[Vice President] Cheney says top congressional Democrats complicit in spying

Dick Cheney's interview yesterday with Fox's Chris Wallace was filled with significant claims, but certainly among the most significant was his detailed narration of how the administration, and Cheney personally, told numerous Democratic Congressional leaders -- repeatedly and in detail -- about the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program. And, according to Cheney, every one of those Democrats -- every last one -- not only urged its continuation, but insisted that it be kept secret:

WALLACE: Let's drill down into some of the specific measures that you pushed — first of all, the warrantless surveillance on a massive scale, without telling the appropriate court, without seeking legislation from Congress.

Why not, in the aftermath of 9/11 and the spirit of national unity, get approval, support, bring in the other branches of government?

CHENEY: Well, let me tell you a story about the terror surveillance program. We did brief the Congress. And we brought in...

CHENEY: We brought in the chairman and the ranking member, House and Senate, and briefed them a number of times up until — this was — be from late '01 up until '04 when there was additional controversy concerning the program.

At that point, we brought in what I describe as the big nine — not only the intel people but also the speaker, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, and brought them into the situation room in the basement of the White House.

I presided over the meeting. We briefed them on the program, and what we'd achieved, and how it worked, and asked them, "Should we continue the program?" They were unanimous, Republican and Democrat alike. All agreed — absolutely essential to continue the program.

I then said, "Do we need to come to the Congress and get additional legislative authorization to continue what we're doing?" They said, "Absolutely not. Don't do it, because it will reveal to the enemy how it is we're reading their mail."

That happened. We did consult. We did keep them involved. We ultimately ended up having to go to the Congress after the New York Times decided they were going to make the judge to review all of — or make all of this available, obviously, when they reacted to a specific leak.

But it was a program that we briefed on repeatedly. We did these briefings in my office. I presided over them. We went to the key people in the House and Senate intel committees and ultimately the entirely leadership and sought their advice and counsel, and they agreed we should not come back to the Congress.

Cheney's reference to the "additional controversy concerning the program" that arose after 2004 and that led to additional Congressional briefings is ambiguous and creates a somewhat unclear time line: is he referring to late 2004, when the White House learned that The New York Times knew about the NSA program and was considering writing about it (only to then obey the President's orders to keep it a secret), or is he referring to the time when, more than a full year later, in December 2005, the NYT finally got around to writing about it, once Bush was safely re-elected?

Either way, Cheney's general claim is as clear as it is incriminating. According to him, key Congressional Democrats were told about the illegal NSA spying program in detail, and they not only actively approved of it, but far beyond that, they insisted that no Congressional authorization should even be sought, based on what was always the patently inane claim that to discuss the fact that the administration was eavesdropping on our conversations without warrants (rather than with warrants, as the law required) would be to reveal our secrets -- "our playbook" -- to Al Qaeda.

It is certainly true that Dick Cheney is not exactly the most scrupulously honest public servant around. In fact, he's almost certainly the opposite. Still, what he said yesterday was merely an expanded and more detailed version of what has previously been publicly reported and, to some degree, confirmed about the knowledge and support of Democratic leaders for the NSA program. Cheney's claims encompasses the following key Democrats:

Nancy Pelosi (Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee, House Minority Leader);

Harry Reid Tom Daschle (Senate Minority Leader). Unsurprisingly, Pelosi, Harman and Rockefeller all voted last July to legalize warrantless eavesdropping and to immunize telecoms from liability, thereby ensuring an end to the ongoing investigations into these programs. And though he ultimately cast a meaningless vote against final passage, it was Reid's decisions as Majority Leader which played an instrumental role in ensuring passage of that bill.

One would think that these Democratic leaders would, on their own, want to respond to Cheney's claims about them and deny the truth of those claims. After all, Cheney's statement is nothing less than an accusation that they not only enthusiastically approved, but actively insisted upon the continuation and ongoing secrecy, of a blatantly illegal domestic spying program (one that several of them would, once it was made public, pretend to protest). As Armando says, "The Democratic members who participated in this meeting have two choices in my mind - refute Cheney's statements or admit their complicity in the illegal activity perpetrated by the Bush Administration."

I'm going to spend the day calling these members and trying to get some response to Cheney's claim. If I'm unable to obtain any responses, I'll post their numbers and encourage everyone to make similar calls. As I wrote on Saturday -- and documented before: "As a practical reality, the largest barrier to any route to prosecution -- including this one -- is that the Congressional Democratic leadership was complicit, to varying degrees, in the illegal programs." That's true not only of the NSA program, but also the Bush/Cheney torture program.

