TPMmuckraker | Talking Points Memo

Today's Must Read

By Spencer Ackerman - June 27, 2007, 9:33AM

Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman caught in the Dick Cheney information-security scandal, relies on the fact that she's not a lawyer to deflect questions on Cheney's claims to be outside both the executive and the legislative branches of government. What's David Addington's excuse?

Addington -- who served as Cheney's chief lawyer before becoming his chief of staff after Scooter Libby was indicted -- wrote a letter (pdf) to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) yesterday defending Cheney's asserted exemption from review by the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office. He's got two options: either argue that the Office of the Vice President is outside the scope of the executive order governing review of how executive branch agencies are supposed to handle classified material, or return to the claim that the veep is a unique branch of government and is exempt by default. Addington, somewhat surprisingly, chooses Option One.

The executive order on classified national security information -- Executive Order 12958 as amended in 2003 -- makes it clear that the Vice President is treated like the President and distinguishes the two of them from "agencies." The executive order gives the ISOO, under the supervision of the Archivist of the United States, responsibility to oversee certain activities of "agencies," but not of the Vice President or the President.

As TPMmuckraker highlighted yesterday, that amended order, known as Executive Order 13292, doesn't just deal with "agencies," it also deals with Executive Branch "entities." Former Justice Department lawyer Marty Lederman explains that because both the President's office and the OVP "are 'entities' within the Executive branch, they are 'agencies' covered by the E.O. (see section 6.1(b)) under a plain reading of the E.O."

This "plain reading" is the most likely explanation for why Addington concocted the theory that Cheney's office is a fourth branch of government -- after all, the only way not to be an "entity" within the executive branch, thereby avoiding ISOO scrutiny, is to be, well, outside the executive branch. That theory (pdf) is what prompted Kerry's letter in the first place, and a lawyer as confident of his reasoning as Addington is might be expected to stand his ground. Alas, no:

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

When a bit of constitutional "alternative reasoning" is too much for even David Addington to defend, chances are others won't exactly "reach the same conclusion."

Comments (85)

anon, too wrote on June 27, 2007 9:57 AM:

So who's the author who drafted the executive order at issue? You can bet your boots that it wasn't Mr. Bush. Was the sloppy use of language - "entities" v. "agencies" - on purpose to create the argument that Addington is putting out now?

Frequently, things are drafted in such a way as to allow for this kind of wiggle room.

workaday joe wrote on June 27, 2007 10:04 AM:

"Constitutional issues in government are best left for discussion when unavoidable disputes arise in a specific context instead of in theoretical discussions."

In other words, "Tell us what you want to do and we'll come up with a reason why you can't do it."

coltergeist wrote on June 27, 2007 10:07 AM:

Letters are worthless. Talk is cheap. Prison bars are the only thing that works.

jeffgee wrote on June 27, 2007 10:08 AM:

The author will be spending more time with his family.

Gordon wrote on June 27, 2007 10:09 AM:

It's not sloppy. The order is pretty clear. Mr. Addington got caught mooning Kerry (the 4th branch malarky) and had to pull his pants back up in a hurry. This is just bluff.

JackSpicerIsland wrote on June 27, 2007 10:12 AM:

Addington, you ol' West Point drop-out! At last, THIS is where the fun really begins. The forces are finally converging (thank you, Washington Post and many others) and it's not the befuddled McNulty or the clueless Gonzales BUT the real hearts of arrogance, the real 'intellectual' bastions of this adminstration who are coming to the end of the line, running out of excuses, being seen in the light for what they are. These are the folks who chuckled and clinked sherry glasses when Harriet Miers' nomination was derailed. Addington won't go the way of Scooter, alas, but he will go the way of Rummy...another 'tough guy' exposed and disavowed. Small solace, given the damage he's done, but at this point I'll take it.

JackSpicerIsland wrote on June 27, 2007 10:14 AM:

TheraP wrote on June 27, 2007 10:18 AM:

Addington?

Subtractington!

biggerbox wrote on June 27, 2007 10:18 AM:

Actually, the wording is crafted to prevent the kind of wiggling Addington is attempting. His claim is absurd, and depends on the listener not having read the relevant passages, which clearly include more than just "agencies" in the rule. The fact that the VP is not an "agency" is irrelevant. There's no honest reading of the order that doesn't cover the VP.

