« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Waxman to Gonzales: So, Is the Veep in the Exec. Branch?
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) continues his full-court press on Dick Cheney's claims to be exempt from oversight on how his office handles classified information. In a just-released letter (pdf) to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Waxman -- joined by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) -- asks after the status of a DOJ review requested by the head of the Archives' Information Security Oversight Office in January to settle the matter of whether the vice presidency resides in the executive branch:
Due to conflicting statements from your department, the status of your review in this matter is unclear. More than six months have passed since (ISOO Director J. William) Leonard's letter to you, and the Information Security Oversight Office has received no response to its inquiry. ... Last week, however, a spokesperson in the Department of Justice stated that this matter is under review in the department.
The letter goes on to request information sure to make Gonzales's life so much easier: who's involved with the review, what work they've accomplished, what (if any) communications they've had with the White House or OVP on the question, whether DOJ has taken any position on which branch of government -- if any! -- the VP belongs to, and more. Closest to the bone, however, is this question:
When you were serving as White House Counsel, were you or anyone in your office involved with the drafting, assessing or otherwise reviewing proposed revisions to the Executive Order in 2003?
The day just gets worse for Gonzales. If he was involved in the 2003 revision to EO 12958 (which became EO 13292), then he'd be able to speak to the question of whether the order always intended for the veep to be exempt -- which would further raise the question of whether Gonzales accepted David Addington's theory that the vice presidency is outside the executive branch. After all, the White House's fallback line in the controversy has been that president never "intended" for EO 13292 to apply to Cheney, thereby begging the question of what legal ground that contention is based upon. As White House counsel when President Bush revised the EO, Gonzales or a deputy must have looked at it; if no one from the counsel's office did, that itself is scandalous.
Comments (33)
lysias wrote on June 27, 2007 5:31 PM:I doubt if the lawyers involved in the actual drafting of the executive order told Gonzales much about what their intent was.
Anonymous wrote on June 27, 2007 5:40 PM:I've heard quite a bit of nonsense that EO's "don't apply to OVP in post 9-11 world."
Small prlblem: Here's an EO that makes it clear that the OVP, VP, and staff in the OVP are part of the Executive Branch.
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***.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13228.htm
The picking and choosing is no different than Addington's reckless writing in the Iran-Contra Minority Report. It's a piece of trash, as are these legal "opinions" from OVP, WH Counsel, and this DOJ.
Where is the DC Bar Disciplinary Board?
Enblischlehrer wrote on June 27, 2007 5:42 PM:Seriously, can you believe that Gonzales is still the head of the DoJ?
mo2 wrote on June 27, 2007 5:46 PM:I do not think DOJ wrote it. I think Addington did something similar to this:
"All captured fighters in Afghanistan, he said at a news briefing, are "unlawful combatants" who "do not have any rights" under Geneva. ... The true author has long been a subject of speculation, for reasons including its unorthodox format and a subtly mocking tone that is not a Gonzales hallmark.
A White House lawyer with direct knowledge said Cheney's lawyer, Addington, wrote the memo. Flanigan passed it to Gonzales, and Gonzales sent it as "my judgment" to Bush. If Bush consulted Cheney after that, the vice president became a sounding board for advice he originated himself."
-From "The Absolute Power of Vice President Cheney" by Gellman and Becker
vox clamantis in red state wrote on June 27, 2007 5:47 PM:Lots of legal questions raised,
vox clamantis in red state wrote on June 27, 2007 5:48 PM:But the AG stays unfazed
While the VP gives us all the finger
Cares not a whit on what nice points the pols and lawyers linger
on.
It grows 'like a stinking mold, the certainty that
This administration must be razed and cast physically
Into Infamy. Or collared in stocks on the Courthouse Lawn.
Lots of legal questions raised,
George Hayduke wrote on June 27, 2007 6:03 PM:But the AG stays unfazed
While the VP gives us all the finger
Cares not a whit on what nice points the pols and lawyers linger
on.
It grows 'like a stinking mold, the certainty that
This administration must be razed and cast physically
Into Infamy. Or collared in stocks on the Courthouse Lawn.
These people are traitors and should be held and tried as such. When will the Dems get with it and move forward?
parrot wrote on June 27, 2007 6:17 PM:With the following in the breeze--"...or just out on a limb."
