From the AP:

Former CIA operative Valerie Plame is trying to resurrect a lawsuit against those in the Bush administration she says illegally disclosed her identity.

A federal judge dismissed Plame's lawsuit last year, saying there was no basis to bring a case. Plame's lawyers asked a federal appeals court Friday to send the case back before the judge and force him to consider its merits....

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case, saying the law requires Plame's complaints be raised under the Privacy Act. Plame's attorneys say that law is insufficient. They asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to send the case back to Bates for reconsideration.

Details about the suit here, which was originally filed way back in July of 2006.

Mark your calendar: June 26th, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff David Addington will testify to the House Judiciary Committee about the administration's interrogation policy. Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) made it official in a subpoena issued to Addington today. Addington has indicated that he will show up, but I'll believe it when I see him in the witness chair.

The next step in the House Judiciary Committee's attempts to hear from the architects of the administration's interrogation policy: the panel just voted to authorize a subpoena for David Addington. Last week, Addington indicated that he might appear to testify if the committee subpoenaed him. It's not clear yet when that hearing might be.

The committee also is seeking to hear from John Yoo, John Ashcroft, Doug Feith, former CIA Director George Tenet, and former lawyer in the Office of Legal Counsel Daniel Levin. The committee continues to negotiate with all of those possible witnesses about appearing in the future, according to a press release yesterday. During the vote just now, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said that "most" of the witnesses the committee wanted to hear from had agreed to appear.

Can it really be true? Will the high priest of executive privilege actually submit to a Congressional subpoena?

When House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) invited a slate of current and former administration officials to testify about the authorization of torture, I was skeptical that he would meet much cooperation. But when it came to David Addington, Dick Cheney's chief of staff and longtime consigliere, the idea seemed downright ludicrous. If Addington has spoken publicly or even given an interview in the last eight years, I'm unaware of it.

But in a letter (pdf) to the committee yesterday, the vice president's counsel Kathryn Wheelbarger signaled a willingness to cooperate. It was, for sure, a long way from the original reply, which I summarized at the time as, "You're asking the wrong person, but even if you were asking the right person, you couldn't make him show up, and even if he did show up, he wouldn't say anything."

Yesterday's letter is a change of tone. Because the committee has signaled that it will limit the range of its inquiries (this is Addington only speaking for himself, he can't speak about communications with the Vice President or President, he has the right to invoke "applicable legal privileges), Addington seems to be leaning towards showing up.

That doesn't mean that the vice president's office has changed their mind about whether he has to show up, mind you. The courts would agree that Addington is "immune from compulsion," Wheelbarger writes. But Addington might show up out of the goodness of his heart, "as a matter of comity," as the letter puts it.

The letter falls short of saying that Addington will definitely show up to Tuesday's hearing, but Wheelbarger does write that "the Chief of Staff to the Vice President is prepared to accept timely service of a Committee subpoena for testimony for a hearing on May 6, 2008." When the Politico asked Cheney's spokeswoman whether this meant that Addington would comply, she said "Since he hasn't been issued a subpoena, it would be a little premature to comment on whether he would comply." He is a coy one, that Addington.

The latest contribution to good government from Vice President Dick Cheney: preventing the implementation of rules to protect the endangered right whale.

This comes from a letter House sleuth Henry Waxman (D-CA) sent to the White House today, requesting that the administration quit delaying the rules, which would restrict the speed of ships near American ports. Faster moving ships hit the whales, causing injury or death, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration say.

But not so, says Cheney's office and other White House officials, who have delayed approving the NOAA's submitted rules. One exchange Waxman obtained is typical, he says (pdf):

Another internal document shows that the officials working for the Vice President also raised spurious objections to the science. According to this document, the Vice President's staff "contends that we have no evidence (i.e., hard data) that lowering the speeds of 'large ships' will actually make a difference. NOAA rejected these objections, writing that both a statistical analysis of ship strike records and the peer-reviewed literature justified the final rule. In its response to the objections from the Vice President's staff, NOAA reported that there is "no basis to overturn our previous conclusion that imposing a speed limit on large vessels would be beneficial to whales.

