DOJ: We Can't Release Cheney Records Because Of Late Night Comedy

Sarabeth at 1115.org has a piece up today explaining that the Obama administration's efforts to keep the goings-on of the Bush-Cheney White House away from scrutinizing eyes now extends to denying a federal judge notes from the FBI's interview with ex-Vice President Dick Cheney during the CIA leak investigation. But this pull from the original AP story, which captures the reasoning of Justice Department for attempting to deny the request, is simply mind-blowing:

Justice Department lawyers told the judge that future presidents and vice presidents may not cooperate with criminal investigations if they know what they say could become available to their political opponents and late-night comics who would ridicule them.

"If we become a fact-finder for political enemies, they aren't going to cooperate," Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Smith said during a 90-minute hearing. "I don't want a future vice president to say, 'I'm not going to cooperate with you because I don't want to be fodder for 'The Daily Show.'"

I hardly think that citing the need to shield public figures from satire as a justification for denying this request has got the public's interests properly balanced. But I also have a question for the DOJ: Uhm...have you met our last two vice presidents? Joe "OMGZ EVACUATE THE TRAINZ IT'S THE PIG FLU!" Biden and Dick "I thirst for a consomme of infant tears" Cheney? By comparison, I think future vice-presidents have a better than even shot at avoiding comic ridicule without the intervention of federal courts.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[RRundbaken]

10:17 PM on 06/26/2009

They should sue the DOJ up to the Supreme Court to get these things released and I am ashamed of this administration for blocking the release of this information and embarrassed for the asinine reasons they are using. This is not what Obama campaigned on.

[OMG1109]

11:45 AM on 06/23/2009

Somewhat off target but ...

Confidential memo reveals US plan to provoke an invasion of Iraq ...
Jun 21, 2009 ... Meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair will be explosive ... outlining their intention to go to war without a second United ... The memo, written on 31 January 2003, almost two months before the invasion and seen by the Observer, ... However, Bush confirmed even without a second resolution, ...
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/.../iraq-inquiry-tony-blair-bush

[Jase84]

10:53 AM on 06/23/2009

If anybody has ever wondered if there is a double standard....

[Scent]

07:05 PM on 06/22/2009

So future presidents may refrain from lying because future presidents and comics will make them pay? - Isn't that kind of the idea of the concept of accountability?

[luziannagirl]

04:47 PM on 06/22/2009

I thought maybe they couldn't be released because they would re-activate the disembodied spirit of the former V.P., a.k.a., Cheney the Destroyer, who would sear into ash the eyeballs of any who dared gaze upon them.

Wonder if they keep them in a lead-lined box, in a gigantic government warehouse?

[anitaj]

04:44 PM on 06/22/2009

Only false gods are laughed off their pedistals.

[landoffools]

01:54 PM on 06/22/2009

This Country is an unadulterated joke !

[Eyeheartfreedumb]

01:24 PM on 06/22/2009

To all those who are saying that they won't cooperate because someone might laugh at them, I say, that's not the reason.
They aren't cooperating because the office of VP or Pres might be tarnished and future holders of that office might not be taken seriously.
Uh, I think Bush did more damage to our entire government's credibility than Jon Stewart ever could (sorry Jon).
Oh and isn't one of the perks of being American the fact that we are allowed to openly mock our crappy politicians? I mean, this isn't Iran or Russia right? Right?

[stav506]

05:50 PM on 06/22/2009

Pass de vodka, tovarisch.

[thromulese]

11:25 AM on 06/22/2009

“the Obama administration's efforts to keep the goings-on of the Bush-Cheney White House away from scrutinizing eyes”

Exactly why is Obama covering up the crimes of bush/cheney and accomplices?

If there is proof of the commission of a crime/crimes then shielding that proof would seem to be obstruction of justice. And so it follows that Obama and his administration is committing a crime thru their actions.

Unless all this and the torture pictures are released to a prosecuting attorney with subpoena power and the real will use it then it would seem to be a simple cover-up. Which is against the law.

That is of course if the rule of law means anything anymore. Sadly, this admin is looking more and more like a continuation of horrible one that preceded it.

[conservativesscareme]

11:31 AM on 06/22/2009

the covering of criminal political leaders really took off under Nixon. That guy was insane and sick and walked away with a wave. No prosecution. A lot of his fascist policies are still in place, like the War on Drugs, COINTEL PRO, health care for profit.

[conservativesscareme]

11:21 AM on 06/22/2009

Remember, fellow Americans, if you commit some heinous crime just tell the judge that you can't be prosecuted because people could make fun of you and that you would just like to move on and put the past behind you.

[Beegood]

11:05 AM on 06/22/2009

Why are our elected officials allowed to choose whether or not they will cooperate with a criminal investigation? Where's the justice in that, Dept. of Justice? It is appalling that there are 2 sets of rules in this country. If I run up and punch some guy at a bus stop in the face, I can't escape "cooperating with a criminal investigation". If I happen to witness a robbery, I can't escape "cooperating with a criminal investigation". But if I happen to ignore the law and start an illegal war it's "uh, pretty please can you cooperate with a criminal investigation, unless of course you may suffer ridicule." Laws aren't optional for those in power, or are they?

[jetscan]

11:39 AM on 06/22/2009

Well said.

[jsijason]

10:18 AM on 06/22/2009

They don't want to talk about the truth, because someone might laugh at them?

Are they serious?

[jetscan]

11:45 AM on 06/22/2009

The DOJ should lookup the meaning of "serious".

[darker]

06:42 AM on 06/22/2009

Oh yes, late-nite comedy is a danger to national security! --according to DICK CHENEY.

[JoeJC]

09:27 PM on 06/21/2009

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Where does the President or Vice President get the option of deciding whether or not to cooperate with legitimate criminal investigations?

[GodBlessAmerica]

11:47 PM on 06/21/2009

This isn't a criminal investigation; it's a Freedom of Information Act request (and now lawsuit).

And as to the "cooperate" part of the question, that's a really dicey question, very unfortunately, because the President is THE executive authority of the United States. Not partially, but fully.

I say unfortunate because, of course, you'd really like to think that only the honorable can get to that level.

[mykelb]

04:39 PM on 06/22/2009

The Judiciary and the Legislative Branches are supposed to balance out the interests and power of the Executive. In other words, Congress has to investigate and the Courts have to investigate the Executive.

[vidian6]

01:47 AM on 06/22/2009

I totally agree with you. And the problem is the so called news media pretends as if it doesn't recognize this fact. If a president refuses to cooperate, or comply with a formal legitimate legal request, then they should be forced to resign!

[AngelaQuattrano]

07:37 PM on 06/21/2009

Is the fact that the truth would make them look stupid going to work?