVP was an executive officer, was the statute not enforced; and why no enforcement of 32 CFR 2800 in re OVP security requirements?

AG cannot answer: Because he's part of the destruction of evidence which OVP is orchestrating, at the heart of the refusal to block the archivist.

I see no other explanation; and AG cannot explain why he's delayed responding to something that has not changed since 2001 -- EO language which defines the VP As being an Executive Officer. AG cannot explain why 32 CFR 2800 was not enforced by this AG while Gonzalez was in place.

AG would have had to create memos in WH Counsel's office supporting the 2001 EO. That's the subject of the current subpoena, or should be. Keep at it!

Broader Security Obligation of OVP

Whether the EO or CFR applies is a red herring: They both do; and the AG and Addington have not addressed why the 32 CFR 2800 requirements were not subject of the audits. They're essentially the same requirements, but in a different rule: Not an EO, but the CFR, which, by the way, reference EOs which OVP says they're not subject.... [Circular, invalid reasoning]

Anyway, whether Addington does or does not focus on "this" EO; or "another EO" is meaningless. Consider 32 CFR 2800 which imposes a legal duty. We're not trying to argue whether Addington is right or wrong; but whether the security requirements within any rules, including 32 CFR 2800, are or are not applicable. Indeed, Addington is silent on the same requirements in 32 CFR 2800 which exist in the disputed EO; but this does not mean that the "non disputed" 32 CFR 2800 requirements do not exist; only that OVP has not explained why they did not permit the audits of these security requirements.

Think of an expanding circle of problems which OVP is attempting to explain away with non-sense. When one argument breaks down, the circle of problems expands, especially when there are other requirements in the CFR that are never addressed as they should.


Yes, there is guidance on prosecuting a sitting vice President. Jonathan Turley at Georgetown Wrote on this. He's still there.

Jonathan Turley, “From Pillar to Post”: The Prosecution of Sitting Presidents, 37 American Criminal Law Review 1049-1106 (2000)

The issue: Impeachment is assumed to be used as the primary means to enforce the law. Even Ashcroft mentioned that, when impeachment was an option, it shall be used first.

However, today's situation, with impeachment off the table, prosecution remains an option.

1. Approach

KLynn "Can you give more details on "how" you would guide one to approach an Attorney of State to prosecute?"

Encourage the pubic to review the Turley Article; discuss the issue with Turley; and see if the AGs and other legal counsel in your state are interested in doing what Members of Congress refuse: Fully assert their oath.

The basis for the States to act is on the grounds of ensuring there is an enforcement mechanism, as guaranteed under the Constitution.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government

A republican form of government is one that has an enforcement mechanism. When Congress refuses to impeach, blocks state proclamations, and will not respond to State AG efforts to prosecute the VP or Members of Congress, the Members of Congress have violated their oath of office, 5 USC 3331 in not seeing that all lawful options are used to defend the Constitution. Inaction in Congress is not a problem, but evidence that prosecutions must be used outside Congress and outside impeachment.

Focus on the AGs in the states that are serious about the privacy issues in re NSA litigation. Those AGs show independence, and are willing to act.

Encourage members of the community to discuss the issues at an open forum with legal counsel; and ask legal counsel about their oath; and their views on the impeachment-prosecution tradeoff. If they balk, ask them why Ashcroft talked about prosecution, but hoping impeachment was used instead.

Today, it's clear there is no impeachment plan; and it has not support. the question goes to the State legal community-- are we going to defend this Constitution against the US government that refuses to use all lawful options? Those who refuse could be prosecuted, per 5 USC 3331.

2. House Rule 603 Is Different That State Prosecutions

KLynn: "However, didn't the state of Vermont start this process?"

You are correct Vermont is involved with House Rule 603 -- a rule permitting state proclamations calling for impeachment. This is different. rather than a state legislature passing a proclamation, the Vermont AG would have to lead this prosecution, if the VT AG wanted to act.

3. Congressional Inaction On Impeachment Means Prosecutions Must Continue

KLynn: "And on June 20th didn't word come out on DailyKos that Dennis Kucinich has 8 sponsors for a vote to investigate Cheney for impeachment?"

