« The Netroots in a Nutshell | Main | Cheney the Monster - Part 2 »

June 24, 2007

Gonzales is Complicit in Cheney's Unconstitutional Actions

Now that it's been confirmed -- repeatedly -- just how criminal the Bush-Cheney Mob really is, which Seattle reporter will have the guts to go to Wednesday's Westin event and ask Abu Gonzales about this?

(emphasis mine):

Cheney's position so frustrated J. William Leonard, the chief of the Archives' Information Security Oversight Office, which enforces the order, that he complained in January to Gonzales. In a letter, Leonard wrote that Cheney's position was inconsistent with the "plain text reading" of the executive order and asked the attorney general for an official ruling. But Gonzales never responded, thereby permitting Cheney to continue blocking Leonard from conducting even a routine inspection of how the veep's office was handling classified documents, according to correspondence released by House Government Reform Committee chair Rep. Henry Waxman.

Why didn't Gonzales act on Leonard's request? His aides assured reporters that Leonard's letter has been "under review" for the past five months—by Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). But on June 4, an OLC lawyer denied a Freedom of Information Act request about the Cheney dispute asserting that OLC had "no documents" on the matter, according to a copy of the letter obtained by NEWSWEEK. Steve Aftergood, the Federation of American Scientists researcher who filed the request, said he found the denial letter "puzzling and inexplicable"—especially since Leonard had copied OLC chief Steve Bradbury on his original letter to Gonzales. The FOIA response has piqued the interest of congressional investigators, who note Bradbury is the same official in charge of vetting all document requests from Congress about the U.S. attorneys flap. Asked about the apparent discrepancy, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the OLC response "was and remains accurate" because Leonard's letter had generated no "substantive work product."

My guess is: Not One Reporter.

Update: The Washington Post has published the first in a four-part series on Cheney's unprecedented actions as vice president -- actions that continually place him well outside the law. It's harrowing to read this and realize we are, indeed, living under the evil auspices of a shadow government created by Cheney and his cohorts.

I've recently argued that impeaching Bush would be problematic for many reasons, not the least of which is that if impeachment and conviction were successful we would end up with Cheney at the helm. As all the information now points directly to Cheney having already been at the helm for the last six years, I really don't see how impeachment of the vice president can be "off the table". It's not only called for, under these circumstances, it is imperitive in restoring legality and democracy to the government of the United States of America. It's well past time to rescind the ongoing Rule of Man operating from that undisclosed, secured location inside the White House.

Posted by shoephone on June 24, 2007 at 11:33 AM in National and International Politics | Permalink


Granted Gonzales didn't have to work very hard to be the biggest embarrassment in the legal profession, but imagine the effort it took to be the biggest embarrassment in Bush's Administration, and achieve both non-accomplishments simultaneously.

Jack Smith

Posted by: Jack Smith | Jun 24, 2007 12:19:36 PM

lol, Jack. You've nailed it.

Posted by: shoephone | Jun 24, 2007 1:30:46 PM

Post a comment