Jim H. wrote on June 27, 2007 6:26 PM:One thing everyone seems to be overlooking: The claim that it was always the President's intention that the OVP and the Pres. be exempt from the E.O. is entirely specious. For there to have been that intention, it would need to have been explicitly spelled out in writing at the time. In law, one can't just go back and say: "Oh, I meant to ..." and let that stand as evidence of intention. Super-secret intentions have no legal standing, especially where the words are precise and clear. Moreover, intentions only matter where there is any vagueness or doubt as to meaning. There is not one scintilla of evidence that the President had that intention at the time the E.O. was amended. Not one. Moreover, the language of the E.O. is very clear. There is simply no call to resort to "intention" to resolve any ambiguities. For him to claim now that that was his intention sounds more like ex post facto excuse-making to back up what is now looking more and more like an absurd and arrogant power grabbing mistake by the VP in his obsession with secrecy and the control of intelligence.
Anonymous wrote on June 27, 2007 6:39 PM:Like the military courts martial these thugs so much admire:
Listen to all the evidence.
johnnydoughey wrote on June 27, 2007 7:06 PM:Give 'em a fair trial.
Then hang 'em.
Sirs:
Your inquiry is very important to us.
In replying to your question;
The gentleman in charge of answering to Congress is usually too busy doing his primary job to answer questions. We are now having his aide, the assistant janitor, help with his replies. Thank you for your patience
Sincerely,
DW wrote on June 27, 2007 7:22 PM:William Smith, Director
Janitorial Department
Department of Justice
I have a mental picture of Gonzales with his hands over his ears going 'LALALALLALALAIIIIIIICAN'THEARYOUUUU!!!'
Stephen wrote on June 27, 2007 7:37 PM:So, if I'm reading EO 13292 correctly, Gonzales is in violation because he hasn't rendered an opinion. Surprised this isn't mentioned in the letter.
Sec. 6.2(b)The Attorney General, upon request by the head of an agency or the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, shall render an interpretation of this order with respect to any question arising in the course of its administration.
Also, the original EO 12958 defines agencies subject to the requirements as "any 'Executive agency,' as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105, and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information."
Seems to include VP.
Jeff wrote on June 27, 2007 7:58 PM:How about a petition for a writ of mandamus to cause Cheney to comply with EO 12958 and EO 13292?
Will wrote on June 27, 2007 8:03 PM:So what? Won't he just lie and say, "Yep, that's what we intended since the beginning. Yes siree."
JusticeForall wrote on June 27, 2007 8:03 PM:they act as if being in the Executive offices means they have no duty to the American people to follow the laws! Their arrogance is beyond belief. How dare they act as if they are not duty bound to oversight. How dare they create a criminal program to spy on us! Not one of them has the decency to take responsibility for their actions ( or lack of actions) in any of the oversight hearings!
spiny wrote on June 27, 2007 8:27 PM:They should ALL be removed, each day they are still in the WH damages us more.
Congress needs to ACT.
What part of "I just can't recall if I did or did not attended that meeting/saw that memo/review that executive order" do you not get?
The Oracle wrote on June 27, 2007 9:04 PM:If Bush and Cheney's offices were exempt from the ISOO doing their national security job, then Bush's executive order would have stated this exemption...explicitly.
Bush's executive order doesn't state this, though, so we are now faced with Gonzales and other corrupt Republican attorneys trying to pull a stunt with Bush's executive order like the stunts they've already pulled with the Geneva Conventions and even our Constitution, in an obvious attempt to hide their criminal activity.
And Gonzales has the audacity to remain as attorney general, claiming that he wants more time to go after the "criminals," who I really doubt pose a national security threat graver than that posed by Alberto Gonzales himself.
Look in the mirror, Alberto. Now go lock yourself up, for the safety of our nation and our nation's children.
GWPRIESTER wrote on June 27, 2007 9:14 PM:This is a nightmare.
These people are evil and arrogant and truly believe the law does not apply to them.
And unless someone brings the law to bear on this house of crooks, it apparently does not apply to them.
Pathetic.
rxbusa wrote on June 27, 2007 9:31 PM:Like Waxman really expects him to remember it?