True, but if the Congress will not impeach, then prosecution must be used outside Congress. Inaction on impeachment isn't an excuse, but evidence of members of Congress not fully asserting their oath. Two options: Impeach or prosecute. Congress is blocking both. that is illegal; and they're thwarting State efforts to pass proclamations. Evidence of them defying their oath.


House Rule 603 is a rule allowing the congress to review state proclamations calling for impeachment. There are two options to compel the vice President to assent to the rule of law: First is through impeachment, which then-Senator Ashcroft in re Clinton support; or prosecution, if impeachment is not an option, as is the case.

However, the problem is wider: Once Members of Congress refuse to impeach, and they block states from passing impeachment proclamations, that is not a problem: But evidence that the only option is to prosecute. Congress cannot have it both ways: Arguing "we'll take care of it, and do nothing," but then block State efforts to compel Congress to act.

The State Proclamation effort through House Rule 603, because it has been thwarted, is sufficient evidence for the State AG's to conclude that prosecutions of this VP outside impeachment must commence. To not act would send a clear signal: Despite them knowing, or should knowing their duty to protected the Constitution, they refused. That is a basis to prosecute the State AG's for their oath of office violations.

Anon - For the sake of argument (and pretty much overall anyway) I agree with your last. These clucks have not done anything proper or in keeping with their duties whatsoever. And, yes, you can absolutely throw abu Gonzales in there too. My only point was that you aren't going to make any headway on the basis of Addington's letter; it was complete BS, but plenty slippery enough that it would not serve as a basis for action on ethical rules or otherwise. These guys may not have a leg to stand on; but they are still dancing pretty fast, and Addington is a master rug cutter.

Waxman did a credible job on tonight's NewsHour, despite the limp questioning from Gwen Ifill, and Barton Gellman did a very credible job.

A Mr. Casey, a former Reagan DOJ lawyer, argued for the defense. He claimed that Cheney was doing a good job at whatever Mr. Bush asked him to do. He implied that Cheney's role was simply a natural progression of the increasing powers that the OVP was "acquiring" over the past few decades, and that such authority would simply continue as part of the OVP's authority, exempting Cheney (and Bush) from personal responsibility for these developments. We are just witnessing a natural trend in motion; nothing else to see, move along now.

Casey acknowledged that Cheney has few powers under the Constitution, and that virtually everything he does is as the delegate of the President. But he then inconsistently argued that Cheney isn't subject to normal executive branch oversight because he is the president's counselor. Gellman then made the helpful observation that Cheney was not just the president's principal adviser; he was an operator who directly influenced budgets and wide swathes of substantive policy.

As for Cheney's claimed exemption from compliance with the information security oversight rules, he argued that "normal statutory construction" would exclude Cheney (and Bush) from coverage unless he or they were specifically named in the EO, which he claimed they were, though he didn't explain whether this referred to the whole EO or just parts of it.


correction: to [ Anon | June 27, 2007 at 18:06 ] About 5 lines from top.

Above link should be to the URL under "Anon" below.
Sorry about the URL: It was too long.

Where Applies

Look for this phrase: "Here's the EO from 2001, which AG and Addington have not addressed, but are stuck with:"

Please replace the link above, with the correct one under "Anon" below.

The EO referenced is this: 13228, which is different than Addington is talkinga bout; but shows AG Gonzalez in 2001 was involved with concluding WH Counsel was involved with affirming VP Cheney/OVP was an executive officer.

Importance of Change

The key phrase is: "such other officers of the executive branch as the President may from time to time designate." from this EO:

"other officers" means WH Counsel in 2001 concluded that the OVP and VP were part of the Executive branch; and there is no language revoking any of the Security requirements in the 32 CFR 2800.

32 CFR 2800: Imposes Security Guidelines on the OVP, which can be enforced through prosecution. If Congress will not impeach, then the States may use DoJ/Congressional inaction in re 32 CFR 2800 violations as a basis to prosecute Cheney as a sitting VP outside impeachment and outside Congress-DoJ/US Atty.