One last point: there is much consternation over Dick Cheney's "Nixon/Frost moment" yesterday, where he expressly endorsed the idea that, as a "general proposition," a "wartime" President can do anything he wants -- even if it violates duly enacted statutes -- as long as it's justified in the name of national security. In one sense, Cheney was being so explicit yesterday about his belief in Bush's lawbreaking powers in part because he's taking pride in being so defiant on his way out the door -- daring a meek and impotent political class to do anything about his lawlessness -- and also because Chris Wallace conducted one of the best interviews (and, revealingly, one of the only interviews) about the Bush/Cheney view of executive power.

But that this was the Bush administration's central operating principle is something that -- as was true for Cheney's involvement in America's torture regime -- was long known. As I wrote all the way back in December, 2005, days after the NSA scandal was first revealed:

These are not academic questions. Quite the contrary, it is hard to imagine questions more pressing. We are at a moment in time when not just fringe ideologues, but core, mainstream supporters of the President -- not to mention senior officials in the Administration itself – are openly embracing the theory that the President can use the power and military force of the United States to do whatever he wants, including to and against U.S. citizens, as long as he claims that it is connected to America’s "war" against terrorists – a war which is undeclared, ever-expanding, and without any visible or definable end.

While Bush advocates have long been toying with this theory in the shadows, the disclosure that Bush ordered warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens in undeniable violation of a Congressional statute has finally forced them to articulate their lawless power theories out in the open. Bush got caught red-handed violating the law, and once it became apparent that no argument could be made that he complied with the law, the only way to defend him was to come right out and say that he has the right to break the law. So that debate -- over the claimed limitlessness of George Bush's power -- can't be put off any longer.

By itself, the long-disclosed September 25, 2001 Yoo Memorandum left no doubt that our Government had formally and explicitly adopted an ideology of lawlessness. As a country, we just chose to ignore all of that, chose to do nothing about it. The absues and extremism of the last eight years began as a Bush administration initiative, but it culminated as something for which both political parties, our leading political and media institutions, and our citizenry generally bear collective responsibility.

* * * * * On a somewhat related note, this creepy little post inserted onto Matt Yglesias' Center for American Progress blog by Jennifer Palmieri, the CEO of CAP's "Action Fund", is a vivid exhibit illustrating how Washington works, for reasons which Matt Stoller, Markos Moulitsas, and Brendan Nyhan all describe. Matt very well may not consider it to constitute interference with his editorial autonomy, but it nonetheless illustrates the potential constraints that can come from writing for an organization like that.

When I first joined Salon, the commitment they made, which for me was non-negotiatiable, was absolute editorial independence. Though that's an unusual commitment for a magazine to make, they did make it, and they never once -- in almost two years of my being here -- even came close to violating it. Even as I've waged quite acrimonious mini-wars with friends and former colleagues of top editors and officers here, and even as I've aggressively advocated views that were, at times, the opposite of the ones top editors here were advocating, there's never been a hint of interference or even pressure, and I couldn't even fathom their doing anything like sticking a note onto my blog of the type Palmieri just inserted onto Matt's blog.

Editorial independence is quite rare and quite valuable. It's still one of the key distinguishing features between blogs/alternative media outlets and establishment media. As Atrios suggests: "contemplate the issue of editorial independence, and the various revenue models which make it possible or not." It's worth supporting the bloggers who practice it and the media venues that allow and encourage it.

UPDATE: As I said, Cheney's time line is unclear, and it's possible, when he references an "additional controversy," he's referring to the DOJ's objections to the NSA program in March, 2004 -- not anything having to do with the New York Times. That would mean the detailed, expanded briefings he's describing would have included then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle, but not Harry Reid (who only became Minority Leader in 2005, once Daschle lost). If Cheney is describing 2005 briefings, they would have included Reid. That's all the more reason why responses from leading Democrats here is required.

That key Democrats were briefed on the NSA program is anything but new. USA Today reported in 2006 that Democratic leaders including Pelosi were repeatedly briefed on the program. There is some marginal dispute about what they were and weren't told, but no dispute about the existence of the briefings and the complete lack of any real efforts by Democrats to stop it or even object.

UPDATE II: Via email, several very knowledgeable bloggers -- including Marcy Wheeler and Christy Hardin Smith -- are arguing, persuasively, that Cheney did not really disclose any specific new facts yesterday about Democratic complicity, that while he may have emphasized more clearly than ever before the approval he claims Democrats gave, all of the facts, in one venue or another, have been previously disclosed. Cheney yesterday was almost certainly talking about the March, 2004 White House briefing (that would have included Pelosi, Harman and Rockefeller -- but not Reid), which has been reported.