Anonymous wrote on June 27, 2007 9:54 PM:R.I.P
United States of America
Born: 1776
Died: Jan 2001
TerminatorX wrote on June 27, 2007 11:08 PM:Gonzalez and Cheney are stonewalling Congress. They've been willing to disregard the law when it suits them, so why should they adhere to Congressional requests for information? The ends justify the means; they neither care whether the law requires them to share info with Congress nor do they think that the Dems in Congress have the cojones to go to court to enforce the subpeonas. What are the Dems in Congress prepared to do about it?
JNagarya wrote on June 27, 2007 11:10 PM:These people are traitors and should be held and tried as such. When will the Dems get with it and move forward?
Posted by: George Hayduke
Date: June 27, 2007 6:03 PM
Issuing the subpoenas is moving forward, twit.
matt rose wrote on June 28, 2007 12:41 AM:Considering the direction Mr Waxman is going, it looks like I'm not the only one thinks there was more than 10 or 12 copies of Valerie Plame's dossier floating between the OVP and the "friendly media outlets".
Do a google search on "it was common knowledge around DC that Ambassador Wilson's wife was" and you'll be reminded that it wasn't just bloggers saying that.
And it's not a big stretch to think that the OVP had dossiers on a lot of peopel
matt rose wrote on June 28, 2007 12:42 AM:Considering the direction Mr Waxman is going, it looks like I'm not the only one thinks there was more than 10 or 12 copies of Valerie Plame's dossier floating between the OVP and the "friendly media outlets".
Do a google search on "it was common knowledge around DC that Ambassador Wilson's wife was" and you'll be reminded that it wasn't just bloggers saying that.
And it's not a big stretch to think that the OVP had dossiers on a lot of people who they considered political enemies.
Does the OVP have you on a list?
laugh.
Phoenix Rising wrote on June 28, 2007 12:57 AM:sigh.
Stupid but vital question: The ISOO doesn't operate because Bush wants it to - otherwise it wouldn't exist at all; is there a law that instructs the Executive to conduct the oversight assigned to the ISOO? Would not following the EO violate that law in addition to violating the EO?
Just a question...
chris miller wrote on June 28, 2007 1:13 AM:This is no squeeze. Going after Abu Gonzo at this late date in this lame way... oh come on, didn't he have a Mexican maid or some such? Smoke and mirrors signifying nothing. These jackasses make up so-called laws and change the rules - they are not legitimate - but you will never beat them at their own game of chess. They can put a new king on the board any time they want. What an ass Waxman is, asking what branch Cheny is in.
What can one do? Wait for Shiva; Shiva is in the house.
Duckman GR wrote on June 28, 2007 1:49 AM:Could they make it a real vice and use it until he remembers stuff?
poggy wrote on June 28, 2007 2:50 AM:Most of you are deluded by some presumption that this adminstration cares about the law, justice or anything like that. They are laughing at you and the rest of the country. They KNOW the wimps in congress will just talk, and not do anything.
This is not about who is right or wrong, or what the constitution means, this is about power. And the criminals in the White House know they have it, and they know the wimps in congress don't.
Slippery Slope wrote on June 28, 2007 9:19 AM:And it's not a big stretch to think that the OVP had dossiers on a lot of peopel
Posted by: matt rose
Date: June 28, 2007 12:41 AM
*********************************
Are you saying the our VP would us personal information to discredit or blackmail someone from speaking out or not supporting his position.
Interesting point.
I wonder if there was / is a Mark Folye folder... Or Doolittle, or Dukester, or or or
KilgoreTrout XL wrote on June 28, 2007 9:48 AM:Ok, I'll tell you all how this ends:
They ignore every inquiry, subpoena, and letter they recieve, and they will face absolutely no consequences for it because they will stall until the end of Bush's term.
Sparkatus wrote on June 28, 2007 10:55 AM:If the VP is not in the Executive branch, how would he be entitled to executive privilege? In which case, show us the Energy Task Force info, show us...
bob crawford wrote on June 29, 2007 6:37 AM:Impeach these arrogant bastards now! How dare Nancy Pelosi defame MY Constitution by announcing that her oversight of the Executive Branch is "off the table"? What gives her the right to speak for all of us who are demanding that Congress hold these criminals accountable for their "high crimes (to put it mildly) and misdemeanors". We have an impeachment coming and somebody had better get off their ass and get one rolling! If not for these guys, then for whom and when?