Puctuation and Semantics wrote on June 27, 2007 10:22 AM:

I was SO right to not become an attorney. I couldn't play the tricks these guys do. How about a few honest attorneys taking them to task? Are there any self-respecting conscientious attorneys left?

Frank wrote on June 27, 2007 10:23 AM:

Addington's name will have a special place on the list of "enablers" of an criminal administration by the world courts. Torturous reasoning on torture, our constitution ("it's only a god damned piece of paper" Bush's words), and on the articles in the Geneva convention ,is his specialty.

His reasonings lie in state as it leaves his mouth, competing with the many dead his "enabling" has made extant. Lots of blood on his hands.

Robert wrote on June 27, 2007 10:29 AM:

I'll make a prediction that in 2+ years when some of these Bush/Cheney staffers start writing "tell all" books (to pay for their defense attorney fees) they'll tell us things that will make our skin crawl.

Anonymous wrote on June 27, 2007 10:29 AM:

So instead of talking about what Cheney's covering up, everyone's talking about the red herring. It worked to perfection.

owenz wrote on June 27, 2007 10:33 AM:

Can Henry Waxman please start holding hearings on the Office of the Vice President? Put these idiots under oath. Stop letting them make up silly legal arguments like: "Constitutional issues in government are best left for discussion when unavoidable disputes arise in a specific context instead of in theoretical discussions."

Addington is basically saying: I am going to make up whatever constitutional interpretation I like, and do whatever I want, and I'm not even going to even bother justifying it until there's a confrontation.

So give him his confrontation already. Dems clearly don't have the balls to impeach, but at least hold hearings. At least it's a quasi-legal proceeding that gives rise to "an unavoidable dispute...in a specific context."

Anonymous wrote on June 27, 2007 10:35 AM:

Let's try another tack. Look at the US Code -- Title 3, Chapter 2, subsection 106 entitled "Assistance and Services for the Vice President."

Quoteth ... "
(2) the official entertainment expenses of the Vice President; and
(3) the subsistence expenses of persons in the Government service while traveling on official business in connection with the travel of the Vice President.

Sums appropriated under this subsection for expenses described in paragraphs (2) and (3) may be expended as the Vice President may determine, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law. Such sums shall be accounted for solely on the certificate of the Vice President, except that, with respect to such expenses, ***the Comptroller General may inspect all necessary books, documents, papers, and records relating to any such expenditures solely for the purpose of verifying that all such expenditures related to expenses in paragraph (2) or (3)***. The Comptroller General shall certify to Congress the fact of such verification, and shall report any such expenses not expended for such purpose.

End Quoteth..."

Yet the Vice President has claimed exemption from reporting this information, stating "The Office of the Vice President is not an agency of the Executive Branch."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/28/AR2005112801446.htm

David Walker, as head of the GAO is the Comptroller General. He is the one with the legally binding power over the OVP. He needs to go in and get this info.

Also look at Title 3, Chapter 4 sec 301 of the US Code. It states:

Quoteth..."
TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT
CHAPTER 4--DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS

Sec. 301. General authorization to delegate functions;
publication of delegations

**The President of the United States is authorized to designate and empower the head of any department or agency in the executive branch, or any official thereof who is required to be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform without approval, ratification, or other action by the President** (1) any function which is
vested in the President by law, or (2) any function which such officer
is required or authorized by law to perform only with or subject to the
approval, ratification, or other action of the President: Provided, That
nothing contained herein shall relieve the President of his
responsibility in office for the acts of any such head or other official
designated by him to perform such functions. Such designation and
authorization shall be in writing, shall be published in the Federal
Register, shall be subject to such terms, conditions, and limitations as
the President may deem advisable, and shall be revocable at any time by
the President in whole or in part.

End quoteth..."

Note, no mention of the VP. Does this mean the VP is not allowed to be delegated any Presidential functions? It only mentions heads of departments or agencies (which the VP is not) or Senate reviewed officers (which the VP is not).

Legalize wrote on June 27, 2007 10:37 AM:

My list of state Bar Association complaint letters keeps getting longer.

Dorothy wrote on June 27, 2007 10:37 AM:

Speaking of defense attorney fees...are any of our sitting government officials immune to prosecution after they serve their term? (i.e. Loyal Bushies, Bush, Cheney, etc)

TCinLA wrote on June 27, 2007 10:43 AM:

Why do all rightwingers look like dickheads?

