Time Magazine: Cheney "likes to conduct public business in private"
No doubt, Vice President Cheney does want to "conduct public business in private." But CREW is not just letting that happen. The controversy surrounding Cheney's effort to prevent access to the visitor records continues to grow -- as does the outrage:
Vice President Dick Cheney, whose penchant for secrecy is well known, has eliminated any public record of his guests and their visits. His office has directed the U.S. Secret Service to turn over the visitor logs so they can be treated in effect as classified documents. No copies can be kept. According to declarations filed May 25 in a lawsuit, the directive was initiated in 2001 and quietly reiterated nine months ago as the Washington Post and a public interest group were trying to track appearances by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
It is not for social niceties that Cheney claims "exclusive control" over the names of his guests. The man who could often be found only in "undisclosed locations" after 9/11 likes to conduct public business in private. He fought off the General Accounting Office when it sought the names of oil, coal and utility lobbyists with whom Cheney had met privately to discuss the energy policy that he was fashioning for the Bush Administration — a practice ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is trying to pry open Cheney's hidden world in a lawsuit seeking Secret Service records of visitors to the White House and vice presidential residence. The group's chief counsel, Anne Weismann, told TIME that such logs would help illuminate the kind of outsiders who influence national policy.
Since Freedom of information laws do not apply to the White House, Cheney's office had the logs turned over to the White House every month, thus protecting them under the Presidential Records Act. A vice presidential aide argued in a court filing last week that the guest lists should remain off-limits because they could reveal "sensitive information regarding the inner workings and deliberations" of Cheney's office and provide a "roadmap" to his decision-making.
Nonsense, says Weisman, who notes the request seeks only names of visitors, not the substance of their discussions. "This Vice President has been given an extraordinary amount of power and authority," she said. "The more authority you're going to invest in an office, the greater the need there has to be for transparency in some degree of public accountability."
How might all this be examined?
It seems that it will take impeachment proceedings to get to the bottom of all of this. The priority of impeachment is well established and no objections may impede the investigation. The impeachment process, although of tribunal nature, is not a court of law subject to ordinary procedures nor is the process subject to any higher appeal but it carries it's own final authority.
It is the one tribunal where public officials have no recourse but to render account. It would be of great benefit to the nation were the impeachment process utililized more frequently. Sanctions are always more effective if there are examples to consider. This encourages honesty.
"if there are examples to consider."
The Coast Guard has a pamplet on tying knots. One of the knots shown is the hangman's noose. It's quite easy to do.
War Crimes Indictment: VP Prosecution Outside Impeachment
Prosecution of a sitting VP is possible. Impeachment was argued as the option that would, in effect, trump prosecutions. However, now that Congress has taken impeachment "off the table," the other option -- prosecution -- remains on the table, and the only remaining option to enforce the law. Whether Congress does or does not enforce the law through impeachment does not take the prosecution option off the table. Ashcroft discussed this option as Senator, but as you noted, impeachment was preferred. Today, we have the opposite: Untimely action, and no impeachment.
[ To read more about this, take a look at the comment-thread at this blogspot: Scroll down, skip the content, and read the links in the comments:
http://indictdickcheney.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-answers-why-did-james-comey-only.html ]
-----------------------------
It may or may not take impeachment to get to the bottom of this: It may be by prosecutions. Contrary to your assertion, impeachment is not a "priority" that -- when not used -- trumps all action. Rather, the opposite: When impeachment is not used, then impeachment is not a priority, but prosecutions become the priority.
It is not "well established" that an impeachment -- taken off the table -- means prosecutions cannot occur, rather they are required. Impeachment may not be a court, but the Senate decides -- outside impeachment -- whether to Convict. Whether there are or are not procedures about impeachment mean nothing:
The Senate alone decides whether to face reality, or pretend reality is something else. Whether there are or are not procedures about impeachment does not have any bearing on whether prosecutions of the President and VP trump the "do nothing through impeachment"-decision.
It is incorrect to say that impeachment is the one forum to resolve this issue. When impeachment is not used, despite its utility, prosecution remains on the table. These issues might be examined by a grand jury through a war crimes indictment against Cheney, Berenson, and other White House counsel allegedly complicit with failing to enforce Geneva; war crimes planning; FISA violations; and use of illegally captured information to implement war crimes against prisoners of war.
