Why the Cheney Energy Task Force Docs Are Now Fair Game
Lately it seems that the DOJ and Congress may be looking at more than mere perjury charges with respect to the Administration's handling of the Iraq War. Enter Democrat Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ) who asked Big Oil CEOs in early November, 2005, whether they or their companies participated in Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force in 2001. It turns out that they probably lied about their involvement.
Big Oil CEOs May Have Made False Statements to Congress About Involvement in Cheney's Secret Energy Panel.
You can't lie to Congress (No No). That is a crime under the "False Statements" statute, 18 U.S.C. ยง1001, which states that even individuals who are not under oath violate federal law if they provide false statements or information to Congress.
1) First we learned about WHIG.
Focus of CIA Leak Probe Appears to Widen
2) Then we learned more about Cheney.
Cheney's Office Is A Focus in Leak Case
3) Then Scooter Libby gets indicted and people notice that Cheney has an "odor" about him.
Public's faith in Bush, Cheney eroding: poll
4) Most recently, we find out that there is a strong possibility that the Nation's top oil executives lied to Congress when they testified that they never consulted with Cheney's energy task force in early 2001.
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force
5) All of the above makes me wonder - Are the Cheney Energy Policy Documents Fair Game?
Background of Cheney's Energy Task Force (Pre-9/11) and the Initial Effort to Compel Disclosure
In the Early days of the Bush administration and prior to May of 2001, Vice President Cheney participated in a study by the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG).
Details of the study and its participants were kept confidential. The Sierra Club and Judicial Watch later sued in federal court for the production of energy documents relating to the discussion and creation of a particular NEPDG policy report dated May 16, 2001. Plaintiffs contended that the NEPDG meetings were subject to Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) disclosure requirements.
Plaintiffs suspected that business executives of the energy industry played an improper role in shaping the policy report in question.
A previous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), issued and successfully litigated against the Dept of Commerce by Judicial Watch, has revealed that maps and charts of Iraqi Oil Fields, as well as lists of foreign suitors for such oil fields, were already being drawn up as early as March of 2001.
The Legal Case for Disclosure
Plaintiffs' case went all the way up to the Supreme Court.
(Remember when Cheney went duck hunting with Scalia the week before the case was to come before the Court? )
On June 24, 2004, the United States Supreme Court ruled that NEPDG and Vice-President Cheney were not subject to the procedural disclosure requirements of FACA. (The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires public disclosure of government public interest policy meetings). In the June 24, 2004 ruling, the Supreme Court essentially decided that, in this particular case, the need for information with respect to the resolution of a civil action did not merit disruption of the separation of powers doctrine.
Civil versus Criminal
The Court went on to distinguish between compelling discovery in a CIVIL case versus a CRIMINAL case.
1) The Supreme Court of the United States said that in a criminal investigation there is a "constitutional need for production of relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding," and that it is the "primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions."
2) The Supreme Court of The United States also said that the discretion of the prosecutor is entitled to great deference. "The decision to prosecute a criminal case, for example, is made by a publicly accountable prosecutor subject to budgetary considerations and under an ethical obligation, not only to win and zealously to advocate for his client but also to serve the cause of justice."
3) If the DOJ or Congress are closing in on a larger criminal Iraq conspiracy, as some news reports suggest, any legitimate investigation/prosecution of such criminality could be able to justify the production of those NEPDG documents despite executive privilege. The authority exists, it would just come down to a matter of showing need and relevance to the criminal prosecution at hand.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, the disclosure of the NEPDG documents requires our political pressure. Once the Criminal investigation is politically forced, the legality plays in favor of disclosure. There is no constitutional barrier to the forced disclosure of the NEPDG documents in a valid criminal investigation.
This is why we, as the blogosphere, can play a pivitol role in forcing the disclosure of the energy documents by supporting Sen. Frank Lautenberg's efforts to investigate whether Oil Executives lied to Congress, which is a crime. There is no doubt that by placing these executives under judicial scrutiny, we will be able to compel more evidence that will further necessitate the political and legal justification for discerning the details of Cheney's pre 9/11 energy task force.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. "The White House went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force."