OVP Security Requirements Are Real

Statement on Accounting Standard 74 outlines the procedures under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards to do a compliance audit. One requirement for the auditors is to review the applicable CFR, and conduct audit sampling. There is no dispute the OVP has blocked audits of all compliance audits in re security compliance. The auditors have not been allowed to conduct their SAS74 compliance audit; nor has the OVP made a fair showing that they have fully complied with all 32 CFR 2800 requirements. These auditor working papers are not classified, and the State AGs and Grand Jury are encouraged to review these working papers for purposes of prosecuting the Vice President and Addington in re obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and evidence destruction.

Even if the cited EO does "not" apply, there are too many other ways to link OVP-Cheney with security requirements he's been ignoring. The basis for the refusal to permit an audit does not appear to be linked with a lawful purpose, but the adverse inference is his action has one motive: To avoid detection that he has not complied with the statute.

Addington's Legal Problem

His conduct appears to be related to an effort to justify illegal efforts to thwart lawful inquiry of OVP compliance/noncompliance with OVP security obligations.

Addington has a big problem. Beyond the EOs, there's something else which has ot been raised: The obligations of OVP to fully cooperate with audits and request for papers per 32 CFR 2800. Addington is either reckless in ignoring the EO from 2001 linking OVP with Executive Officers; or he's deliberately distracting attention from the CFR which promulgates clear requirements for OVP staff to comply with all security requirements.

Attorney Standards of Conduct: Duty To Resign When Involved with Illegal Activity

Addington's motivation for the non-sense letter to Kerry appears to be related to criminal activity and his apparent personal involvement with unlawful orders to destroy, and not allow access to auditors of OVP records, as required by Statute. The legal arguments are absurd, indicative of his recklessness.

DC Bar Rule 1.16 applies

"a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:

(1) The representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;


If it is proven that Addington was involved with illegal activity -- as could be argued in light of his absurd statements: to destroy, hide, and not provide evidence -- then Addington could be prosecuted for obstruction, and disbarred for violating his duty to resign once he knew, or should have known his legal services were being used to implement illegal activity; and that he was actively involved with unlawful conduct. It appears to be Addington's motivation behind his absurd statements which ignore 32 CFR 2800; and the reality that the 2001 EO-memoranda does apply and conclude that the VP was an executive officer; and this 2001 EO has not changed, neither have the 32 CFR 2800 security requirements on the OVP.

Fair Warning

Under the 25th Amendment, if the Vice President is prosecuted while in office, he can be jailed. The issue for the President: Who can he appoint. Big problem: The House is not controlled by the GOP; and both Houses must approve the President's choice.

House DNC should be approached now to make it clear: WE the People oppose any effort by the DNC to approve any Cheney-replacement. Speaker Pelosi is next in line.

All DOJ AG direction that "EO's do not apply" [which they do] can be things that Vice President Pelosi applies when reviewing which documents she -- as Vice President -- shall provide to the Grand Jury, States, and Congress for purposes of prosecuting the President outside impeachment, or through all lawful means.

Addington has opened the door to Pelosi relying on his legal precedent to disclose all papers which OVP says "We're not part of the Executive Branch." Fine. VP Pelosi may rely on that and disclose all the documents. Everything.

GOP is stuck. We the People voted for Change. This means Addington and Cheney shall comply with 32 CFR 2800; they shall explain their reckless refusal to assent to the "post 9-11 EO" which clearly promulgates the VP is an executive officer; and they shall assent to state level prosecutions and legal action outside Congress.

All evidence before us suggests the effort of VP is not to protect a secret, but to hide evidence of his illegal activity. There is no other reasonable conclusion.

Grand Jury: DOJ IP Numbers-Data Adverse To AG Statements To Congress

The Fitzgerald Grand Jury is encouraged to look at the IP numbers for all DOJ Staff, and compare them with the public information.

The DOJ Staff IT department has stunning information. DOJ Staff counsel has been linked with those IP numbers and were not, as AG Gonzalez misrepresented, working on official duties or warrants.

The DoJ IT data supports the reasonable Grand Jury Conclusion that the DoJ Staff were engaged in illegal use of official US government computers inside DOJ: Active agreements not to enforce or comply with FISA. The DOJ Staff IP numbers have been affirmatively liked with non official sites when they should have been processing FISA warrants.

