Hearing Tomorrow on Release of Dick Cheney Interview in Valerie Plame Case

CREW advises that tomorrow morning, Judge Emmett Sullivan will hear arguments in its FOIA lawsuit on whether Dick Cheney's FBI interview in the Valerie Plame leaks investigation should be released to the public.

On April 8, 2009, CREW requested that the Obama administration release the interview in light of President Obama’s oft-stated claims of a commitment to transparency and accountability and Attorney General Holder’s promise of a presumption of openness. The current administration has refused to release the interview, siding with the Bush administration in keeping secret a document that would shed light on the former vice president’s role in destroying Valerie Plame Wilson’s covert CIA career and jeopardizing the lives of others with whom she came in contact.


Judge Emmet Sullivan has scheduled this second hearing to address questions he raised at the last hearing in this case. Judge Sullivan was particularly concerned with the government's supporting declaration and the basis for its claim that if the interview is released, White House officials will be unwilling to cooperate with lawful criminal investigations in the future. The Department of Justice has filed the declaration of Criminal Division head Lanny Breuer. DOJ's latest brief suggests the agency is more interested in protecting the interests of Bush and Cheney rather than any legitimate law enforcement interest of the agency, particularly in its suggestion that the public should wait six to ten years before being allowed access to the report.

I've written a few times about this, the last post with links to the actual pleadings is here. Among them:

< News You Could Care Less About and Open Thread | Apple Approves Medical Marijuana App for iPhones >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If we get access to the interview (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 11:26:51 AM EST
    The blogs will be on fire.  Nothing will be poured over in detail that can compare.

    Don't pour over it (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 11:35:45 AM EST
    You will make it damp and soggy.  Pore over it instead!

    See....bad grammar (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 11:38:44 AM EST
    At least I can get a job with Palin :)

    purely poor (none / 0) (#14)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 02:04:26 PM EST
    choices of words :)

    I wish I could agree with you, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 03:29:25 PM EST
    but I think there have been too many decisions that have the effect of putting the Obama stamp on Bush-era policies, and too many defenses of those policies for us to think this is part of the 11-dimensional chess game that will end with Obama claiming victory over the dark forces of the Bush administration.

    In another six months - but probably much sooner at this rate -  Obama will own this stuff as surely as if he originated the policies and participated in the cover-ups.


    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 03:51:48 PM EST
    Every time he sends the DOJ to court to make the same arguments against civil rights (and I will add DOMA and DADT to Gitmo and torture and FISA and....) he is adding another nail to the coffin of our constitution. He is slowing making their crimes his policies.
    That the arguments for these policies are SO bad might make on think they are bad on purpose but unfortunately the simplest answer is usually the correct one. And while Obama is a smart man and can be duplicitous with the best of them, he loves power and I have never seen him as a liberal.

    From Emptywheel (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 11:46:16 AM EST
    I suspect that the only way DOJ can honestly simultaneously claim that Cheney gave a "frank," "full account" of events but that his summary description of these deliberations must still be protected is if DOJ believes that Libby's summary is inaccurate and Cheney's is accurate.

    I'm suggesting that the reason DOJ is fighting so hard to protect this material is that it differs in some key way from Libby's testimony, and for some reason DOJ believes Cheney told the truth but Libby lied. And that Cheney was truthful about something more embarrassing than Clinton's blowjob.


    Much more, worth a read.

    I read that the other day and (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 12:19:23 PM EST
    found it very interesting.

    If nothing else, the DOJ's arguments for why the interview should be protected are not supported by the actual facts in this case.


    Well, (2.00 / 0) (#7)
    by bocajeff on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 12:33:40 PM EST
    Homelessness, foreclosures, job losses, lost health insurance, etc...It's much more important focusing on something that doesn't have any measure of effect on everyone's lives. But, I guess it makes us feel better to be right.

    Because as we all know (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 12:36:47 PM EST
    it's only possible to confront one issue at a time!

    And VPs outing CIA agents (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 12:51:09 PM EST
    and putting lives and missions in danger just ain't no biggie...

    GOP 101 (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 12:43:14 PM EST
    Destroy the economy by reckless spending (deficit) and then cry about spending money on social services because of the deficit.

    Oh, and when someone cry's foul, regarding GOP illegal acts, then bring up homelessness, foreclosures, job losses, lost health insurance, etc..

    Tride and true and on cue, bocajeff, you obviously are reading from the playbook.


    Tired of phonies (none / 0) (#11)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 12:54:30 PM EST
    And when you talk about tax cuts and budget cuts, you're never allowed to mention military spending! The fact that we spend more on the military than the entire rest of the world combined is pathetic.

     I find it hypocritical that the same politicians that gave GWB a blank check on draining our treasury over the last eight years, now want fiscal restraint.


    Hey, (none / 0) (#18)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 05:30:27 PM EST
    you never know when Granada might attack us.

    I hear they've been quietly seething from the last time and, well, you never know.

    I figure, another three battle groups, with supporting satellites and all....just to be safe.

    Oh, and BTW, why do you hate America?


    Tride (none / 0) (#20)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 11:05:59 PM EST
    Tride - a. 1. Short and ready; fleet; as, a tride pace; - a term used by sportsmen.

    tried and true - The adjective has one meaning:

    Meaning #1: tested and proved to be reliable
      Synonyms: tested, time-tested, tried

    Exactly (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 10:31:34 AM EST
    One of our wingers, tested over time.

    So, what does (none / 0) (#22)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 11:40:52 AM EST
    Tride and true mean?

    Typo (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 01:45:28 PM EST
    I'd enjoy that headline a LOT more without the (none / 0) (#5)
    by steviez314 on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 12:09:03 PM EST
    word "interview" in it....

    Hearing Tomorrow on Release of Dick Cheney in Valerie Plame Case.

    One can always dream.

    Presumably They Don't (none / 0) (#12)
    by bob h on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 01:25:41 PM EST
    want to release it because they don't want to prosecute him for perjury?

    Fear of reprisal (none / 0) (#13)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 01:54:26 PM EST
    I think that Cheney was able to snare enough powerful D's in his web to ensure that they would be there to block any investigations. If he goes down, he'll have plenty of company to take with him.

    He may be one of the most loathsome politician in my lifetime, but I've never thought of him as dumb or naive! I can't imagine him going quietly into the night.

    I don't know about (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 05:49:15 PM EST
     "dumb or naïve" but I believe the Plame affair, deep down on his list of worries, has to be #1.
    All his other disgusting actions can be fluffed off with "he was just a really tough guy, trying to protect America; playing Hardball with the terrorists.

    But betraying an agent of the CIA, a NOC at that, is the stench that only gets more noxious as time passes.

    I just can't get over why all H*ll didn't break loose over that revelation. I would've thought that everyone: Democrat, Republican, Military, Civilian, Covert and support would have drawn the line there.

    Even after 50 years of following the news, I'm still shocked as to how low politics has brought us.