Judge hears arguments over Dick interviews

A federal judge heard arguments today [Tuesday] over whether the government is required to release interviews between the FBI and former Vice President Dick Cheney conducted during the Valerie Plame investigation. The judge delivered a couple good laugh lines, and some hints about his feelings, but no final ruling.

Last year, Citizens for Reform and Ethics in Washington sued the Justice Department for the records, after the agency turned down the watchdog group’s Freedom of Information Act request. The department contends that making the interviews public would discourage future vice presidents from cooperating in criminal investigations.

For much of the morning’s hearing, Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seemed skeptical of the Justice Departments argument, repeatedly talking over Civil Division attorney Jeffrey Smith, and peppering him with questions which occasionally left the lawyer stammering.

“What you are asking the court to do is issue a ruling that says every time a special investigator calls a vice president to come down to testify, that information is protected from the public,” he said.

“No, that’s not it at all,” Smith said, adding that the information could eventually be released for the historical record. Releasing it into the “political fray,” though, he said, would be a problem. Read on.

I don't think Judge Sullivan will buy the beans from the Obama DOJ. On a side note: Obama DOJ is using the same verbiage from the Bush DOJ. This is a very complex case since Bush gave Cheney executive privilege, the same power as Bush. The truth will sooner or later will be exposed.

From the Oversight Committee draft letter in 2008:

On June 24, 2008, the Justice Department informed the Committee by letter that it would not “provide or make available any reports of interviews with the President or the Vice President from the leak investigation.” The Department’s letter alluded to the “constitutional magnitude” of the “confidentiality interests” relating to these interview reports, and asserted that “communications of the President and the Vice President with their staffs relating to official Executive Branch activities lie at the absolute core of executive privilege.” The Justice Department also argued that providing the interviews to the Committee would undermine future law enforcement investigations, as future Presidents or Vice Presidents “might limit the scope of any voluntary interview or insist that they will only testify pursuant to a grand jury subpoena and subject to the protection of the grand jury secrecy provision.”

And this:

In addition, the Committee learned that White House officials did not take the actions required under an Executive Order after Ms. Wilson’s identity was disclosed. Under Executive Order 12958 and applicable regulations, the White House must investigate security breaches which originate within it, implement prompt corrective action to deter such future violations, and punish violators.5 Federal employees who commit security violations can be subject to a range of administrative sanctions, including reprimand, suspension without pay, denial of access to classified information, and termination.

At the hearing, James Knodell, the director of the White House Security Office, testified:

• The Office of Security for the White House never conducted any investigation of the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity, because of the ongoing criminal investigation;

• Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and other senior White House officials failed to report what they knew about the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity, as required by the applicable executive order and regulations; and

• There was no suspension of security clearances or any other administrative sanction for Mr. Rove and other White House officials because of the disclosure.