It remains to be understood to what extent Cheney has created an illegal database, outside what permitted under law, to hide evidence of war crimes. It is a separate matter whether individual Members of Congress are also indicted for refusing to enforce Geneva through impeachment, which is required in this case. Congress refuses to investigate and is arguably reckless in failing to assert its oath to enforce Geneva or protect the Constitution. Yes, all 535 Members of Congress and outside civilian counsel working for the President and Congress could be the target of a war crimes indictment/investigation. The American legal community has failed to assert its oath, enforce Geneva, or use prosecutions to enforce the Constitution. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes, especially -- as it appears -- outside counsel and the VP have been complicit in destroying, not preserving, and hiding evidence of Geneva violations.
No, not yet
but what is off the table can be put on the table when the time comes.
Prosecutions Now: Congress Reckless In Defending Constitution
I disagree that the question of impeachment timing is "not yet. . . " Nor can I support this assertion: "[W]hat is off the table can be put on the table when the time comes" We cannot wait: What is "off" the table is fair warning, the other option -- prosecution -- remains on the table, and will continue.
Whether Congress chooses to do its job is out of our control. The issue for the legal community is to explain -- despite well promulgated intention to do nothing through impeachment, and actions to openly block impeachment --- whether they fully asserted their oath to defend the Constitution.
Impeachment -- as an option to protect the Constitution -- remains on the table, as are prosecutions. Whether Congress wants to use it, or exercise impeachment is secondary. Yet, if they refuse to do what they must -- protect, defend, the Constitution -- the voters' silence or response does not block prosecutions for 5 USC 3331 violations, oath of office.
It is incorrect to believe that impeachment is not an option; or believe that [other's views, paraphrasing, not a quote from here/CREW:] "by taking impeachment off the table, nothing will happen." Congressional inaction on impeachment is not a vote of absolution for the President or Vice President. Prosecutions remain on the table.
The question is whether the Congressional illusion that impeachment is "not" an option as a legislative tool is the catalyst to remind lawyers they have a job to do through the Judicial branch: Continue to assert their oath and forward evidence to assert the second option: Prosecutions of this President, VP, and others for alleged war crimes.
Congress has chosen to take impeachment off the table. When the "time comes" is meaningless: Congress views "the proper time" as never. We the People need to assert our power through prosecutions, grand juries, and remind Members of Congress: If you refuse to impeach, you too may be come the target for war crimes prosecutions, especially if it can be shown that you refused to enforce Geneva; or were actively blocking impeachment efforts.
The rule of law shall prevail. Members of Congress may choose to do nothing and not impeach, possibly hoping the world believes that impeachment is "off" the table and that "nothing" can be done or will happen. Yet, there is no link between impeachment and prosecutions: If Congress decides, as it has, to do nothing through impeachment, it does not mean that other things are on hold. Prosecutions do not have to be delayed; rather, Congress is delaying mandating full speed ahead on the prosecution track.
It is a separate matter whether the GOP might, as it did with the US Attorney firings, to block prosecutions of the President, VP, and other US Government officials? What the GOP might do to block enforcement of the Constitution is meaningless speculation: The prospect of prosecutions cannot be removed on the possibility that the GOP might not cooperate. The two are separate.
Saying, "Not yet," asks that we continue to delay in the off-chance Congress "might" change it's mind. No, the issue is the opposite: Until Congress decides to act, Members of Congress can be prosecuted now; and the timing is right -- prosecute this President and VP through grand jury indictments. Inaction is not a solution, but evidence of Member of Congress complicity with war crimes. Malfeasance is a crime when it relates to war crimes; Congress deludes itself and the voters if it says, "If we do nothing about these war crimes through impeachment, nothign will happen." No, inaction broadens the net, and attached responsibilty to those who should have acted, not just those who originally acted incorrectly.
Frivolous Excuses To Delay Prosecution Decision
Hoping "The time comes" is a speculative dream that Congress might do what it has had the duty to do, but refuses despite the prospect of real legal consequences. It is one thing to refuse to do one's job to defend the Constitution; but to refuse to do that, despite the threat that one could be prosecuted for war crimes, blocking investigations, or not enforcing Geneva is a serious issue.
Inaction A Congressional Standard of Misconduct
For Congress to now act on impeachment -- despite its history of inaction -- would be an admission that it did not timely act. Congress cannot reasonably be expected to ever put impeachment on the table, especially as evidenced by the GOP efforts to take the Senate Rebuke of Gonzalez off the table. Hoping for a change, or suggesting we "delay" is not an answer, but more of what the voters rebuked in November 2006: Excuses not to do one's legal duty to protect the Constitution and act responsibly.