Could it be because they are????

owenz wrote on June 27, 2007 10:47 AM:

How about a few honest attorneys taking them to task? Are there any self-respecting conscientious attorneys left?

The Administration's legal arguments are constantly being destroyed by constitutional lawyers of all persuations. Visit Balkinization. Or Glenn Greenwald. Or dozens of other websites on the web. Or just read the judges' opinions in those rare instances where these issues make it to court.

But here's the thing: most of the time, this stuff doesn't make it to court. The Bushies assert their patently false legal arguments and nothing happens. Why? Because in most cases, the ONLY way such arguments get challenged is if Congress challenges them, since standing is very hard to establish against the federal government (meaning: it's hard to get the case into a federal court).

Congress is full of lawyers. Every time I watch Congressional hearings - particularly Senate hearings - I don't see much in the way of crisp questioning or legal arguments, however. I see speeches. It is all about Congress. They either want to step up and challenge this crap or they don't.

Englischlehrer wrote on June 27, 2007 10:50 AM:

I loved telling my Germany students in the American History class about the news segment where it said "Cheney Ueber Alles"...

Gilly wrote on June 27, 2007 10:58 AM:

The potentially analogous FOIA statue "agency" definition might be interesting to consider. It seems to exempt the President and his immediate staff:

http://www.accessreports.com/statutes/commentary/REPORTS.htm

ShorelineCT wrote on June 27, 2007 10:58 AM:

Check out the comments (link below) in the coverage of this story on Rawstory. An "Anonymous" individual has listed PLENTY of specific text examples that just take this letter and the whole issue to task. Sweet!

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheneys_chief_of_staff_rebukes_Kerry_0626.html

JEP wrote on June 27, 2007 11:00 AM:

Curious, isn't it, that this mysterious appearing and disappearing "fourth branch" arrived on the scene about the same time the "Fourth Estate" completely abandoned its once-noble calling?

If not for the blogs and the Josh Marshalls, the Fourth Estate would have become extinct, but it put on pajamas and sat down at the keyboard, using the internet to fill the truth gap that the mainstream media refuses to acknowledge.

WE ARE THE FOURTH ESTATE!

And as long as this new fourth branch of government foments, it will be up to the blogs and the web to tell the truth about it. That fourth branch of government is really nothing other than Corporate America, and since they OWN the mainstream media, they abdicate their noble fourth estate throne, handing it off to the new order of things.

chimpeach wrote on June 27, 2007 11:06 AM:

If we could ever hope for even a sliver of honesty to pass through their lips, could we get someone in the White House to admit that the vice president's reason for refusing to comply is not that he doesn't have to? He's refusing to comply because he doesn't want to. All these half-hearted rationalizations of theirs are just a distraction from the real point: Cheney is keeping things secret that he shouldn't. There are other 'entities' of the federal government who rightfully should have oversight of the executive branch, and they are empowered by the Constitution to exercise it. If Cheney fails to block these entities from gaining access to these secrets, he's in big trouble. That's what it's all about.

It's a legitimate question for the legislative branch to ask: What is Cheney hiding and why? The news media should be asking that question, as well.

Kanga wrote on June 27, 2007 11:06 AM:

"based on the law and history of the legislative functions of the vice presidency, and the more modern executive functions of the vice presidency"

the beauty of that sentence is that it doesn't even try to lump Cheney's habits - approving torture, ignoring congress, etc - in with "the law" or "legislative functions." Instead its all under "modern executive functions" - so that what the kids are calling these days.

za wrote on June 27, 2007 11:09 AM:

Addington merely raised his flag up the flagpole to see if anyone saluted. He got trashed by all the intellectually honest people, and the rest stayed silent. So, he relented.

And is now risking his own legal career, defending the indefensible. Again.

Cheney WILL have to comply. We just don't know what "entity" will force the matter.

HermanNewticks wrote on June 27, 2007 11:17 AM:

This 4th branch stuff isn't new. The OVP has been asserting this claim for a while. I read it, in fact, on one of the TPM media sites, way back in February. Recall, the 4th-branchiness of the OVP was the reason cited for not including any data in the Plum Book.

There IS a novel, but flawed constitutional argument to be made here, and they've flirted with it for a while now. But it should never have been trotted out as a justification for flouting the E.O. It should have died a quiet death on the back of one of Mr. Addington's scratch pads. But then again, this administration seems to be the place where vacuous arguments go to thrive...