Re-examining what Cheney said, they're probably right. But none of that, as Spencer Ackerman points out, undermines at all the need for Congressional Democrats finally to give a full accounting of what they knew, what they were told, and what they said about these programs. Particularly given how publicly Cheney is taunting them for having approved of the NSA program, they should respond specifically to Cheney's claims -- confirm the parts that are true and deny the parts, if any, that aren't.

The reason the law requires that Congressional leaders be briefed on intelligence programs is not because it's nice in the abstract for someone to know. It's because Congressional leaders have the right and the obligation to take action to stop illegal intelligence programs -- something all briefed Democrats clearly failed to do. Cheney, on his way out the door, is answering questions about what he knew and approved. It's way past time for Pelosi, Harman and Rockefeller, at the very least, to do the same.

UPDATE III: Last week, I was interviewed by Fox News' Jim Angle regarding the John Brennan controversy. For those interested: his story will air tonight on Brit Hume's Fox News broadcast, at 6:00 p.m. EST.

By the way stop being so convoluted with your argument. In order to find fraud, waste and abuse (Which you claim can happen) first they must actually be in constant watch for any laws, mismanagement of funds, or corruption (OVERSIGHT) found in the other two Branches then investigate their charges, duh!

Guess what, The E Branch has the Justice Dept. and USSC has Judicial review. Holy Moly a well designed “inefficient” government that checks each branch so that men can truly be free. And a bonus provision attached with that as well, division of powers with the States, only bone head voters blind to corruption could screw this gift up.

You said:
“Apparently your disagreement is historically impotent since Congress has been using THEIR oversight powers for a loooonnnnggggg time. Take it up with Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison etc... who all partook in common sense powers PROVIDED by the certain Constitutional Clauses such as “necessary and proper” (Read into what Hamilton said).

It is good to know that you think various agencies, laws, and acts of war which are funded and passed by Congress are immune to their prowling eyes. Also ALL the actions of Executive officials running wild and denying Constitutional rights to individuals so much so every lawyer would be in glee with all this work you will be providing to them. A would be tyrant would love your vision of government. “

____________

So know you want to make statements without any real point except to just pronounce yourself the winner of this debate.

You have not given any historical example that claims that the Constitutional power given to the executive is only valid if Congress approves of it through some imaginary power of oversight that you attribute to them.

It is your vision of the Constitution that is dangerous and that would lead to tyranny. You would render the Congress as a Supreme entity that the Executive would have to bow down to and to fear. You obviously do not believe in the seperation of powers that our Founders created. You would render the Commander in Chief impotent and would open the door for another attack on our soil.

Your vision is very dangerous to our country and to our Constitution.

You said:
By the way stop being so convoluted with your argument. In order to find fraud, waste and abuse (Which you claim can happen) first they must actually be in constant watch for any laws, mismanagement of funds, or corruption (OVERSIGHT) found in the other two Branches then investigate their charges, duh!
Guess what, The E Branch has the Justice Dept. and USSC has Judicial review. Holy Moly a well designed “inefficient” government that checks each branch so that men can truly be free. And a bonus provision attached with that as well, division of powers with the States, only bone head voters blind to corruption could screw this gift up.

____________

So you think that the Executive is allowed then to rummage through the drawers and files of everyone in Congress in the name of oversight or does it just work one way for you? Why do think that the Justice Department cannot do this? (or did you not know that?)

"You have not given any historical example that claims that the Constitutional power given to the executive is only valid if Congress approves of it through some imaginary power of oversight that you attribute to them." It's already been ESTABLISHED that Congressional oversight is an implied power. I already explained the common sense implication that allowed Congress this AUTHORITY from the get go. If you don't want to participate in common sense notions and established clauses I can't help you further. All three Branches should fear each other and the people, not just Congress being the bogeyman. If you want to see a Congressional bogeymen look at United States v. Chapman and Jurney v. McCracken.

Your contention that I favor an Imperial Congress is wrong and immature. The Oversight must be proper and not out of political revenge or power. The role of oversight is an important function within checks and balances in order to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse. Executive investigation against members of Congress goes likewise or do you think Congress should only police itself?