In his conclusion, Waxman wonders why Cheney's office seems so invested in the topic:

While I appreciate the value of vigorous scientific debate, I question why White House economic advisors are apparently conducting their own research on right whales and why the Vice President's staff is challenging the conclusions of the government's scientific experts. The appearance is that the White House rejects the conclusions of its own scientists and peer-reviewed scientific studies because it does not like the policy implications of the data. This is not how the review process is supposed to work.

In his letter, Waxman requests copies of White House communications about the rule and that the White House allow the rule to go forward.

With all the scandals to choose from in 2007, it's hard to pick a favorite. But here's one that qualifies: remember when Dick Cheney tried to evade oversight of his procedures for handling classified material by claiming that the vice presidency is outside the executive branch? And remember when the head of the classification-security office for the National Archives, a fellow named J. William Leonard, arched an eyebrow? And how that just made the vice president's men attempt to abolish Leonard's job?

Leonard certainly does. And now that he's retiring, he recounted the whole sorry story to Newsweek's Mike Isikoff.

So how did matters escalate? The challenge arose last year when the Chicago Tribune was looking at [ISOO's annual report] and saw the asterisk [reporting that it contained no information from OVP] and decided to follow up. And that's when the spokesperson from the OVP made public this idea that because they have both legislative and executive functions, that requirement doesn't apply to them.…They were saying the basic rules didn't apply to them. I thought that was a rather remarkable position. So I wrote my letter to the Attorney General [asking for a ruling that Cheney's office had to comply.] Then it was shortly after that there were [email] recommendations [from OVP to a National Security Council task force] to change the executive order that would effectively abolish [my] office.

Who wrote the emails?
It was David Addington.

No explanation was offered?
No. It was strike this, strike that. Anyplace you saw the words, "the director of ISOO" or "ISOO" it was struck.

What was your reaction?
I was disappointed that rather than engage on the substance of an issue, some people would resort to that…

A long, twilight struggle between Dick Cheney and the forces of evil is the subject of an impressive new Frontline documentary, "Cheney's Law," airing tomorrow on PBS. In the balance? The nation's legal traditions over interrogations, detentions, surveillance and every other liberty-security tradeoff made since the Cold War.

Here's a sneak preview:

Readers of Barton Gellman and Jo Becker's Cheney series, "Angler," will be familiar with a lot of this material. The battles fought by Cheney and his longtime legal counsel, David Addington, to expand unilateral executive authority over warmaking functions is the principal thrust of the narrative. But seeing many of the participants tell their stories on camera makes for compelling and vivid journalism. In particular, the documentary devotes a lot of time to Jack Goldsmith, the former Office of Legal Counsel chief who clashed sharply with Addington over interrogations and surveillance. Seeing Goldsmith's frustration, seriousness and occasional anguish adds a layer of complexity to the story that print can't often capture. It's a shame that neither Cheney nor Addington consented to interviews.

But that's not to say that Frontline doesn't advance the story.

Read more »

We'd be remiss if we didn't link over to fellow muckraker Charlie Savage's stay at TPMCafe this week to discuss his new book Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy.

It's long been apparent that the administration has sought to expand executive power whenever possible. But Savage's book documents the extent to which this was a conscious and controlling priority, especially for Dick Cheney -- so much so that Savage calls it "The Cheney Project." Go check it out.

A particularly telling excerpt from the book is below.

Read more »

If there's a villain in Jack Goldsmith's account of his time in the Justice Department, it's David Addington, Dick Cheney's legal alter ego. Addington, who became the vice president's chief of staff after Scooter Libby resigned following his indictment, served as Cheney's eyes and ears in the legal battles within the administration over warrantless surveillance, coercive interrogations and indefinite detentions. His style of argument, as recounted by Goldsmith, isn't exactly a subtle one.

[W]hen Goldsmith tried to question another presidential decision, Addington expressed his views even more pointedly. “If you rule that way,” Addington exclaimed in disgust, Goldsmith recalls, “the blood of the hundred thousand people who die in the next attack will be on your hands.”

Jane Mayer's profile of Addington introduced him as a zealot for unchecked presidential power during wartime. Barton Gellman and Jo Becker's series on Cheney added crucial detail, including Addington's role in functionally authoring White House opinions denying al-Qaeda detainees Geneva Conventions protection.