The Grand Jury will find the evidence overwhelming, conclusive, without any credible AG defense. There is no dispute that the AG was lying when he said there were not enough resources. The AG cannot explain why his DOJ Stff IP Numbers are linked with non official computer, websites, and other conduct outside what the law permits.

Where To Find It

This information is being stored in locations around the globe, outside American control, and shall be available when the AG commits to the lines of evidence that are false.

The IP numbers are reviewable now; and the Grand Jury is encouraged to take a broad view of the DOJ Staff IP numbers: They are evidence of recklessness by this AG; and his reckless defiance of his 5 USC 3331 oath of office. there is nothing the GOP can do to compel this House to agree with any Presidential appointment; and the VP and AG are on the table as targets for this Grand Jury and prosecutions by the State Attorney Generals.

Demand: Assent to the US Constitution, Or We the People Shall Impose A New Constitution Compelling Swift Assent

We the People voted for change. This non-sense has gone on too long. WE have seen recklessness by this OVP, His legal counsel, the AG, and now Congress. They refuse to timely defend the constitution.

On the table are prosecutions of a sitting Vice President by the State Attorney Generals. Congress refuses to impeach. They leave us with no option but to proceed with this prosecution, and work closely with the Grand Jury to defend this Constitution.

Change has arrived: It is called the Rule of law. Time for this VP, Addington, and Gonzalez to end their illegal rebellion against the rule of law, enforce all requirements of 32 CFR 2800, and fully accept that they have lost this legal battle. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. It is June 2007, 17 months before the 2008 election, and We the People shall protect this Constitution from this reckless VP, OVP Chief of Staff, and AG.

They wished this.

Posted by: earlofhuntingdon | June 27, 2007 at 19:07

As for Cheney's claimed exemption from compliance with the information security oversight rules, he argued that "normal statutory construction" would exclude Cheney (and Bush) from coverage unless he or they were specifically named in the EO, which he claimed they were, though he didn't explain whether this referred to the whole EO or just parts of it.

Thank you for the information.

Notice, defense fails to account for 32 CFR 2800 which imposes security requirements on the OVP:

Defense fails.

1. This is without legal foundation: ""normal statutory construction" would exclude Cheney (and Bush) from coverage" The CFR includes Cheney.

2. OVP is subject to the CFR; and defense fails to explain away the specific requirements within 28 CFR 2800.

3. OVP fails to explain how they blocked the audit of the requirements within this:

4. OVP and defense fails to explain the EO specifically including OVP as an executive officer.

I see it now.

Well, I have a really heavy work load, but I'm working on it.

No Reasonable DoJ Staff Excuses

"Well, I have a really heavy work load, but I'm working on it."

Problem is, the DoJ Staff IP numbers can be traced showing they are not busy, but working on non-offiical things during office hours.

There is no excuse for DoJ Staff not to timely comply. they hae Certified Fraud Examiners that they can hire. reains for DoJ and FBI leaderhsip to explain why they're not being responsive. Perhaps they've gotten into the habit of not responding to their legal obligations. Those days are over.

Jail time for not making a full account for the known DoJ Staff use of official computers for non-official business. DoJ Staff has time, they have reckless leadership.

Marcy, there's no doubt Addington recognizes the rule of law, he's just estranged from it at the moment.

No. You can't have Pelosi. She's waiting a long time for this and she'd be nuts to let it go. Also, the Republicans will simply have hysterics.

I'd like to suggest one of the Maine senators but they won't let go of their seniority. That's going to be the problem. Who's willing to lose a job over this?

Is there a mellowed Republican about three days from retirement?


Thank you for all your commentary today. You write like an old friend of mine from my DC policy writing tenure during my non-profit director days (all during Bush Sr.'s time).

You have gone to the heart of many matters. As a citizen, I have been researching "how" We The People protect the Constitution and Rule of Law when the Balance of Powers fails to do so. Thank you for directing my path. Do you think this can work? Which states have you considered as leading the way?

