by Damozel | The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), plus several additional open-government advocates and historians, won a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed against Cheney, the Executive Office of President and the National Archives and Records Administration. (CNN)
Vice President Dick Cheney must preserve a broad range of records from his time in office, a federal judge ordered Saturday, ruling in favor of a private watchdog group...U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly [a Clinton appointee] found that the records are not excluded from preservation under Presidential Records Act, which gives the national archivist responsibility over the custody of and access to the records at the end of a president's final term. (CNN)
The chief counsel for CREW said:
"It's a pretty strong opinion," said Anne Weismann, chief counsel for the watchdog group. "They will be prevented from destroying anything. It basically means they have to preserve everything in the broadest possible interpretation of what the law requires -- not their narrow interpretation." (WaPo)
The watchdog group was concerned about the Bush administration's very narrow interpretation of the Presidential Records Act.
The group, joined by several historians and open-government advocates, warned that Cheney might destroy or withhold important documents as the Bush administration winds down if he interprets the Presidential Records Act of 1978 as applying to only some of his official papers.
That, in turn, could deprive historians and the general public of valuable records that illustrate Cheney's role in forming U.S. policy over the past 7 1/2 years, they argued. He is widely considered to be the most influential vice president in history.....
[Cheney's] definition excludes many records, including those relating to Cheney's work on the National Security Council and those where he acted without instructions from the president, such as his efforts to win reauthorization of a top-secret warrantless wiretapping program, the plaintiffs argued.(WaPo)
The Raw Story quotes from "the lawsuit," which I assume to mean the complaint:
"Given the unlawful policies and directives of the defendants, there is an imminent threat that even before the end of this administration, Vice President Cheney and the OVP will destroy, transfer, or otherwise dispose of many of the vice president's records under the theory they are personal records and therefore not covered...."
The Presidential Records Act was instituted in the wake of the Watergate scandal as a means of safeguarding sensitive documents from the executive office for eventual release to the public.(The Raw Story)
And he would apparently prefer to keep the details of his interfer---participation to himself. I like the way that The Washington Post framed this.
Claire M. O'Donnell, Cheney's deputy chief of staff, offered a narrower definition of vice presidential records than the one in the law.....(WaPo; emphasis)
Yes, and as we all know, he had a very special theory.
Cheney has argued that his office is not fully part of the executive branch or the legislative branch, but instead part of both.
Aides to Cheney have used that argument at times to avoid disclosure of certain records, such as documents detailing privately paid travel taken by officials, and releasing names of the office’s employees to the federal directory known as the Plum Book. Wade said Biden would disclose those records. (The Hill)
At Talk Left, Jeralyn says:
Remember in 2003 when Vice President Dick Cheney began asserting that the Vice President is not part of the executive branch? He's been using that ever since as an excuse to be relieved from preserving documents under the Presidential Records Act.
And here's the punch line.
Where do our current VP candidates stand on the issue. Sarah Palin may be taking cues from Dick Cheney and refused to tell The Hill that she considers the Vice Presidency to be part of the executive branch. (Talk Left)
Memeorandum has more here.
RECENT POSTINGS
The Virtually Undebated Plan to Save the Economy
Comments