Read more »

The drumbeat against Iran from the administration has been constant this year -- reaching its highest pitch in February, when anonymous military briefers laid out the case to reporters. The Quds force, an elite military brigade, the administration line went, was channeling EFPs (explosively formed penetrators, a particularly dangerous type of IED) into Iraq to be used against U.S. soldiers.

The complications of the case were brushed aside, but despite an organized media offensive by the administration, it was not a wholly successful campaign. But lately the case has been revived. And now McClatchy reports that Dick Cheney has been pushing for strikes against Iranian forces in Iraq. But don't worry -- Cheney says that the administration ought to wait for "hard new evidence":

Behind the scenes, however, the president's top aides have been engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran's support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy....

Cheney, who's long been skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-American forces in Iraq; for example, catching a truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran, one official said.

There is the expected divide within the administration on the question -- with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the other side. But a Cheney spokeswoman tells McClatchy "'the vice president is right where the president is' on Iran policy."

Note: The Los Angeles Times has an interesting companion to McClatchy's piece this morning, reporting on Bush's continued attempts to convince Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki that Iran is "not a force for good." From Maliki's perspective -- and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai's -- things are obviously a lot more complicated.

I'd never thought I'd say this, but... somebody get Dick Cheney on message!

Alberto Gonzales and the administration have gone to great pains to say that the March 2004 hospital showdown was not about the Terrorist Surveillance Program -- no, it was about "other intelligence activities." And the Terrorist Surveillance Program is a phrase, they've said, that refers very narrowly to the surveillance activities confirmed by the President in December of 2005.

But Cheney got a little sloppy during his interview with Larry King:

Q In that regard, The New York Times -- which, as you said, is not your favorite -- reports it was you who dispatched Gonzales and Andy Card to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital in 2004 to push Ashcroft to certify the President's intelligence-gathering program. Was it you?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't recall -- first of all, I haven't seen the story. And I don't recall that I gave instructions to that effect.

Q That would be something you would recall.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I would think so. But certainly I was involved because I was a big advocate of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and had been responsible and working with General Hayden and George Tenet to get it to the President for approval. By the time this occurred, it had already been approved about 12 times by the Department of Justice. There was nothing new about it.

Q So you didn't send them to get permission.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't recall that I was the one who sent them to the hospital.

D'oh! So according to Cheney, the dispute was about the TSP. Too bad Cheney doesn't understand that the dispute was really about certain intelligence activities authorized by the president of which the Terrorist Surveillance Program (i.e. the program publicly described by the president) was only an uncontroversial part. Why can't he keep that straight? It's so simple.

So lump Cheney in with FBI Director Bob Mueller, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and others who've been briefed on the NSA surveillance program and refer to a single program, called the TSP for a shorthand, which dates back to October, 2001 and is comprised of more than the limited facet acknowledged by the President.

I posted this excerpt yesterday, but missed this implicit admission that the dispute was about the TSP. So thanks to TPM Reader JS and commenter barney for the catch.

Note: Marty Lederman points to another revealing admission in this excerpt -- Cheney's implication that he could give "directions" to White House officials who work, of course, for the President.

From Dick Cheney's interview tonight with Larry King:

Q In that regard, The New York Times -- which, as you said, is not your favorite -- reports it was you who dispatched Gonzales and Andy Card to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital in 2004 to push Ashcroft to certify the President's intelligence-gathering program. Was it you?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't recall -- first of all, I haven't seen the story. And I don't recall that I gave instructions to that effect.

Q That would be something you would recall.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I would think so. But certainly I was involved because I was a big advocate of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and had been responsible and working with General Hayden and George Tenet to get it to the President for approval. By the time this occurred, it had already been approved about 12 times by the Department of Justice. There was nothing new about it.

Q So you didn't send them to get permission.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't recall that I was the one who sent them to the hospital.

Dick Cheney musters his vanishing popularity on behalf of Alberto Gonzales:

Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that he is a "big fan" of embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

In a interview with CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller, the vice president also said Gonzales has been truthful in his testimony before Congress.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, a Democrat, has said he doesn't trust Gonzales, but Cheney said the attorney general has the support of the only man who really counts.

"I've had my differences with Pat Leahy," Cheney said. "I think the key is whether or not he (Gonzales) has the confidence of the president — and he clearly does."