From your earlier thread about Addington-Kerry correspondence of 6/25 and 6/26/07:

From Democratic Underground, vis Marty Lederman, a letter replying to Addington....did I miss this in a earlier thread? It's very clear and concise. The URL is:

http://www,democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view[*underlined space]all&address=389x1192475#1189691

(I'm sorry about the address, I'm computer-challanged this evening, and can't make my computer do a space with an underline* in it) The letter is down below, near the botton of the comments, for some reason, so you have to scroll down to read it.)


I've moved around so much I'm a bit of a diletante with my footbal fandom. I was a Pats fan before it became cool, though.

As to the better side of 1990, the picture you're looking for has a guy in a gorilla suit smack in the middle---our coach. Lots of fog, too. A great picture, really.

okay -- some after-hours stuff:

last night, jon stewart debuted a
feature he called "you don't
know. . . dick!

he is at his snarky best, last night!
i won't spoil it, just watch.
[cheney starts at about 0:50,
and ends at about 2:48. . .]

hilarious -- do watch!

you know you want to!

p e a c e

kagro x

your set of explanatory posts at dkos over the last six weeks (+-) have been very useful to me in understanding the specifics of various courses of action the congress might pursue, e.g., "so the subpoenas are out...".


What a great thread! Just came to it after a day preoccupied with life.

Someone above (earlofhuntington, I believe), when discussing Cheney's possible (hopeful?) premature exit from office, seemed to assume that if a new VP wasn't named per the procedures in Amendment XXV Pelosi as Speaker of the House would assume the powers of that office. It's my understanding that this is not the case. She would remain SotH but would not, for example, preside over the Senate. The only official difference for her would be that if Bush either croaked or was dragged out of office headfirst kicking and screaming, she would become President because there was no VP at that time.

The discussion about the possibility of driving an impeachment from the states is fascinating. Marcy, you should consider hoisting some of Anon's and others' thoughts from the comments on this thread to one or more posts on the subject.

As long as you guys persist in entertaining these "who will replace Cheney" fantasies. The best answer is NO ONE.

Pelosi is just silly, and the problem with letting any Republican step up is that they will have been removed from all this criminal activity. George could then step down the day before inaguration, and the appointed VP, now Pres could pardon every last person close to this administration.

If by some unlikely turn of events Dick Cheney should leave office, the smart thing to do is leave the office vacant. Why give Bush an ally? Why give him a clean go to man if pardons are needed? No sir, we get rid of Dick and there SHALL be no replacement.


Is an interesting take on this business. Don't know if I beleive it but is an interesting take.

And just why DOES our system of government demand separate branches?
It isn't just a modern management construct, it is an administrative outline applied to naturally occurring divisions between those vested interests that exist in any organized civilization.

Here's Montesquieu, from his 1748 "Spirit of the Laws."
My own commentary is in parenthesis.

"When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person.... there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyranical laws, (Patriot Act, domestic wiretaps, this basically describes the 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses) to execute them in tyranical manner. Again, there is no liberty if the judiciary be not separated from the legislative and the executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject (citizen) would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would then be the legislator (Bush V. Gore, conservative activist judges, DOJ politically pushing trumped-up charges against Dems). Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence (shock and awe, renditions and torture) and oppression." (habeas corpus delecti).

EW not a lawyer??? You coulda fooled me.

Anon, Thanx so much for that rich stash of info.

James, I have doubts about Addington and respect for the rule of law. Making specious statements about the law is a form of contempt for that law. That the OVP has a dual role, has nothing whatsoever to do with being exempt from oversight.

With impeachment off the table, they can say and do whatever they want. Rahm Emmanuel's move to eliminate funding for the OVP is just as specious... a sophomoric avoidance of his duty to uphold the Constitution and IMPEACH the son's of bi****s.

Bush just invoked privilege. "No evidence of wrongdoing" should be spun as "We're hiding all of the evidence." The last time they tried this, as I recall, was with Condi and the 9/11 Commission. That didn't go over so well. And there's already a long record of White House spokespeople talking about the purge, so it's going to be hard to say they never wanted to talk about this.

Looks like Fielding has said FU to Conyers and Leahy regarding documents and testimony of Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor.

