The Cheney Plan B: For Escaping Oversight

Plan A was:

Cheney's office has contended that it does not have to comply because the vice president serves as president of the Senate, which means that his office is not an "entity within the executive branch."

Plan B now is:

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Cheney is not obligated to submit to oversight by an office that safeguards classified information, as other members and parts of the executive branch are. . . . Cheney is not subject to the executive order, she said, "because the president gets to decide whether or not he should be treated separately, and he's decided that he should."

Of course that begs the question, WHEN did the President decide this? Cuz Cheney has not been complying since 2003. If he decided yesterday that does not excuse Cheney's non-compliance before. But what the hey, Cheney says it does not matter if the President says he has to or not, the Vice President is NOT a part of the Executive Branch so the President has no rulemaking power over him anyway.

I like Rahm Emanuel's Plan C:

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) said he plans to propose next week, as part of a spending bill for executive operations, a measure to place a hold on funds for Cheney's office and official home until he clarifies to which branch of the government he belongs.

Emanuel, WaPo says, admits his plan is "just a stunt." It should not be a stunt if it is.

< BREAKING! Too Few Troops For "Mission" In Iraq | What Obama Has Learned >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Unreported (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 05:07:57 PM EST
    Until now.
    A careful reading of the story of Cheney's coup against a feeble executive reveals that paragraphs 7 through 10 were written and inserted in haste by a powerful editorial hand. The banging of colliding metaphors in an otherwise carefully written piece is evidence of last-minute interpolations by a bad editor whom no one has the power to rewrite.......

    ....That in turn suggests that this piece has been ready to run for some time. Insertions like the one about the veep's office not being part of the executive branch and seriatim "softenings" show that jamming it into the paper at the end of June, when only cats and the homeless are around the read the paper, was made at the last minute.

    Why? My guess is that this series ready to go during the debate over the supplemental funding of the Iraq war and that Downie or someone at the top held it back until Gellman and others started carrying snub-nose .38s to work under their seersuckers.

    War & Piece

    The Liberal Press (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 05:08:49 PM EST
    Good catch, Squeaky. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 05:11:33 PM EST
    Yes, But (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 05:18:31 PM EST
    It would have been a way much better catch when they were debating the Iraq Supplemental.....

    Well, yes (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 05:24:12 PM EST
    but it's one for the Evidence Files, now.

    The Chimperor (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 01:35:48 PM EST
    Is also is claiming to be exempt from oversight. He claims that he is not part of the executive branch either.

    think progress

    Oh good. Hoping you would take a look (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 01:43:47 PM EST
    at Cheney's claim.  AP article today didn't mention Emmanuel thought the bill is a "stunt."  He sounded very, very serious.

    if rahm's is a "stunt". . . (none / 0) (#3)
    by the rainnn on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 02:19:39 PM EST
    . . .what do we call the ACTUAL
    violation of law cheney is
    presently engaging in???

    ooh -- that's right -- there
    is a term for such a stunt. . .

    a legal term. . .  where is that
    black's law dictionary. . .?  oh,
    yes.  here it is. . .  it's called. . .

    a felony.

    -- indictdickcheney

    Heh. I've been proposing Rahm's bill for (none / 0) (#4)
    by Geekesque on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 02:42:42 PM EST
    Good circumstances for it here (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 03:02:04 PM EST
    if all emanuel's move (none / 0) (#6)
    by profmarcus on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 03:57:24 PM EST
    represents is more attention-grabbing without serious teeth, it's a totally empty gesture as far as i'm concerned... with information requests repeatedly refused, subpoenas ignored, our constitutional, democratic republic being spit on at every turn, and STILL no accountability, all i see is rahm turning the spotlight of the today's 2-minute sound bite on himself, nothing more...

    And, yes, I DO take it personally

    Have Senators for prez (none / 0) (#7)
    by annefrank on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:37:37 PM EST
    issued a statement on Bush and Cheney escaping oversight?

    If (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:28:16 PM EST
    neither Bush or Cheney are part of the executive branch, that means that the Presidency is vacant, no?

    The next in line of succession of course, is the Speaker of the House.

    President Pelosi in 2007? :-)

    (h/t to Bill Arnett)