The time is now: Prosecutions are on the table. If Congress chooses to awaken from its coma, and believe the weather might be favorable, is of little interest. They've had their chance. Their time has come: Prosecution of Members of Congress for failing to defend the Constitution is on the table. Whether they awaken to this rude reality is of little interest.
"Public business in private"....Yes, but why?
Does Dick Cheney do business with people that he does not want to be seen with?
This old pro, this experienced "Washington Insider", must know how much he can get away with if no one is looking, and since the Justice Department is in the hands of someone like Alberto Gonzales, he must feel that he is safe whatever the transaction and whomever he deals with.
Did Abramoff ever visit Cheney?
Cheney's biodata
is on the WH website. He is an old Washington insider, starting with the Nixon administration in '69. He stayed at the WH when Nixon resigned and became Ford's WH Chief of Staff, later Congressman from Wyoming for 6 terms. He was in the elder Bush Administration as Secretary of Defense and now is Vice Pres. In between the two Bush jobs, from '93 to 2000, he was CEO of Halliburton, Inc., a diversified oil field services company HQ'd in Houston. This is the same Halliburton that is raking in multi-billions in Iraq.
The WH website on Cheney makes no mention of his tenure as Halliburton CEO. You can read these people by what they try to withhold from view. Dick Cheney is Exhibit A of what is wrong with this nation.
Syndicate this content
Sidley Austin, Cheney, and Brad Berenson: How Many Meetings?
By Cheney's own fatal admission, he turned the logs over to the White House, thereby creating an ILLEGAL separate database.
This does not appare to true based on the Bybee Memon prisoner abuse, apparently through FOIA: "Since Freedom of information laws do not apply to the White House, Cheney's office had the logs turned over to the White House every month, thus protecting them under the Presidential Records Act."
The above does not cover the RNC e-mails which the WHite House has illegally sent in violation of the records act; and does not show all the e-mails Cheney used to coordinate the transfer of records from VP to EOP.
"Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the establishment of separate archival depositories for such Vice-Presidential records."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/44/usc_sec_44_00002207----000-.html
Either Cheney hasn't kept the records as required; or he's created a separate databased, outside the statute; or he's illegally interfered with the Archivist who, alone, has the power to decide, not Cheney, whether the record is in the public interest.
That Cheney's hidden the record doesn't mean it doesn't have a "public interest," only that he's fooled himself to believe that something that is public can be "non public" using methods which violate the statute. That doesn't add up. It's illegal. Consider the EOP and White House counsel who is spewing out this non-sense: This is illegal activity, and DC Bar Rules 1.6 should require a noisy withdrawal. What is the WH Counsel's explanation; and where is Sidley Austin in it's discussion of these record retention requirements?
Sidley Austin says its an expert on document retention: Records Retention Plans and VP Meetings
A. What guidance did Brad Berenson give to EOP, WH Counsel, DoJ OLC, and Addington on these legal issues;
B. How did Berenson send his e-mails through the RNC e-mail system to coordinate on this approach to data retention;
C. Records retention legal requirements is something Sidley knows about. Personnel with Sidley have commented publicly on WH Administrative procedures, suggesting they know what was going on, and how the IT office operations. yet, the RNC e-mails went missing. Where was Sidley's review of the WH Admin area; was there one done; If there "goal" of VP was to hide this data in WH records, why isn't Sidley Austin advising counsel that the Hatch Act applies; or is there something Sidley doesn't want the public to know after the Supreme Court denied it cert?
Berenson and the RNC E-mails: Who was visiting the VP Office to Discuss this, when?
D. Berenson publicly commented to Waxman on the RNC e-mails. How does Berenson "know" about Ralston's e-mails in re RNC e-mail system: Did Berenson review at Sidley Austin copies of these RNC e-mails; and which of these e-mails Berenson reviewed while at Sidley Austin or in the WH 2001-2003 as counsel included VP Cheney/Addington or other EOP/DoJ OLC or VP Cheney legal counsel memoranda sent through RNC e-mail systems?
Alleged Transfer of Illegally Captured Data To support Other illegal Activity [Alleged Illegal Use of Data outside Intended, Lawful Use]
E. Berenson apparently knows alot about the NSA, FISA, and AT&T: He's lead counsel. How many of the visitor logs to the VP Office show which contractors, legal counsel, and other former WH Personnel have been working on issues of FISA, rendition, illegal warfare, prisoner abuse, and other legal memoranda which the VP knew or should have known violated Geneva; did Berenson read the e-mails related to this activity on the RNC e-mail system or did he get messages through Kyle Sampson despite Comey saying the activity wasn't lawful, mandating a noisy WH Counsel withdrawal per DC Bar Rule 1.6?