OK. Do they all "compromise" or does Leahy & Conyers pass contempt resolutions?

Kax @ 10:08: I don't get the "impeachment is off the table" line. At some point, someone from the media is going to pipe up and say that Articles of Impeachment against Cheney have already been introduced. What's going on with those? If there's ever a true vote on those, he's going to be impeached.

You know who I think has been the big loser this past week? Scooter Libby. He's banking on either a pardon or an appellate miracle right now. The appellate miracle is looking less and less likely. And a pardon, despite what you read on the WaPo's editorial pages, is going to expend a substantial amount of political capital. Now that the spotlight is on Cheney, and Bush is trying to claim privilege over the corrupt firing of a bunch of Republican lawyers, it's going to be a lot harder for them to throw Scooter a lifeline. It's looking like a bunch of people are trying to heave Cheney overboard, which would mean that a lot of people don't really care about Scooter one way or another.

Frank Probst,

a Pardon the last day or two in office in Jan 2009 will not expend any political capital at all.


Here is the correct citation: Summer, 2000, 37 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1049, "From Pillar to Post": The Prosecution of American Presidents, Jonathan Turley*

Also, to get an idea of who Turley is, he is a well known Constitutional Scholar, and is regularly commenting on these issues. By chance, I thought you might this link to get a picture of him; and get a sense: "Wow, this guy is actually around." It's not as though this is some hermit living in a volcano.
Turley's picture in on the right, scroll down:

  • 1. KLynn"Do you think this can work?"

  • Bluntly, we have no option. It must be asserted. The oath of office, 5 USC 3331 requires all lawful efforts to be used. The issue is: If it is not allowed to work, that obstruction is subsequent evidence. This option must be asserted lawfully to its logical conclusion: Either the President resigns; is prosecuted; or impeached; or removed from office.

    The correct path is not to ask, "Can or should it be done; or will it work," but unless we start now, history will record that not all lawful options were asserted despite them being on the table; and the public was not serious in overseeing the reckless legal community and US government officials who refuse to keep all options on the table to defend this Constitution. This is not permissible. Our responsibility is to continue to assert as We the People our powers which have not been delegated to this Government. We the People retain the power to prosecute a sitting President. It must be asserted.

    This is one of many options. As far as it "working", the mere fact that we are discussing it, and others are considering this means it's already worked: The notion that there is an option on the table; that even if Congress refuses to act, something can be done; and the prospect that even if the Congress and President jointly agree to do nothing, there remains a legal method to compel the President to assent to the legal process: State prosecutions of a sitting President. There is the eternal threat that We the People can revoke, annul, and transform this Government through a lawful transition under a New Constitution. Governments by, of, and for the People -- as this one used to be -- can be transformed lawfully into one that works, not one that makes excuses to talk about principles which are not practiced. This leadership has, through its choices and recklessness, chosen to illegally confront the Constitution. It is an illusion the constitution has been destroyed: The Constitution remains the standard. Efforts to ignore the Congress and We the People is not a problem but evidence of the President and WH, DoJ, and others defying their oath.

    Where We the People clearly stated requirements, this President defied Our Will; where the Congress asserted legal requirements, the OVP and EOP pretend that these requirements do not apply; where we have reminded the President of his obligations to enforce the law, he's made excuses. He is an outlaw, as are his legal advisers.

    As far as a State Actually doing it? Why not: One year ago, people laughed at the idea of the States issuing a proclamation calling on the Congress to impeach; today, in over 24 states there are efforts to do just that. Some legislators have refused to consider the notion. At least citizens know who they can trust; and who will not assert their oath. This is not only evidence for voters, but for subsequent prosecution of Members of Congress and State legislators, especially on issues of war crimes: There is no statute of limitations; and the Geneva Conventions precedents are clear -- legal counsel and judges when they block enforcement of the law, and refuse to impeach or prosecute can be indicted for war crimes. This possibly is on the table. If the legal community does not exercise leadership and rally their AGs to defend the Constitution, it is fair game to lawfully target for prosecution the AGs, legal counsel, and judges who refuse to permit this prosecution of a sitting President.

