The Dick Cheney branch of government.

Vice President Dick Cheney says that he and his office are not a part of the executive branch but, rather, he’s part of his very own, very special branch of government that’s exempt from things like protecting classified information. That prompted Rep. Rahm Emmanuel to provide this helpful graphic of the new structure of the U.S. government. Dick Cheney has balls like honeydew melons.

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

21 replies on “The Dick Cheney branch of government.”

  1. What’s crazy is that, within 24 hours, we’re going to see some of the 26% that still support the president claiming that, yes, it’s true, the vice president is not, in fact, part of the executive branch.

    Up is down. Black is white.

  2. There’s gotta be some sort of misunderstanding here. A-rogue- junior-staffer-off-the-reservation or some such. There’s just gotta be.

  3. According to Mr. Leonard’s letter, your position was that your office “does not believe it is included in the definition of ‘agency’ as set forth in the Order” and “does not consider itself an ‘entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.'”

    And you’ll note that this occurred in June 2006, a year ago. How has it taken so long to surface?

  4. I agree with you Smails. It had to be a staffer, Cheney would never reveal the size of his balls. Although, unlike Waldo….Im leaning toward a couple of old dried up Craisins instead of melons.

  5. Cheney had been a huge problem in my efforts to get George Bush impeached, but if he isn’t “executive”, maybe we can just bring in Speaker Pelosi? Did he just “Cheney” himself and the President?

  6. Maybe the e-mails from the Information Security Oversight Office were accidentally deleted before Diamond Dick got a chance to read them…Or maybe all this fell under Scotter Libby’s purview.

  7. Oh no, Judge–unfortunately there is no misunderstanding. This isn’t just a blowhard statement taken out of context–it is wrapped up in Cheney-logic:

    His primary justification is that because the VP is also President of the Senate, he has legislative and executive functions; as part of both branches, he is strictly not an agency of either. However, he contends that his executive functions still entitle him to executive privilege.

    I honestly don’t know what would be worse, making shit up with no attempt at justification, or perverting the constitution and twisting logic to justify his actions. I personally think the latter is worthier of impeachment.

  8. Tim — it actually hasn’t taken this long to surface, just to get widespread attention. It became public and was reported on TPM and elsewhere (but not in the “news”) when Cheney’s office first got in this fight with the Archives, but the news media are paying attention now because Waxman is investigating it and making his letters public.

    Based on the earlier reports, their bizarre rationale is that because the VP presides over the Senate, he is not really part of the executive branch, but partly in the executive and partly in the legislative. They conveniently believe that this allows them to ignore executive branch regulations requiring them to follow and report on standard security practices and make certain information public (like the names of their staff and visitors) because they’re not in the executive branch, but claim executive privilege and keep a lot of other information secret (sense a theme here?) because they are.

    In a sane world, the people who professed these beliefs would not just be impeached, they’d be committed…

  9. It’s certainly a, um, unique interpretation of his office. I would guess the goal is to drag it out in court(s) until the clock runs out. A strategy, I note, not unlike that employed by Clinton with some of his more novel assertions of executive privilege.

  10. I think the “yeah, but Clinton did X” thing only works within the context of “yeah, but Clinton did X and you’re on the record as having supported that.” And understand that, in saying this, I’m confining myself to not being able to say “yeah, but Bush did X” come 2009 when whoever the Democratic president is does something boneheaded. Which is A-OK by me.

  11. Waldo,

    I love it, I have always felt what you just wrote when confronted with the “but Clinton” argument, but never figured out a way to say it.

  12. Perhaps now we can peep the energy task force documents, since executive priv’s dont apply?

    I do hope our Democratic leaders grow a pair and waterboard ole Dick before “The difference between cover and concealment” and “How to sing cadence” become classes taught in high school.

    As to the “but Clinton” argument, the Big Dog lied UNDER OATH and deserved to be punished (I hated it, but damnit he lied)…however he DID testify under oath. You cant get anyone in the Bush admin anywhere close to a Bible and a judge, yet they muck about with the court system like Dubya trying to work an Algebra problem. Badly.

  13. FWIW, I came across a legal defense of Cheney’s position from Mark Levin. Although he’s a card-carrying member of the right-wing radio mafia, he also used to serve as chief of staff to the AG of the US back when Reagan was president, so perhaps he knows sumthin about the law. He says in part:

    This is an internal executive branch matter dealing with the handling of classified information. It’s not a constitutional issue. It’s not a congressional issue, despite this reports “input” from the usual Democrat partisans. If the president doesn’t direct the vice president to comply with an inferior executive branch office, even though his predecessor issued an executive order covering the entire executive branch, there’s no issue. Or, the president could formally issue another executive order modifying the Clinton order and exempting the vice president’s office from coverage.

  14. Judge–you are absolutely right, this is an internal executive branch matter. The simple truth is that the President could have simply issued an executive order stating that the VP does not have to follow the requirements. However, whether through laziness, contempt, or incompetence, the VP has simply chosen not to follow the law as it is written.

    A fundamental tenet of agency law is that an agency must follow the procedure it sets out, even if it has the power to change those procedures. The President may modify or nullify any executive order at his own discretion–until he does so, he and everyone else is bound by it. It’s not so much about what the executive branch can or cannot do; it’s about what the executive branch tells us, the public, about what it can or cannot do. When an executive order states that all executive agencies and all entities within the executive branch much comply, the President cannot and should not simply tell the VP “oh, yeah, that doesn’t mean you.” The President is not above the law, even if it is his own law.

    This episode speaks volumes about the administration’s contempt for law. Back in 2003, the President could have simply, through EO, exempted the VP from oversight, and it would be over. But instead, we have the VP’s office playing games, offering all manners of excuses to justify its actions, and attempting to cast itself as a government in and of itself. You have to wonder: if the President and VP are so willing to trample over a law that they could change with a stroke of a pen, what are they doing to laws not under their purview? And the Constitution.

  15. Quite a few people seem to have missed the part where the Executive Order in question actually references the President and the VP in the text. It is hard to imagine that it could get any clearer than that.

  16. Kaveh, thanks for the explanation. For me, the fact that Bush/Cheney could undo the old EO and fix this technicality is more of a reason this is NOT a big deal. They’re not brazenly defying a law Congress passed to constrain the Executive, they just haven’t crossed all the t’s. It’s a distinction WITH a difference. Like so much of the bad press Cheney has gotten b/c of Dem attacks, this falls apart upon closer inspection. My guess is, in spite of all the nonsense (I’m looking at you, Sally Quinn) one reads about Cheney’s imminent replacement/impeachment, we won’t be reading a thing about this “scandal” two weeks hence.

Comments are closed.