Rule 10b-5 and Alleged False Statements, Fraud On Market
F. The Securities Adt of 1933/34 have a rule 10b-5 which prohibits unlawful statements in re PSLRA and the Litigation Act. Sidley Austin provided a financial review of Boeing for various securities matters. In light of the resignations in the White House, illegal rendition, transfer of prisoners from Eastern Europe, what review of the VP logs would shed light into Sidley Austin's apparent knowledge that Boeing was involved with illegal activity, but counsel with Sidley did not, apparently, withdraw from representation of Boeing per DC Disciplinary Rule 1.6? Does Sidley Austin have a comment about possible 10b-5 violations; or is this protected by an undisclosed agreement of "immunity" which, in the words of Judge Vaughn, nobody could reasonably rely on in that the original surveillance was not legal?
G. Fraud indicators include resignations of key personnel. Bartlet and many others in DoJ and WH have resigned. How was audit scope increased per Statement on Accounting Standard 99 and Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards [GAGA] once resignations occurred in the WH Counsel's office; what will the VP entry-access logs show related to Berenson's discussion with the VP legal counsel on these personnel transfers after Bartlett's departure and other resignations; has audit scope increased in OMB after Berenson and others resigned/left/departed; or were there no noisy withdrawals as required under DC Atty Disciplinary Rule 1.6?
Outsourcing of Alleged Illegal Activity, War Crimes: Should Veterans-Turned-Contractors Be Prosecuted under UCMJ For War Crimes?
H. What kind of review of the VP entry-exit logs would shed light into Abraxas, SAIC, Lockheed Martin, and AT&T discussion on illegal activity, prisoner abuse, FISA violations, illegal NSLs, or AT&T illegal surveillance; and the use of that data as transferred through NSA intermediaries for use by the GOP to engage in media messaging to create GOP spin, unlawful interrogations of prisoners, and domestic propaganda in violation of the Smith Act?
Berenson and DOJ OLC
I. Berenson has publicly commented on his reliance as WH Counsel on DoJ OLC. Yet, DoJ wants us to believe it was DoJ relying on the WH. Very confusing. How many of the e-mails and RNC contacts related to the VP entry exit log could be compared against the worries in the wake of Comey's revelations on illegal NSA surveillance and unlawful DoJ counsel activity: Does Berenson have a comment how DoJ OLC commented on the issue, or is he no longer talking to Viet Dinh and Wendy J. Keefer formerly with DoJ?
Sidley Austin, Boeing, and Rendition
J. Berenson is also known for making statements about rendition. Yet, one day he says he can talk about it; another day he says, "Can neither confirm nor deny" something, but then goes on to talk about it. It appears the WH and VP office did coordinate on a meeting and set policy in re comments on rendition; which Berenson appears to have been part of. When did Berenson and other outside counsel meet to get the new guidance on the comments related to Rendition; how did Berenon incorporate this new guidance into his changes to "can neither confirm or deny"?
K. Could VP e-mails and entry exit logs be something that would shed light on which ppt presentation Berenson reviewed; and whether reasonable counsel was or was not reckless in enforcing Geneva in re prisoner abuse after reviewing the reports of Spike Bowman? Would the VP entry-exit logs shed some light on issues which could not be sent through the RNC e-mails; but required legal counsel involvement, despite their alleged illegality; would the VP entry-exit logs show who at Sidley Austin appeared to discuss alleged illegal activity; and ask why they did not withdraw from working with the WH on various legal issues involving the WH Public affairs, legal counsel, and political office?
Private Counsel Allegedly Used To Issue Civil Subpoenas To Stifle Public Discussion
L. No telling how many of the VP entry exit logs contain lists of counsel who should have withdrawn because the purpose of the meeting was to stifle public discussion of illegal VP activity. [See DC Bar Rule 1. 6 ] Would the VP Entry exit logs shed some light on the mad scurrying to transfer prisoners, involve SAIC in the planning, and then encourage NSA contractors to monitor those who dared to raise legal questions; and how was the VP entry-exit log correlated with various private legal counsel efforts to issue subpoenas to silence public discussion of the illegal activity, FISA violations, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and violations of the laws of war: Which contractors besides Boeing were alleged to be involved; or are the NSA contractors hoping to hide this evidence in the "non-disclosure agreements" which are part of the illegal NSLs used to get public discussion of the link between the President, VP, and others with illegal activity?