« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Wouldn't you know it. Where there's a corruption investigation, there's also the Solomonic wisdom of Dick Cheney. And so it went with the William Jefferson affair, according to part three of Bart Gellman and Jo Becker's Cheney series. Had Cheney not changed his mind on the FBI's power to seize Jefferson's files, the top tier of Justice Department and FBI officials would have quit.
In May 2006, the FBI executed a warrant on Jefferson's House office, seizing numerous documents relevant to its bribery investigation. House Republicans -- and, let's not forget, now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- demanded the FBI relinquish what they'd taken from Jefferson, fearing the precedent the raid would set for other members of Congress and elevating the dispute to a separation of powers issue.
According to Gellman and Becker, Cheney sided with Congress, one of the few times that he's done so since joining the executive ... er, since becoming vice president. And, as the series has demonstrated, Cheney more often than not gets his way with the administration. This time, however, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, his deputy Paul McNulty, and FBI Director Robert Mueller all threatened to resign if forced to return Jefferson's files.
Here's what happened next:
White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten called a meeting on May 25, 2006, to resolve the political and legal crisis. The president's lawyers and congressional liaison were in the room, and so was Cheney. Once again, it was the vice president who came up with a solution, according to a participant. Cheney's plan met his goal of keeping the files from federal investigators. The files would be placed under seal for 45 days. Within hours of the meeting, Bush made Cheney's recommendation official.
The irresistible question: has Cheney inserted himself in the investigation of any other high-profile corruption scandals?
Okay, so whomever the Republicans chose as their presidential candidate, our airwaves should be inundated with commercial images including pictures of Cheney, Bush, and candidate X...with one question, "Do you want four to eight more years of these Bush/Cheney policies?"
Then listing those policies (endless wars, corporate fascism, rich getting richer, poor and middle class getting poorer, so called "free trade" policies gutting the middle class and poor, political cronyism with pictures of Katrina, Enron, and Halliburton...If so, vote for candidate X."
The Dems need to grow a pair and we need some real leadership from this party, instead of the Reid/Lieberman brand of Republican-lite politics that doesn't distinguish the Dems from the Reeps.
June 26, 2007 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so whomever the Republicans chose as their presidential candidate, our airwaves should be inundated with commercial images including pictures of Cheney, Bush, and candidate X...with one question, "Do you want four to eight more years of these Bush/Cheney policies?"
Then listing those policies (endless wars, corporate fascism, rich getting richer, poor and middle class getting poorer, so called "free trade" policies gutting the middle class and poor, political cronyism with pictures of Katrina, Enron, and Halliburton...If so, vote for candidate X."
The Dems need to grow a pair and we need some real leadership from this party, instead of the Reid/Lieberman brand of Republican-lite politics that doesn't distinguish the Dems from the Reeps.
June 26, 2007 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Today in WaPo, Sally Quinn lays out "A GOP Plan To Oust Cheney."
Is this laying the ground for a plausible challenger to the Democratic nominee in '08?
June 26, 2007 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone has to decide for the decider.
Even more interesting in the WAPO story is how Cheney got capital gains into the 2001 tax cut package. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neal was against including them, and the version Bush sent to Congress didn’t have them. Cheney then organized House Republicans to stick them back in, and in essence did an end around on his own administration. O'Neal was soon shown the door.
Moral, if the decider decides wrong, Cheney is the undecided.
June 26, 2007 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The photograph is the first time I have ever seen Cheney's upper teeth. With the rictus grin he looks even scarier.
June 26, 2007 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, with all this Cheney bashing going around, I'm surprised that Limbaugh hasn't had a surprise visit from Cheney to explain that the constitution has been misinterpreted for the last 200 years. I'm sure Limbaugh and Cheney can set us right.
June 26, 2007 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to the USSA: The Union of Soviet States of America.
June 26, 2007 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have I been banned?
June 26, 2007 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The irresistible question: has Cheney inserted himself in the investigation of any other high-profile corruption scandals?"
...which cliche works best to answer this one...
...is the Pope Catholic? (...and the Supreme Court?)
On another related note, considering the SCOTUS' latest pernicious faith-based enabling, maybe we need a new Constitutional clause concerning "the Separation of Cult and State."
June 26, 2007 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The congressional liaison AND Cheney were at the meeting? Can't Cheney liaison for Congress all by himself? Or is he only the liaison for his own branch?
June 26, 2007 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember DOJ and FBI officials were also threatening to quit in 2004, when Cheney opposed them over the warrantless eavesdropping, and seemed to be winning out within the executive branch.
June 26, 2007 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, lysias. It's unusual for the Attorney General or head of the FBI to threaten to resign, more unusual for them to do it together. In this administration, it's been at least twice. That suggests frequent high-level, systemic departures from established legal norms. But then we knew that, didn't we?
June 26, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The stand for the sacrosanct nature of the office of a congressperson is one of the most nonsensical stands taken by the Democratic party leadership. The fact that The Puppeteer gave it his backing should be a red flag.
Hell.
If we readers have had more than a clue about the depths of Cheney's divorcement from reality - with only those mountains of suggestion to go by - how about these movers and shakers in the beltway? What ails them?