You can listen to the clip here:

Yet another dispiriting revelation from Alberto Gonzales' hearing today.

During Gonzales' last hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) questioned him about a memo from Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2002 that had substantially increased White House officials' access to information about Justice Department cases. Under Clinton, only four White House officials had been authorized to discuss pending criminal investigations or cases with only three top Department officials. Ashcroft's 2002 memo had blown the door off that arrangement, raising the number of officials who could discuss such cases from seven to 447 (417 on the White House side). Under Whitehouse's questioning, Gonzales had professed to have been "concerned about that as White House counsel.”

Apparently not so much.

Whitehouse questioned him today about a May, 2006 memo which Gonzales himself had signed while attorney general. You can see it yourself here.

The memo widened White House access to case information even more and seemed to have been crafted with special attention to enabling the Vice President's staff, specifically his chief of staff and counsel, to have the unambiguous authority to discuss ongoing cases with Department officials. Given Cheney's chief of staff David Addington's extraordinary reach into the Justice Department (and the prosecution of Cheney's former chief of staff), that's cause for a raised eyebrow.

Gonzales seemed to have been taken off guard by Whitehouse's questions:

Whitehouse: "What-on-earth business does the Office of the Vice President have in the internal workings of the Department of Justice with respect to criminal investigations, civil investigations, and ongoing matters?"

Gonzales: "As a general matter, I would say that's a good question."

Whitehouse: "Why is it here, then?"

Gonzales: “I’d have to go back and look at this.”

Read more »

At the dawn of the Bush administration, Vice President Dick Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force was the hot social ticket for leading luminaries of future GOP scandals.

Once a closely-held secret, the Washington Post today publishes the dance card for the task force. Cheney, citing the principle of executive confidentiality, took the public's right not to know all the way to the Supreme Court when Congress tried to learn the attendance list published today. It comes as no surprise that the list was heavy on energy-industry big shots, including Enron's Kenneth Lay, who got a private meeting with Cheney on April 17, 2001:

One of the first visitors, on Feb. 14, was James J. Rouse, then vice president of Exxon Mobil and a major donor to the Bush inauguration; a week later, longtime Bush supporter Kenneth L. Lay, then head of Enron Corp., came by for the first of two meetings. On March 5, some of the country's biggest electric utilities, including Duke Energy and Constellation Energy Group, had an audience with the task force staff.

British Petroleum representatives dropped by on March 22, one of about 20 oil and drilling companies to get meetings. The National Mining Association, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and the American Petroleum Institute were among three dozen trade associations that met with Cheney's staff, the document shows.

The list of participants' names and when they met with administration officials provides a clearer picture of the task force's priorities and bolsters previous reports that the review leaned heavily on oil and gas companies and on trade groups -- many of them big contributors to the Bush campaign and the Republican Party.

Read more »

If at first Rahm doesn't succeed, try, try again in the Senate.

This afternoon, a Senate appropriations panel chaired by Dick Durbin (D-IL) stripped $4.8 million out of Vice President Cheney's budget for not complying with security rules for classified information. The move -- on a day consumed by Iraq -- came two weeks after a previous effort in the House by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) failed. It's unclear if the move will survive a full Appropriations Committee vote, but if Cheney wants his money back, all he needs to do is allow the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office to perform a few unobtrusive inspections. Don't hold your breath, though.

It's been one subpoena-crazy day, what with the White House refusing to comply with congressional demands for information about nine fired U.S. attorneys. But there's at least one set of subpoenas that won't be issued today. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has been able to come to terms with the White House about the deepening White House Security Office scandal.

On Tuesday, Waxman wrote to White House Counsel Fred Fielding to detail new allegations that the WHSO -- entrusted to ensure compliance with procedures to safeguard classified information -- is dysfunctional. The heads of the office, just-departed director James Knodell and deputy Ken Greeson, took no action when presented with charges that aides to President Bush and Vice President Cheney left classified documents strewn throughout hotel rooms and across their desks, and they themselves took cellphones and Blackberries into secure facilities in violation of protocol. A frustrated Waxman told Fielding that unless House Government Oversight Committee investigators received access to interview three current and former White House officials who could speak to the alleged pattern of abuse, Waxman would ask the committee for authority to subpoena them.