Dennis wrote on June 27, 2007 11:24 AM:

I would like to agree with Robert, but, when it all comes down to the wire, NOTHING is going to happen to these people. BOTH democrats and republicans alike will trumpet that it will take too much of the government's time to prosecute any of them plus the costs.

Let's admit it folks, we have a government that is so corrupt that if one tried to make it straight, it would fall apart.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Kimico Myers wrote on June 27, 2007 11:28 AM:

Why is this even being seriously discussed? Of course the office of the VP is a part of the executive branch. Instead of being sucked into this "debate" we should instead focus on why Cheney doesn't want oversight of his office and how secret information is being kept. There's something there and this faux debate is simply a smokescreen to buy time.

pj in jesusland wrote on June 27, 2007 11:29 AM:

Maybe Cheney "outsourced" the management of his classified information to the RNC and to private firms so he can claim office is no longer responsible.

That's the real fourth estate, isn't it? The contractors doing work formerly done by the agencies themselves. Outsourcing is a really gray legal area where all involved parties can point fingers at one another snd avoid the consequences of their bad decisions.

Billy Pilgrim wrote on June 27, 2007 11:32 AM:

JEP

Spot on! The problem is, many folks hungry for accurate news reporting are unaware that resources like the blogs and the Josh Marshalls are available. They consume the garbage spewed out CNN, NPR, Fox News, etc. because those are the only news sources they are aware of.

Once the world of the new FOURTH ESTATE that you speak of is exposed to them, they may well do as I did and toss their boob tubes out the window and turn to the Brave New World of the web for all their information.

Spread the word -- television is for dummies; blogosphere is where it's at!

Dennis wrote on June 27, 2007 11:37 AM:

Let me politely disagree with Robert @10:29.

NOTHING is going to happen to these people as far as being prosecuted or held responsible for their wrong doings.

BOTH democrats and republicans will be saying that "to do that will take too much of the Congress's time and money."

Let's face it, we have a government that is corrupt to the core, and if anyone tried to get it straight, the government would fall apart.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

bjobotts wrote on June 27, 2007 11:39 AM:

There is no "wiggle" room. There is no legitimate argument. The whole issue makes no sense and neither does Addington. It's just political psycho-babble.
Another very strong reason to impeach Cheney when he asserts, "how dare we question the King about questioning the King". It's just stupid to the point of being laughable.
Just one more incidence of Cheney saying, "Go f*#k yourself".
In the words of Boener, "When are we gonna stand up to 'em? When are we gonna' stand up and take 'em on?" (pass the Jim Beam)

Crust wrote on June 27, 2007 11:41 AM:

Dorothy:

"are any of our sitting government officials immune to prosecution after they serve their term? (i.e. Loyal Bushies, Bush, Cheney, etc)"

In all likelihood: Yes for all or most of them, depending on how sweeping is the blanket pardon Bush issues as he leaves office. If Carter could pardon all the draft dodgers, what's to stop Bush from pardoning his entire administration?

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on June 27, 2007 11:42 AM:

After deciding gw would be the one (and only one) who they could continually fool and that being enough to stick him in the white house this guy assigns himself to pick the vp and picks himself.
Well heck,of course you have to make some adjustments in proceedures after that.
Mainly the "if i do it it's not illeagle" thing has to be in play.

Smiler wrote on June 27, 2007 11:46 AM:

"Why do all rightwingers look like dickheads?"

It is more than that - they look like smug, self-satisfied diskheads.

Muskrat wrote on June 27, 2007 11:47 AM:

I think people have this all wrong. Addington is saying that The VP is not an "entity." Perhaps Cheney is a state of mind. Perhaps he's a mass hallucination - our collective national security Id come to life. Perhaps he's not an entity because he possesses the God-like nature of being omnipotent and omnipresent, and thus not "something that has separate and distinct existence" according to Merriam-Webster. That would clealry fit with his and Addington's view of his authority, not to mention his wisdom.

Stupid? Of course. More stupid than what Addington is peddling? Not possible.

Cowboy wrote on June 27, 2007 11:47 AM:

Great catch Spencer. Addington throws out the bogus "agency" cannard, while neglecting to mention the "entities" aspect of the order--or for that matter the fact that there is no "special exception" explictly stated in the order.

