Obama moves to protect Cheney from The Daily Show

[jgraz]

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/19/judge-rejects-argument-cheney-needs-to-be-shielded-from-daily-show/

Judge rejects argument Cheney needs to be shielded from Daily Show

Tired of waving the national security flag, Obama administration lawyers are apparently trying another tactic to get the courts to back Bush administration arguments which never worked to prevent the release of critical documents. Forget Qaeda or North Korea, late night hosts who tell jokes are why the government should retain its secrets.

“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,” R. Jeffrey Smith reports for The Washington Post.

The AP reports, “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. “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.’”

[Fovea]

1. Former Vice Presidents are too big to fail.

America, a nation of privilege for important people, and laws for the proles.

[w4rma]

2. Better idea: Don't *do* things that society wouldn't like. (nt)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. reads like an Onion story. which is another problem these days.

as crazy as some of our insane brothers and sisters in the GOP sound, they still manage to outdo themselves.

The idea that a comedy show poses a national security risk is as nutty as things that Michelle Bachmann says.

[chimpymustgo]

12. I was sure it was the Onion. Just shows how out of touch the ruling class is.

[pot luck]

4. That argument is so ridiculous,

that it makes one wonder if they were purposely trying to lose that case.

[Soylent Brice]

5. this is what our justice department is doing???????

what

the


FUCK.

[rug]

6. Jon Stewart is a WMD.

[depakid]

7. Reading stories coming out of Obama's Justice Department is almost like browsing The Onion.

It really has gotten to the point of embarrassment.

[liberal N proud]

8. I’m not going to cooperate with you because I don’t want to be fodder for ‘The Daily Show?

:rofl: MAO

[Orsino]

9. Ah, the Bush v. Gore precedent. n/t

[Metta]

10. Appears to be a clear violation of the first amendment, as if that matters to them.

Self serving at the expense of justice. I'm glad he's bringing the change. I can hardly wait for more.

[librechik]

11. Maybe they would think twice about lying and breaking the law if they knew they could be exposed

If they are protected from even exposure of the crimes--why should they ever stop?

[FrenchieCat]

13. First off,

“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.”


The above is in quotes.....but who said this?


Second, the argument as reported, if it is accurate (and with the AP, one never truly knows), is so ridiculous until it would be impossible not to believe that there was a reason for the lack of sound legal grounds in the argument.

Of course, If one wants to believe that any judge would actually agree that late night comics can be claimed as a reason for Presidents/Vice Presidents not to cooperate with a CRIMINAL Investigation, then one has a reason for outrage, and I've also have a handful of bridges for sale with no money down.


Come on, folks!....why believe this shit as-is without a critical eye?
So that you can be upset?
There are already enough things to be upset about. This really shouldn't be one of them.

So let's get real, and let's stop just buying into what the MSM report via Knee Jerk. Makes folks look as silly as those who would actually believe that the DOJ thinks that they will get a favorable ruling based on the reason given.

[rug]

16. To answrer your fist question,

"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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061803879.html?hpid=moreheadlines

As to your second point, it is a ridiculous argument and the judge isn't buying it.

[hileeopnyn8d]

14. journalism is dead n/t

[LiberalFighter]

15. First, The Daily Show will probably have a good skit on this.

Second, that argument doesn't wash because they didn't try to stop it when newspapers and OTA electronic media made fun of the politicians.

Third, who the hell is this Jeffrey Smith? Is he a holdover from the Bush Administration or a Republican?

Fourth, who signed off on Smith's position?

[seaglass]

17. You know I read this yesterday and I couldn't remember where

and I was going to look for it this morning but I thought it was so ridiculous I must have dreamed it. But I didn't.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/18/judge-sullivan-steven-bradbury-not-qualified-to-withhold-cheney-interview-materials/