June 26, 2007 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Self interest at work here. Cheney knew that if the FBI started snooping around in congressional offices, Repubs--not Dems--would apy a mighty felonious price.
June 26, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Cheney is just positioning his impeachment case so he can maintain the stance that he is not a member of the Executive branch as covered under Article II and subsequent Amendments? I encourage him strongly to leave the Executive Branch and the rest of the government as soon as possible. Heck, he might as well take a trip to the Hague while he's at it!
June 26, 2007 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that, as part of Cheney's claim that he is not part of the executive branch, although he enjoys the benefit of executive privilege, Cheney would also claim that, because his office has legislative functions, he is part of the legislature and therefore enjoys the benefit of the speech and debate clause.
This seems to be a gambit to make sure the speech and debate clause afforded him protection from scrutiny.
No?
June 26, 2007 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if Cheney were gone from office, his fingers would still be in all the Bush Administration pies.
June 26, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two reasons the GOPers want Cheney gone-zales: 1) he would still run things from his undisclosed location in his mind; 2) they could appoint Freddy as VP see Amendment 25, the only one the Reps want now after 2) and give him a leg up as Pres-08. The only solution is to impeach both Doofus and Darth at the same time, so we get Madame President Pelosi.
June 26, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
There may be a fly in the ointment of Ms Quinn's solution -- in order for an appointed VP to actually become VP he has to be approved by both houses of Congress. I can think of lots of reasons that might be difficult.
There would be hearings -- back when they confirmed Rockefeller to serve with Ford, the committees treated us to a full discovery of the financial condition of Nelson Rockefeller. I found particularly illuminating his art collection, his relationships with various musuem boards, tax treatment of donations, It was just a window into a part of the culture most of us never consider. I can't imagine Fred being given less of a going over.
I believe the rules call for a simple majority vote, which would mean if nearly all the Democrats in the house voted no -- he would not be approved.
Likewise, what interest would say Brownback, McCain, and in the House, Duncan Hunter or Ron Paul have in voting an opponent into the VP slot? Afterall, they are in the midst of a campaign. Why would they back out and give Fred a leg up on the nomination?
But the real problem that Republicans should consider is the health of their party. They need a good contested primary season more than ever -- as the Brits put it, they need to go to the country and see where the party is right now. They've got a President down in the 20's -- and they want him, the dismissed leader -- to select the party nominee for the future? Quinn needs to examine some basic assumptions.
June 27, 2007 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
There may be a fly in the ointment of Ms Quinn's solution -- in order for an appointed VP to actually become VP he has to be approved by both houses of Congress. I can think of lots of reasons that might be difficult.
There would be hearings -- back when they confirmed Rockefeller to serve with Ford, the committees treated us to a full discovery of the financial condition of Nelson Rockefeller. I found particularly illuminating his art collection, his relationships with various musuem boards, tax treatment of donations, It was just a window into a part of the culture most of us never consider. I can't imagine Fred being given less of a going over.
I believe the rules call for a simple majority vote, which would mean if nearly all the Democrats in the house voted no -- he would not be approved.
Likewise, what interest would say Brownback, McCain, and in the House, Duncan Hunter or Ron Paul have in voting an opponent into the VP slot? Afterall, they are in the midst of a campaign. Why would they back out and give Fred a leg up on the nomination?
But the real problem that Republicans should consider is the health of their party. They need a good contested primary season more than ever -- as the Brits put it, they need to go to the country and see where the party is right now. They've got a President down in the 20's -- and they want him, the dismissed leader -- to select the party nominee for the future? Quinn needs to examine some basic assumptions.
June 27, 2007 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
There may be a fly in the ointment of Ms Quinn's solution -- in order for an appointed VP to actually become VP he has to be approved by both houses of Congress. I can think of lots of reasons that might be difficult.
There would be hearings -- back when they confirmed Rockefeller to serve with Ford, the committees treated us to a full discovery of the financial condition of Nelson Rockefeller. I found particularly illuminating his art collection, his relationships with various musuem boards, tax treatment of donations, It was just a window into a part of the culture most of us never consider. I can't imagine Fred being given less of a going over.
I believe the rules call for a simple majority vote, which would mean if nearly all the Democrats in the house voted no -- he would not be approved.
Likewise, what interest would say Brownback, McCain, and in the House, Duncan Hunter or Ron Paul have in voting an opponent into the VP slot? Afterall, they are in the midst of a campaign. Why would they back out and give Fred a leg up on the nomination?
But the real problem that Republicans should consider is the health of their party. They need a good contested primary season more than ever -- as the Brits put it, they need to go to the country and see where the party is right now. They've got a President down in the 20's -- and they want him, the dismissed leader -- to select the party nominee for the future? Quinn needs to examine some basic assumptions.
June 27, 2007 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's about time there were more references to who's current presidency this really is & always has been the 'Cheney presidency.'
Isn't it great to see how much Dick II learned back when he was an intern from Dick I - aka Nixon. What a seed that was planted a few decades ago.
June 28, 2007 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink