|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings & Torture |
|
June 19th,
2009 - Judge Questions Justice Dept. Effort to Keep Cheney Remarks Secret |
|
Judge Questions Justice
Dept. Effort to Keep Cheney Remarks Secret By R. Jeffrey Smith Washington Post June 19, 2009 A 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." U.S. District Judge Emmet G.
Sullivan expressed surprise during a hearing here that the Justice
Department, in asserting that Cheney's voluntary statements to U.S. Attorney
Patrick J. Fitzgerald were exempt from disclosure, relied on legal claims put
forward last October by a Bush administration political appointee, Stephen
Bradbury. The department asserted then that the disclosure would make
presidents and vice presidents reluctant to cooperate voluntarily with future
criminal investigations. 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. Sullivan said Bradbury, who
was the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel, was not obviously
qualified to make such claims and that they were in any event
unsubstantiated. Sullivan said the department needed new evidence, if it
hoped to prevail, and said the administration should supply him with a copy
of Cheney's statements so he could directly assess whether the claims are
credible. The clash was provoked by a
Freedom of Information Act request last July by a nonprofit group, Citizens
for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, for documents relating to
Cheney's conversation with Fitzgerald. Cheney was interviewed as part of
Fitzgerald's probe in 2004 and 2005 into the Bush administration's leak of
Plame's links to the CIA. Plame was a covert officer
in the CIA until her name appeared in press accounts after public criticism
by her husband, a former diplomat, of the Bush administration's policies in
Iraq. Cheney was never charged with wrongdoing, but his former chief of staff
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted in 2007 of obstruction of
justice, perjury and lying to the FBI during the probe. President George W.
Bush later commuted Libby's 2 1/2 -year prison sentence but refused Cheney's
request that Libby be pardoned outright. 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.'" After Fitzgerald's probe was
closed, however, the Bush administration turned down a subpoena from Congress
for notes and a summary of Cheney's interview - estimated to be about 70
pages long - asserting that they were exempt from disclosure under executive
privilege. Bradbury, in an eight-page response to the FOIA lawsuit, cited
multiple reasons for refusing again but principally relied on a legal
exemption for documents that "could reasonably be expected to interfere
with enforcement proceedings." Sullivan said this argument
"does not carry any weight," because no such proceedings involving
the White House are currently pending or anticipated. David Sobel, an
attorney representing CREW, argued further that any White House official who
wanted to provide a confidential statement could readily request such secrecy
as a condition for the interview, or be subpoenaed as part of a secret grand
jury probe. Smith responded that any
White House official, from the president on down, could indeed be compelled
to testify but said it would be "somewhat unseemly" to use a
subpoena for vice presidents, particularly at the outset of a probe. He also
said more White House-related criminal probes could reasonably be
anticipated, as "every administration in the last thirty years" has
experienced such a probe. © 2009 The Washington Post
Company External link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061803879.html |