The bottom line is that these jokers claimed that they were neither part of the Executive nor the Legislature (and presumably not the Judiciary), but instead some magical, previously non-existent 4th branch of the government.

Leave Cheney's salary in tact, but cut the funding for the OVP. Better yet, impeach the SOB.

don de drain wrote on June 27, 2007 11:49 AM:

The legal arguments raised by Addington and his co-conspirators remind me of the arguments made by certain large law firms and accounting firms in an effort to justify the tax shelters that were peddled in the late 1990's. The logic used in the opinion letters written by those professionals was often (and in many cases obviously) flawed. Many of the professionals who were writing those opinions are now in trouble. Some were indicted. Some were fined civilly. Some walked, however. That is how it will end up with Addington and his co-conspirators. Some of them will be indicted. Some of them will skate. If Cheney's heart holds out, I think he is going to be in a heap of trouble, even if he gets a pardon from Bush.

psyopswatcher wrote on June 27, 2007 12:08 PM:

These guys put the 'con' in constitution.

He chose Option 1, then if there is no independent order to the OVP staff mirroring what the NS archives demand, then they're screwed... dereliction of duty.

If they do have such an order, how is it authorized? This would be how he's been usurping power. And the trend shown us by Gonzo>Sampson>Goodling continues.

Mike_in_NY wrote on June 27, 2007 12:13 PM:

"Let's face it, we have a government that is corrupt to the core, and if anyone tried to get it straight, the government would fall apart.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it."

Now there's the Quote of the Day...Thanks Dennis, I couldn't agree more.

James wrote on June 27, 2007 12:14 PM:

"and the more modern executive functions of the vice presidency"

Last time I read the Constitution, the OVP had NO executive functions. I don't recall which amendment created them. Anyone?

It must be that 'new and improved' version, which is kept of course, in the 'man-size' Moesler safes....

cevrero wrote on June 27, 2007 12:16 PM:

The Cheney game plan is to stall long enough to get his secret Iran Invasion plans moving or cleaned up so they can't be traced to his manipulation.

He's definitely hiding something. Something he can't hide from is that the majority of America will believe he's a war criminal after more of his secret activities is put in some oversight light.

psyopswatcher wrote on June 27, 2007 12:35 PM:

These guys put the con in constitution.

Even IF the OVP is a separate entity (which it isn't), they are still responsible for issuing the same order to the staff mirroring the EO on ISOO.

This is all too reminiscent of the Gonzo>Sampson/Goodling runaround. Their modus operandi a la shell game.

This tomfoolery is getting to be some kind of gasping death thrall with the sufferer needing to be put out of their misery.

ShorelineCT wrote on June 27, 2007 12:38 PM:

Cheney's Guy
He's barely known outside Washington's corridors of power, but David Addington is the most powerful man you've never heard of. Here's why:
By Chitra Ragavan
Posted 5/21/06

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060529/29addington.htm

page 4
According to critics, the reason Addington is such an effective bureaucratic infighter is that he's an intellectual bully. "David can be less than civilized," one official says. "He can be extremely unpleasant." Others say it's because Addington is a superb lawyer and a skilled debater who arms himself with a mind-numbing command of the facts and the law. Still others attribute Addington's power to the outsize influence of Cheney. "Addington does a very good job," says a former justice official who has observed him, "of harnessing the power of the vice president."

But it's a subtle kind of harnessing. Addington, according to current and former colleagues, rarely if ever invokes Cheney's name. An administration official says that it's sometimes unclear whether Addington is even consulting the vice president. But Cheney is always the elephant in the room. "People perceive that this is the real power center," says attorney Scott Horton, who has written two major studies on interrogation of terrorism suspects for the New York City Bar Association, "and if you cross them, they will destroy you."

"Grab bag." If he can dish out the lumps inside the bureaucracy, Addington has also taken a share of his own--in court. Many of the post-9/11 policies--of which Addington was the central architect--have been questioned by federal judges and repudiated by even some of the administration's advocates, including indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without access to legal recourse, creation of military commissions, and aggressive interrogation tactics. "They've inflicted wounds unnecessarily," says a former Justice Department lawyer. "They treated the post-9/11 situation as a grab bag and gave the administration a bad name."

page 5
Addington's bottom line, those who know him say, is ensuring that even if the administration loses on a policy issue, the principle of executive power is protected. "He was very disciplined about knowing and articulating the difference," says Cunningham, "between constitutional legal issues and policy issues."

