From the Washington Post :
federal judge yesterday sharply questioned an assertion by the Obama administration that former Vice President Richard B. Cheney’s statements to a special prosecutor about the Valerie Plame case must be kept secret, partly so they do not become fodder for Cheney’s political enemies or late-night commentary on “The Daily Show.”
Ugh. But it gets even better.
But career civil division lawyer Jeffrey M. Smith, responding to Sullivan’s questions, said Bradbury’s arguments against the disclosure were supported by the department’s current leadership. He told the judge that if Cheney’s remarks were published, then a future vice president asked to provide candid information during a criminal probe might refuse to do so out of concern “that it’s going to get on ‘The Daily Show’ ” or somehow be used as a political weapon.
Fitzgerald, in a 2008 letter to Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) cited by CREW, drew a distinction between interviews that he conducted under standard investigative secrecy rules and the meetings he held with Bush and Cheney. Fitzgerald said “there were no ‘agreements, conditions, and understandings between the Office of Special Counsel or the Federal Bureau of Investigation’ and either the President or Vice President ‘regarding the conduct and use of the interview or interviews.’ ”
So the Change You Can Believe In administration is arguing, with an apparent straight face that this isn’t a cover up of treason by Richard Bruce Cheney, that’s a 1st amendment issue. Let me calm down and try to suss this out.
The claim made originally by war criminal Bradbury, that the Vice President may not participate in a criminal probe in which he is himself the prime suspect, because Jon Stewart might make fun of him. Not because he may incriminate himself. And we can’t know about this, not because it might provide proof that Cheney is a criminal, but because in the future, when a Vice President breaks the law, he may, out of a fear of embarrassment, not cooperate with criminal investigations against him.
I think that about sums up their argument.
The judge wasn’t buying it. It’s absurd on its face, just like the decision not to follow a court order to release photographs because someone might call for prosecution of the last administration.
Could it be any clearer now, along with all the other evidence, that Obama has no intention of even letting us know what crimes were committed in our names?
This and all the other cynical political calculations should be causing us all to take to the streets in a general strike and mass protests.
But many on the left are simply too enamored with our Dear leader to actually analyze what is being actively done in our names. they don’t want to rock the boat, lest their favorite pet project doesn’t get done.
But what has gotten done? Please remind me. Because health care is trending into an insurance lobby written bill, and gay rights have been sold out, and on and on and on.
I’ll give him credit for being an inspiring speaker, who looks at the big picture. But what I feared toward the end of the campaign, seems to have been born out. That he started believing the hype, and knows he won’t lose the left no matter what he does. What are you going to do, vote for McCain?