Congressmen Describe Cheney Explanation...as 'Absurd', 'Highly Dubious', 'Mockery of Law'

[BradBlog]

Source: BRAD BLOG

Congressmen Describe Cheney Explanation for Failing to Comply With Exec Order on Classified Docs as 'Absurd', 'Highly Dubious', 'Mockery of Law'
Waxman, Conyers and Clay Issue Statement Calling on Response, Action from DoJ, Gonzales...

Following on subpoenas issued to both Dick Cheney and the White House earlier today on the warrantless wire-tapping issue, the Summer of Accountability continues as the heat grows on both Cheney and Gonzales in the matter of the refusal by Cheney's office to provide reports on the handling of classified information.

A statement just sent to The BRAD BLOG by the offices of Representatives Conyers, Waxman and Clay, calls on Gonzales to explain his position on the National Archives request for Cheney to comply with an Executive Order requiring all Executive Branch offices to detail their handling of classified material and his subsequent refusal.

Cheney has claimed, in his failure to file appropriate reports for the last three years, that he didn't need to because the Office of the Vice President is not a part of the Executive Branch (that, despite their having complied with the order in years prior to 2003, when it seems they leaked the classified identify of covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame.)

In the statement, Waxman says Cheney's response is "absurd", Conyers calls it "highly dubious", and Clay characterizes the matter as "a breathtaking act of arrogance" in which Cheney is making a mockery of the law and our system of checks and balances."

The complete statement from Waxman, Conyers and Clay follows in full below...

FULL REPORT, COMPLETE STATEMENT FROM CONGRESSMEN:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4743

Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4743

[blm]

1. Another hit from the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic party.

Thankyou patriots!!!!!

[calimary]

2. Love this!

Keep piling it on, Henry. And Messers Conyers and Clay also.

I'm eagerly awaiting the day when all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put cheney back together again. OR bush. OR gonzo, either. Now, I like to visualize them with some nice, long, vertical iron bars in front of their faces.

[Greeby]

3. Sorry Conyers and Waxman

If your name isn't on this list, you do not impress me

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE00333:@@@P

.RES.333
Title: Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 4/24/2007) Cosponsors (7)
Latest Major Action: 4/24/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. COSPONSORS(7), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Rep Clarke, Yvette D. - 6/6/2007
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 5/1/2007
Rep Lee, Barbara - 6/7/2007
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 5/1/2007
Rep Waters, Maxine - 6/12/2007
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 6/7/2007
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell - 5/10/2007

[rodeodance]

8. Yes, until some legal action is taken, all is rhetoric.

[Drum]

4. Call it like it is!

Now let's do somethin' about it....

Recommended.

[ShockediSay]

5. Veep's "Energy Conference*" under Executive Privilege per Scalia but not laws re Executive Branch

betcha Scalia (the quack crony of Cheney, who IMO violated the federal judicial code of ethics when accepting an invite to a hunting vacation from Cheney)

will opine this is all just legal, cause he and Gonzales are partisan political hacks, i.e., biased and not at all in keeping with the unimpartial administration of justice, so much as they are in line with the establishment of a permanent majority, as were the fascists - - IMO


* Energy Task Force Conference
Quid Pro Quo Payoff, IMO, for Big Oil, allocation of markets, and planning the war in Iraq

[DeSwiss]

6. I proudly K&R!!!

No. 5 :bounce:

[IndianaGreen]

7. Nancy Pelosi: "Impeachment is off the table!"

It is self-evident that Cheney has broken many laws, and by his own admission, he has set himself above the Constitution. If there is a case that demands impeachment, it is Dick Cheney.

Why is Pelosi obstructing a Constitutional procedure that the facts demand? We would have been better off with Dennis Hastert as Speaker, at least we knew whose side he was on.

[BradBlog]

9. She works for you...

...Make her put it back *on* the table.

[Jacobin]

10. How 'bout "Demonstrates conclusively he is unfit to hold VP's Office"

That would be my quote