That became evident when Addington began his first big legal battle, in early 2001, after Cheney refused to release documents relating to a controversial energy task force that he headed. Two private watchdog groups and Congress sued to find out whether energy industry lobbyists improperly sat on the task force and influenced administration policy. In a series of letters to David Walker, the comptroller general of the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, Addington argued that neither Congress nor the courts could "intrude into the heart of executive deliberations," because it would inhibit the "candor" necessary to "effective government."

page 9 concludes:

As legal scholars continue to examine the government's 9/11 policies, David Addington's singular presence looms larger than ever. What is unclear, at this juncture anyway, is how history will regard him: as a legal path setter who devised innovative means to help a president defeat an unconventional enemy or as a dangerous advocate who, in pushing the envelope legally to help prosecute the war on terrorism, set U.S. foreign policy, and America's image in the world, back by decades. Even his toughest critics in the administration say Addington believes utterly that he is acting in good faith. "He thinks he's on the side of the angels," says a former Justice Department official. "And that's what makes it so scary."

EO 13228 wrote on June 27, 2007 12:50 PM:

Addington is living in a pre-9-11 world. Look at this EO signed after Sept 2001, EO 13228:

"[___ emphasis added__ ]

QUOTE: 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___.
ENDQUOTE
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13228.htm

Key words: "other officers of the executive branch as the President may from time to time designate"

John wrote on June 27, 2007 12:52 PM:

Is it just me, or is Dick Cheney the first person in the history of the whole goddamn universe to appear both abjectly nasty and absolutely ridiculous at the same time?

Anonymous wrote on June 27, 2007 12:53 PM:

Posted by: ShorelineCT
Date: June 27, 2007 10:58 AM

Thanks.

MichaelA.Olson wrote on June 27, 2007 12:56 PM:

"Consitutional issues in government are generally best left for discussion when unavoidable disputes arise in a specific context instead of in theoretical discussions." David S. Addington

Specific illegal, unwise and criminal acts of the Bush Administration should always be left to be disciussed endlessly instead of the perpetrators and their enablers being arrested, prosecuted, imprisioned and/or executed publicly at dawn on the Elipse at the disgression of an impartial politically appointed federal judge whenever he or she gets around to making a decision on it after lunch.

mo2 wrote on June 27, 2007 1:10 PM:

There is no wiggle room. Exact wording of EO:

"and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information."

Anonymous wrote on June 27, 2007 1:18 PM:

Addington stakes his whole case on the VP not being and "agency" of the EO, but the actual EO defines "agency" as including "any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information."

That's clear as day. This guys incompetent, just like the rest.

PART 6--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 6.1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) "Access" means the ability or opportunity to gain knowledge of classified information.

(b) "Agency" means any "Executive agency," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105; any "Military department" as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102; and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.

phil james wrote on June 27, 2007 1:24 PM:

Truth is, Dick Cheney firmly believes that he does not have to explain, justify, or otherwise demonstrate the rational thought or sound legal basis for what he does or does not do. Doesn't matter how twisted or non-existent the logic. Doesn't matter how maddeningly circular, inconsistent, fractured, non-sensical, or just plain silly the responses given when he or his minions are asked to explain. They will not and indeed cannot. He does what he wants to do because it's what he wants to do, period, end of discussion. Why? Because he has the power. He believes he was granted the power to give the middle finger to any and all who would oppose him for any reason in 2 elections so far. The ONLY thing he will bend to is greater power. And so far, the one branch of government that is equal to the task, at least on paper, has been unable to exercise such power. If they ever grow the cajones to do so, its a good bet Dicky boy will take up residence with his real friends in Dubai.

dfong63 wrote on June 27, 2007 1:26 PM:

it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

gtash wrote on June 27, 2007 1:39 PM:

It seems everyone is having a good laugh about this 4th Branch stuff, but it seems to me to be anything but laughing matter. I don't care that Addington tried to bluff others in the legal and journo community. What matters is the information that has been hidden remains hidden and nobody is forcing it into the hands of the proper authorities or the oversight committees immediately. Rahm Emanuel's "the OVP has a choice to make" headline was also wrong. There was no choice and the OVP should be the last party/entity/agency to have been offered it.