This is where public pressure can play a role. The Republicans have been running interference for the President and their power is such that they can kill any effort by truth seekers to investigate Iraq War criminality, but the recent poll numbers are staggering, and they are feeling the pressure of the 2006 elections.
Big Oil CEOs May Have Made False Statements to Congress About Involvement in Cheney's Secret Energy Panel.
You can't lie to Congress (No No). That is a crime under the "False Statements" statute, 18 U.S.C. ยง1001, which states that even individuals who are not under oath violate federal law if they provide false statements or information to Congress.
1) First we learned about WHIG.
Focus of CIA Leak Probe Appears to Widen
2) Then we learned more about Cheney.
Cheney's Office Is A Focus in Leak Case
3) Then Scooter Libby gets indicted and people notice that Cheney has an "odor" about him.
Public's faith in Bush, Cheney eroding: poll
4) Most recently, we find out that there is a strong possibility that the Nation's top oil executives lied to Congress when they testified that they never consulted with Cheney's energy task force in early 2001.
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force
5) All of the above makes me wonder - Are the Cheney Energy Policy Documents Fair Game?
Background of Cheney's Energy Task Force (Pre-9/11) and the Initial Effort to Compel Disclosure
In the Early days of the Bush administration and prior to May of 2001, Vice President Cheney participated in a study by the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG).
Details of the study and its participants were kept confidential. The Sierra Club and Judicial Watch later sued in federal court for the production of energy documents relating to the discussion and creation of a particular NEPDG policy report dated May 16, 2001. Plaintiffs contended that the NEPDG meetings were subject to Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) disclosure requirements.
Plaintiffs suspected that business executives of the energy industry played an improper role in shaping the policy report in question.
A previous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), issued and successfully litigated against the Dept of Commerce by Judicial Watch, has revealed that maps and charts of Iraqi Oil Fields, as well as lists of foreign suitors for such oil fields, were already being drawn up as early as March of 2001.
The Legal Case for Disclosure
Plaintiffs' case went all the way up to the Supreme Court.
(Remember when Cheney went duck hunting with Scalia the week before the case was to come before the Court? )
On June 24, 2004, the United States Supreme Court ruled that NEPDG and Vice-President Cheney were not subject to the procedural disclosure requirements of FACA. (The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires public disclosure of government public interest policy meetings). In the June 24, 2004 ruling, the Supreme Court essentially decided that, in this particular case, the need for information with respect to the resolution of a civil action did not merit disruption of the separation of powers doctrine.
Civil versus Criminal
The Court went on to distinguish between compelling discovery in a CIVIL case versus a CRIMINAL case.
1) The Supreme Court of the United States said that in a criminal investigation there is a "constitutional need for production of relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding," and that it is the "primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions."
2) The Supreme Court of The United States also said that the discretion of the prosecutor is entitled to great deference. "The decision to prosecute a criminal case, for example, is made by a publicly accountable prosecutor subject to budgetary considerations and under an ethical obligation, not only to win and zealously to advocate for his client but also to serve the cause of justice."
3) If the DOJ or Congress are closing in on a larger criminal Iraq conspiracy, as some news reports suggest, any legitimate investigation/prosecution of such criminality could be able to justify the production of those NEPDG documents despite executive privilege. The authority exists, it would just come down to a matter of showing need and relevance to the criminal prosecution at hand.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, the disclosure of the NEPDG documents requires our political pressure. Once the Criminal investigation is politically forced, the legality plays in favor of disclosure. There is no constitutional barrier to the forced disclosure of the NEPDG documents in a valid criminal investigation.
This is why we, as the blogosphere, can play a pivitol role in forcing the disclosure of the energy documents by supporting Sen. Frank Lautenberg's efforts to investigate whether Oil Executives lied to Congress, which is a crime. There is no doubt that by placing these executives under judicial scrutiny, we will be able to compel more evidence that will further necessitate the political and legal justification for discerning the details of Cheney's pre 9/11 energy task force.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. "The White House went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force."
This is where public pressure can play a role. The Republicans have been running interference for the President and their power is such that they can kill any effort by truth seekers to investigate Iraq War criminality, but the recent poll numbers are staggering, and they are feeling the pressure of the 2006 elections.
posted at 3:44 PM PERMALINK
You are NOT on the State of the Day home page
click here to read more excellent stuff