    Regardless whether it will "work," the issue is: It must be asserted to remind the legal community that when it chooses to not assert its oath, that is not a solution or an excuse, but evidence of their complicity with illegal activity. the first crime was the President's; the second the legal community's refusal to do anything about it. Even if the effort does not ultimately lead in the President getting prosecuted, the message is clear not the legal community: "Because you collectively refused to assert your oath to defend the Condition, on the table are reasonable public discussions to more closely monitor the legal community, and increase public oversight of what refuses to effectively ensure this Constitution is protected. On the table are the methods to transform the legal community into something that is responsive to their oath, not what We the People have seen as evidence: Excuses for inaction. If nothing else, this will serve as a reminder to the lazy legal professionals that We the People -- not those who took their oath -- are the only ones who can be trusted to fully do what must be done to protect the Constitution from the legal community, reckless Congress, and arrogant Executive. We leave it for another day to discuss what needs to be done to timely ensure Judicial officers are timely sanctioned if they refuse to challenge illegal activity.

    The American legal community has failed: They know full well that impeachment was impossible under the GOP; but did not timely ensure prosecutions were fully asserted, as they should have been, in 2001. There is no credible excuse. The American legal profession has offered nothing but reckless excuses for inaction. We see the results: Continued arrogance by this President; and no respect for his legal obligations. This problem is one the legal community has brought upon itself by refusing to fully assert its oath. it cannot be trusted to do its job unless pushed, shoved, and had its collective noses rubbed into the Constitution; "Do your job, or lose your liberty." The threat of jail time per 5 USC 3331 violations is insufficient to inspire within the American legal community cess pool a hint that they might find the weather favorable to dare to assert their oath and enforce the law against this President outside impeachment through prosecutions. They are lazy and need to be eternally reminded who they ultimately work for: We the People, and Our Will Expressed through This Constitution. Any legal advisor asserting they have "no time" to address these issues is admitting they have not fully asserted their oath, as required. They chose poorly.

  • 2. KLynn: "Which states have you considered as leading the way?"
  • I'm inclined to look to the states that have considered the NSA litigation on privacy issues: New Jersey, Missouri, and Maine. Those states have AGs who have reviewed the NSA issues on privacy and are, or aware of effort related to asserting state citizen rights against the President. They appear to be open minded to legal action against the President and Vice President. I encourage all to look at the NSA litigation on privacy issues, and see which AGs are taking action. NJ, ME, and MO are not the only AGs who have been threatened by this President's legal counsel to not defend the Constitution against illegal activity. For information on which AGs have been targeted by the DOJ, review the name "Keisler" and the legal complaints he's filed against State AGs to dissuade them from attempting to enforce state citizens'' privacy rights in re NSA illegal surveillance. The litigation relates to the [ Judge Vaughn ] issues in re NSA/AT&T litigation.

    Two important cases in re privilege and classification are [ Reynolds ] and [ Nixon ] which do not permit classification of illegal activity; and prevent the President from invoking privilege unless it is "substantially" related to national security. OVP and Addington's absurd statements, and refusal permit audits on 32 CFR 2800 security related issues is the basis to conclude that the invocation of "state secrets" and "privilege" has noting to do with protecting any secret, but to hide illegal activity this President and others have openly admitted -- when they admitted the FISA court was ignored; and NSLs were unlawfully used to circumvent the warrant requirement. It is illegal under [ ORCON ] rules to classify evidence of illegal activity, as appears to have been done in re OVP, FISA, US Atty firings, and prisoner abuse.


    Thank you again.

    I've got "it" now. I am gathering the cited materials above. I am familar with Jonathan Turley's writings and have heard him speak on occassion. I tend to follow his articles on Church-State issues and Foreign policy issues from a Constitutional perspective. Even caught his most recent Keith Ob interview yesterday.

    I am familar with Peter Keisler and his work. I am a victim of identity theft. My information was sold to a terrorist in India. So, I have been working on rewriting legislation on Identy Theft (i.e. The Identity Theft Act legislation is some of the worst written legislation) and have become informed of his positions through communications with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and AARP. I am not impressed with Keisler; however, I find his focus to erect impasses on citizen privacy "driven" to the point of wrecklessness as opposed to protectionism.

