Torture was authorized by the Office of Legal Counsel (John Yoo) at the Department of Justice.

David Addington was involved in discussions that led up to these memos. But we know that Addington is a master "parser" - and argues teeny tiny technicalities that then underpin huge policies.

Case in point - the Vice President is not an "office' or "agency" of the Executive Branch. In other words, a fourth branch. Why relevant?

Well, consider how OLC chooses to define what its office does:

Office of Legal Counsel

The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel assists the Attorney General in his function as legal advisor to the President and all the executive branch agencies. The Office drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and also provides its own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the executive branch, and offices within the Department. Such requests typically deal with legal issues of particular complexity and importance or about which two or more agencies are in disagreement. The Office also is responsible for providing legal advice to the executive branch on all constitutional questions and reviewing pending legislation for constitutionality.

All Executive orders and proclamations proposed to be issued by the President are reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel for form and legality, as are various other matters that require the President's formal approval.

In addition to serving as, in effect, outside counsel for the other agencies of the executive branch, the Office of Legal Counsel also functions as general counsel for the Department itself. It reviews all proposed orders of the Attorney General and all regulations requiring the Attorney General's approval. It also performs a variety of special assignments referred by the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General.

The Office of Legal Counsel is not authorized to give legal advice to private persons.

So, let's keep in mind that the OVP-Office of the Vice President (under Cheney/Addngton's definition) is NOT an "agency" nor "office" of the Executive Branch.

This means (using OLC's definition of its functions above and Cheney's definition of his office) that OLC does not provide written opinions nor oral advice to OVP, beacause OVP is not an Agency. This means that OLC does not function as a legal advisor to OVP because OVP is not an Agency.

The only link that may exist between OLC and OVP might be the "consitutional advice" clause because that is directed to the Exececutive Branch (and I don't think that Cheney so far has refuted being part of the Exec Branch, at least sometime).

So, long story short, OLC is not OVP's legal advisor... OLC is not writing opinion memos for OVP... SO WHO IS?

I think Addington is somehow caught up in this technicality.

We're long past constitutional remedies.

We're slipping into a revolutionary window of opportunity again.

...don't count your witnesses before they testify?

I Predict: He shows up, okay; then he refuses to answer any questions, in effect sticking a shite-encrusted thumb in the Committee's eye, laughing right in their faces...

The Mouthpiece of Satan deigns to speak before the Congress? Oh, how he has lowered himself. That he would sit before such useless mortals is incredible...

I guess we begin bombing Iran the afternoon of May 6.

ITMFA

.

It could be fascinating to watch him on the Hill - or an exercise in hair-pulling frustration.

Either way, he wouldn't utter one word that's helpful in understanding anything.

Why is it that the Bush administration blusters in public with sweeping, grandiose yet nebulous statements that seem to mean one thing, yet when pressed to defend their actions which are typically diametrically opposed to what they seemed to say they defend themselves with the most arcane, nuanced, hair-splitting justifications -- and get away with it???

The justifications used just boggle the mind. That this administration defends itself using the narrowest of legal technicalities is beyond belief. When will someone who will be listened to call BULLSHIT?
This is all common sense. It's really simple.

Where's Harry Truman when we need him?

I'll believe he'll show up only when I see him sitting there. And if he actually does show up, what can you expect? Another Alberto Gonzales type testimony where he says a lot but says nothing?

On another note he may be coming because he thinks he can make asses out of Conyers and the rest.

By the way, is he setting a precedent by appearing?

He must be so arrogant as to think he can spin his way out of anything. He might leave a very sad boy.

Um, to quote part of your quote...

In addition to serving as, in effect, outside counsel for the other agencies of the executive branch, the Office of Legal Counsel also functions as general counsel for the Department itself.

So, yes, they are an agency of the exectuive branch.

I think he'll show up, and do a more courtly version of Alberto's appearances—using a higher plane of lawyerly bullshit along with massive doses of executive privilege.

I'm a Democrat, and am confident that this exercise will prove fruitless. I'm also sure the Committee's Democrats know it as well.

This evening, I was training my dogs with treats.

Part of the key is to keep them curious as to whether I'm going to give them a treat, and if so, then when.

Once they KNOW they WILL get a treat, then my leverage over them is gone.

I'm not sure what else I would do at this point, but David Addington is treating congress like I treat my dog. "I might give you something I know you want . . . . if you can do something for me. "

And Dick Cheney is loving it.

God, if these people don't rot in jail for what they are doing, then justice has been cheated.