Waxman said he'd seek the subpoena authority at the committee's business meeting today. But committee aides explain that the meeting is off, as Fielding and Waxman have reached an agreement, averting the subpoenas for now. The White House has consented to "transcribed interviews" with Alan Swendimen, director of the Office of Administration; Mark Frownfelter, an ex-security officer; and former WHSO head Jeff Thompson. "The fact that we were able to reach an agreement on testimony and getting the interviews to take place will be helpful in moving the committee's inquiry forward," says an Oversight Committee staffer.

Read more »

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) took a filleting knife to Vice President Dick Cheney's attempts to elide the Archives' Information Security Oversight Office on the House floor just now. Following through on his promise to defund the veep's office if it doesn't comply with an executive order mandating the ISOO inspect how each executive "entity" handles classified information, the House Democratic Caucus Chairman introduced an amendment to slice funding for the vice
president's office from the executive branch's budget. Watch:

Some choice excerpts:

Yesterday the vice president was forced to admit what even an eighth-grade student knew: there is no Cheney branch of government. While the vice president's excuses may change, his desire to ignore the rule remains just as strong as ever. The vice president is unwilling to risk that the documents detailing the flawed intelligence or faulty assumptions that led us into the war in Iraq [sic]. He has been held unaccountable for six years, and now he wants to be held unaccountable in the historical record as well...

If his office is not in the executive branch, then there is no executive branch office to fund. And perhaps more importantly, it underscores that the vice president is not above the law, and cannot ignore the rules. The law should follow him, whatever branch of government he chooses to hang his hat in.

Update: From Raw Story:

With limited members in the chamber, Rep. Emanuel's amendment appeared to be defeated by a voice vote. However, the bill is set to receive a recorded vote later in the day. A Democratic leadership staff member told RAW STORY that a party-line vote in favor of the amendment was expected.

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.

Read more »

Apparently that letter from David Addingtion to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) yesterday really did constitute a wholesale retreat from the "fourth branch" argument. No more will you hear Cheney's lawyers claim that the vice president isn't in the executive branch, reports Mike Allen at The Politico:

The White House has no plans to reassert the argument there is any vice presidential distinction from the executive branch, the officials said.

Two senior Republican officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the rationale had been the view of the vice president’s lawyers, not Cheney himself.

But as Addington made clear in his letter this morning (by a transparently weak argument), that doesn't mean that the vice president will submit to review by the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office. So the game's still on. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) is still planning a vote late today or tomorrow on cutting off the VP's office $4.8 million in executive-branch funding. We'll keep you updated as that approaches.

Those salmon never stood a chance.

As The Washington Post reports this morning in part four of the paper's series on Vice President Cheney, when the fate of some endangered salmon threatened Republican electoral prospects in Oregon, Cheney sprang into action. Farmers wanted water from the Klamath River basin diverted for irrigation, but federal biologists said that two species of fish were at stake. From the Post:

Bush and Cheney couldn't afford to anger thousands of solidly Republican farmers and ranchers during the midterm elections and beyond. The case also was rapidly becoming a test for conservatives nationwide of the administration's commitment to fixing what they saw as an imbalance between conservation and economics.

And as the Post details, Cheney reached deep into the Interior Department to make sure that the issue was dealt with.

But Karl Rove also weighed in -- in his own way. Just in case the vice president's heavy hand wasn't enough, Rove made sure that Department officials far and wide knew where the administration stood on the issue by way of one of his now famous PowerPoint presentations.

Read more »

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."

Read more »

We knew from the Valerie Plame leak that the White House isn't exactly diligent with classified information. And we learned from Dick Cheney's claim that he's a fourth branch of government that he didn't really care who knew. But check out what Rep. Henry Waxman found.

In a letter today to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Waxman disclosed numerous instances of sloppiness with classified material by both the president and the vice president's retinues, as well as what White House security officers told Waxman is a "systematic breakdown" in responding to security breaches. Indeed, according to Waxman, over half of the staff of the White House Security Office -- which is charged with protecting secrecy guidelines alongside the Archives' Information Security Oversight Office -- have quit over the last year.

To give the most baroque examples, Waxman's investigation found White House officials leaving classified material "unattended in a hotel room" as well as plopped on their desks at work. Typically, the White House Security Office did nothing in response.

Read more »