    Many do not realize that identity theft has increased three times it annual rate prior to the Patriot Act and NSA issues. The largest purchasing group of stolen identities happens to be terrorists. So, the legislation from the President's hand has increased our threat and I personally have become a victim due to the government's gathering of information with little to no protection for citizens like myself. Oddly, I feel that was the plan all along...

    Thank you again for taking the time to address my questions. Continue posting. You are a wealth of knowledge for We The People.

    OVP Security Requiremnts: EO vs CFR -- The Coffee Analogy

    One clarification on 32 CFR 2800. Think of this standard as one of many. Just because OVP says that the EO does or does not apply, this does not mean the 32 CFR 2800 requirement goes away. Here's an analogy. Suppose there are inspection rules for trucks which say that a specific rule shall be enforced on a particular kind of coffee; however, suppose there is a second set of rules -- unrelated -- related to the types of bags and packaging.

    We have two rules. They related to coffee: The coffee itself; and the packaging. Just because the President might say, "I will not follow the rules on the coffee," it doesn't mean the rules about the packaging go away. Rather, auditors, even if they are blocked from inspecting the coffee itself, are still required to do the audits on the packaging.

    Even if we consider Bush's rejection of the coffee rules, and not allow inspections of coffee, the rules abut the packaging remain in place and still apply. The problem is when Bush attempts to use his blocking of the inspection of coffee -- which is illegal -- as the basis to block inspection of the packaging. Even if we were to accept the premise that the President can block enforcement of coffee inspections, he's done nothing to explain why the packaging inspections, the rules, and the reports do not exist.

    Narrowly Blocking Coffee Inspections Does Not Block Broader, Separate, Required Packaging Audits or Applicablity of Other Standards Unrelated to Coffee Grounds

    32 CFR 2800 is like a different way of looking at the OVP. Yes, the President may say that an EO does or doesn't apply; but his narrow assertion that a given EO does or does not apply does not mean other rules, in this case the CFR, go away. Rather, the issue is: Even through Bush has rejected the EO as a basis to assent to regulation, his narrow focus on the EO fails to respond to the existing security requirements within 32 CFR 2800.

    Even if Bush blocks an inspection of the coffee by saying an EO doesn't apply, but hasn't addressed why the packaging was not inspected; or why the 32 CFR 2800 was not reviewed. Indeed, the way to find out if we have good coffee isn't to just look at the coffee, but we can use the inspections of the packaging to then get access to the coffee and conduct the inspections separately on the grounds. What Bush did was block only part of the oversight; but he hasn't negated all laws and all avenues from Congress looking at the same things: The coffee, the packaging, and whether the President, VP, and OVP has or has not met all legal standards.

    The OVP problem is that they've only attempted to block an inspection of the coffee; but have not addressed why the coffee is bad; and have not responded to issues related to the packaging inspections; or the blocked inspections of the packaging. The OVP claim of immunity to security requirements as it relates to any EO is narrow, incomplete, and in no way addresses the other legal requirements outside the EO found within the CFR.

    The President's problem is the security requirements he pretends do not exist or apply in the EO are mentioned in the CFR. Denying he EO does not deny the CFR, or the responsibility of the President/OVP to permit inspections of the documents through the CFR.

    Frank Probst,

    Yes there are Articles of Impeachment against Cheney introduced by Dennis Kucinich, but with Dem leadership refusing to debate it or hold a vote, it is "off the table" essentially. I think only the threat of impeachment will motiivate Busholini and Darth to comply.

    Remember your identity can be stolen from ATMs at retails stores, where some employees use skimming devices to record information off the magnetic stripe. Make sure you keep a vigilant eye on your card as you hand it over to be‘ swiped’. The employee should keep your card visible at all times. If not, ask them to stop the transaction immediately and if you suspect they may have committed an identity theft, cancel you card at once.

    acer BTP-ARJ1 2420 series laptop battery

    asus w3n battery
    asus w3v battery

    hp b1236tu battery

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    Where We Met

    Blog powered by Typepad