'Dick' Cheney Declares Self King!
 

I could be wrong, but I believe this will give us the right to have him beheaded after the trial. So, this can only be a good thing.

I think I know the answer to the question. I think you do, too. In fact, I think most any fifth grader does as well. But six months later, the nation's top lawyer still hasn't mustered up a response. This delay and the ambiguity it has fostered is important because the Office of the Vice President — the same folks who brought us the leak of the secret identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson — has taken unto itself the authority to declare as a formal legal position that it is not part of the executive branch and thus does not have to let the National Archives' folks do whatever it is they do to comply with Executive Order 12958.

Key line there, "(Cheney believes himself) not to be part of the executive branch"!

Top stories over at Foxnews.com ... Ohio Moms Missing Body Found, Dad Charged with Murdering Family, Teen in Court over Chastity Ring! Way to go, Fox!

These are good times, my friends. I love to see evil things implode

If I believed in a hell, this man would be candidate number 1. How does he sleep at night? How do any of them live with themselves? All of this abuse of power makes me sick to my stomach, and I'll be so excited when they are out of office and all this crap is in the past.

That is to say, I'm sure that there will be future abuses of power, but I doubt they'll be quite as vomit-worthy as the trespasses we've seen with <gag>Cheney. Who THE FVCK does he THINK HE IS?

:mad:

I don't say this about very many people, but I'll be sincerely glad when he is dead.

As I posed elsewhere, it's even worse than that. On the heels of that, Bush is now saying that the office of the President is exempt from the order too. Yeah, the office of the President isn't part of the executive branch. I totally get that logic.

Abuse of power aside, and with the knowledge of my recent political postings bashing republicans in general, it is tough for me to accept what is written in an article where the author refers to the secret identity of Valerie Plame. I believe the ruling in that particular case was that nothing illegal was done in reference to Valerie Plame.

So what bugs me, is in discussing something that is indeed problematic, why inject the Plame thing in again? When I read this, even though I recognize the problems that are being discussed, seeing the whole Plame thing makes me less likely to take seriously what the author is writing.

I think you bring up a very good point, scaeagles.
It's just really frustrating how more people seem interested in some rich tramp serving time than our very country being swept out from under us.

Okay, Leo, here's an article that doesn't mention Plame.

And another

And another.

Need more?

For good measure, here's a story about the White House claiming that "any executive agency, military department and 'any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information'" somehow doesn't include the President's office. It doesn't mention Plame either.

Did I make you upset, GD?

All I said was when you have something valid to present, why include something like the Plame thing again? It detracts from the message - and agreeably an important message.

Upset? No. You made me laugh.

Powers of the VP are outlined in Article I of the Constitution....not in Article II.

Cheney may have a point and certainly is not obligated to help his enemies by conceding anything he doesn't have to.

Isn't Ken Crane the King?

Enemies?Is the National Archives his enemy??

I don't pretend to understand all the intricacies of this, but the idea that every part of our government has someone else looking at it to make sure everything is legal is pretty damn holy to me. Since 9/11 the White House has been pretending it can do whatever the fvck it wants and that no one should be able to know what's going on - never mind say anything about it. I've been able to ignore it so far, simply to save my own mental state, but this is the last straw.

I am not a democrat, but this kind of bullsht could push me far enough to actually have an opinion on which party has control for the next four years. The idea that anyone could defend such blatant crap, or that any self respecting politician could actually stand behind this White House, is unfathomable to me.

I'm sorry sleepyjeff but this really gets me going.

November 2.

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." "Art. II, sec. 4."

"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." Art. I, sec. 5.

To me, the Vice President is clearly part of the executive. The fact that his only executive duty is to wait for the president to die does not change that. The fact that the Vice President serves as president of the Senate does not make him a member of the Senate any more than the fact that the Chief Justice presides over impeachment trials does.

I've said it before: I truly believe this man is evil. I think he is the most corrupt person to ever hold the office he does, and I am amazed at the **** he gets away with. He makes Agnew look like a choirboy.

Please produce that ruling.

We have one ruling so far in the Plame case. And that is Scooter Libby commited perjury in obstructing the investigation

It is impossible, and may continue to be impossible, to get to the bottom of the investigation if our public servants continue to lie to federal investigators.

My bad, Scrooge. You are indeed correct, and I misspoke. I should have more properly said that the nothing has been proven illegal, and if I recall (I haven't the time at present to look into it) the obstruction sharge Libby was convicted of was the only thing that there has been a ruling on. How material the information was he lied about I cannot say, but I think it had something to do with timing?

The investigation has stalled, and I believe is over. Armitage was the leaker. There will always be those that believe there is more there, and I cannot blame anyone for thinking that. In this case, however, I am not one of them.

The conservatives on this board leap to defend the administration yet again. Why am I not surprised....

Well, why wouldn't they?

Because this administration has betrayed and assaulted, not only the Constitution and the American people, but the very ideals that traditional conservatives have always held. IMO, they should be angrier than the rest of us for this.

Nope... that would be Paul. Ken Crane's place would just be the headquarters

As an ex-republican I totally agree.

In my shoes, as someone who is often conservative-minded, I have been outraged - more lately than ever before. I also realize that it is not indefensible to some people. We need people on here with opposing opinions - without it, we'd just be preaching to a choir - so I welcome that they are on here and bringing up things that make us question our various stances.

No. Henry Waxman;)
It's ok. I've had things get me going too(this just happens not to be one:))

That's a good point and I would tend to agree. But surely you can see where the argument comes from and why given that possible loophole the VP would want to cling to it until told by a higher authority then Henry Waxman(D) that he can't?

Except that's not even the "argument" the White House is using. Their entire "justification" is, "Oh, we know what it SAYS, but that's not what it MEANS."

If that is what they want, the president that should just write a new executive order that does it the way he wants. That is the beauty of executive orders (that's the beauty of them).

Seems obvious to me that the office of the president would be exempt if that is what the president wants, not so obvious about the office of the vice president. But if he wants new rules, unless I am missing something, this is one venue where he gets completely free rein in making the rules, so he should just do so.

I like what they said in the first link

Except, Republican Presidents are not allowed to exersise all of their powers for some reason(ie. Firing of Prosecutors)......It would be called an abuse of power and a whole new round of calls for the Administration to be Impeached/beheaded/quartered/etc.

That is funny.....It would be interesting to see how Cheney and co. try to squirm out of that:)

A problem with this administration is that even when they didn't do anything legally wrong they lie about it or otherwise look like they've been caught sleeping with the babysitter.

Odds are no law was broken in putting out the work on Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame (after all, it is now known, and admitted, who first gave that information to the press and no charges have been brought). But rather than standing up to the public scrutiny of it, they lie.

Odds are the firings of the attorneys general were legal but rather than standing up to the public scrutiny of it, they tell lies about what happened and then drag the story on for months.

The president would be completely within his powers to adjust the executive order however he wants but rather than just standing up to the potential scrutiny of why that change would be wanted, they ignore it and then make up silly excuses.

If they didn't feel the need to cloak absolutely everything they do in secrecy and behind a form of presidential omerta it would probably help. No, the people who hate them or are otherwise opposed would still make a fuss but the people who agree with the president's side could do so without having to feel so retarded in doing so.

Well put!

What one person suggested was that Cheney is trying to distance himself from any long-term responsibility for the actions of the administration, and thus let Bush be the fall guy for all of it. Granted, the person I was talking to was VERY "foil hat" in her political opinions, but I can see where she's going with it. As she points out... there's nowhere you can hide from international law if they decide to put you on trial for war crimes. So perhaps Cheney is trying to avoid responsibility for something bigger and more global in scope than domestic actions.

Of course, this is the same lady who thinks that Ken Lay's death was faked... so take her opinions with a road deicing-sized grain of salt.

The Washington Post is doing a 4 part look into the role of Cheney in Bush's administration. Part one is here.