You said:
“ Your contention that I favor an Imperial Congress is wrong and immature. The Oversight must be proper and not out of political revenge or power. The role of oversight is an important function within checks and balances in order to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse. Executive investigation against members of Congress goes likewise or do you think Congress should only police itself? “

_________

Well I think some of your contention that I favor an Imperial Executive and tyrants, etc… is wrong and immature so you got it right back at ya. But in all seriousness I do think that your vision is one of a Imperial Congress.

As I have said where is oversight mentioned in the Constitution?

And who is it that decides what is ‘proper’ oversight? If there is a Congress who just hates the President and/or just wants to play politics and render him impotent then what would stop them from running all over the Executive branch with the power you would give them? He would have to get their approval before exercising his power and of course they could easily make up argument after argument against anything that he would set forth to do.

I believe in the separation and balance of power that is outlined in the Constitution whereas certain power is enumerated to each branch. These are not shared powers but are specific powers to each branch as outlined in the Constitution. Congress has its own power that it can use to check and balance the power of the Executive.

The FBI never successfully investigated a sitting Congresscritter before, that is news to me.

Some forced to resign rather than have fellow congresscritters kick them out all due to an Executive Branch investigation. Like I said news to me.

The FBI did managed to keep the cash and not all documents were returned. What is your point, that Jefferson's homework could be taken. Do you actually think that is what oversight is all about? Demand to know what is in the desk/safe etc...No, it's is a constant, efficient, and beneficial check in making sure laws/funding are being followed. You make it sound like a break in operation to go through someones private stash.

You said:

It’s already been ESTABLISHED that Congressional oversight is an implied power. I already explained the common sense implication that allowed Congress this AUTHORITY from the get go. If you don’t want to participate in common sense notions and established clauses I can’t help you further. All three Branches should fear each other and the people, not just Congress being the bogeyman. If you want to see a Congressional bogeymen look at United States v. Chapman and Jurney v. McCracken.

____________

You should put some sort of separation between my words and yours because I missed this part of your post thinking it was part of what you were quoting from mine.

No it has NOT been established that there is a implied power of oversight in the Constitution. Only in your mind has it been. As I said before the laws and House Rules do not supersede the Constitution and the Supreme Court case you cited backs up my position on this and not yours.

"As I have said where is oversight mentioned in the Constitution?"

I already gave you the Article, section, and the clause, the founders clause, as well as a USSC decsision affirming the implied power. You do know what an implied power is?

Let me help you: A political power not expressly named in a constitution but that is inferred because it is necessary to the performance of an enumerated power. Yes, common sense is truly dead.

You said:

The FBI never successfully investigated a sitting Congresscritter before, that is news to me.

The FBI did managed to keep the cash and not all documents were returned. What is your point, that Jefferson’s homework could be taken. Do you actually think that is what oversight is all about? Demand to know what is in the desk/safe etc...No, it’s is a constant, efficient, and beneficial check in making sure laws/funding are being followed. You make it sound like a break in operation to go through someones private stash.

__________________

Yet you seem to miss that in the case of Jefferson the Court ruled that the Executive could not just have access to the Congressional records or office (for the purpose of oversight) due to the Constitution and to the separation of powers between the branches. The cash was found in his home. His Congressional office search was ruled un-Constitutional.

Yet you had claimed earlier that the Executive had full power of oversight in regards to the Congress (did you not?) I guess you are wrong.

“I already gave you the Article, section, and the clause, the founders clause, as well as a USSC decsision affirming the implied power. You do know what an implied power is?

Let me help you: A political power not expressly named in a constitution but that is inferred because it is necessary to the performance of an enumerated power. Yes, common sense is truly dead. “

Maybe you should look up the word oversight in the dictionary because there is no power granted to Congress implicitly or implied that makes them the Supreme supervisors of either of the other two branches or that any other branch needs their approval for the execution of its own Constitutional power.

Congress has the right to pursue information and/or conduct investigations but it is not a Constitutional power of theirs to be supervisors of the Constitutionand all actions of the other two branches as you seem to think.

“full power of oversight in regards to the Congress”

Bwhahahaaaa, as in investigation purposes towards corruption such as bribes and such. They have certain IMPLIED privileges like Executive critters. Plus oversight in this case is totally different since a Congresscritter is not in charge of actually executing laws/$$$$ passed on behalf of “the people”. It's about the grease not the perverted action.

Do you now need to know the difference between what the Executive Branch does compared to Legislative? I don't think I can hold your hand and point out common sense functions that a forth grader should know and understand. Apparently I need to be more detailed. I don't think my fingers can take it.

Didnt fly right pass me but I do not agree with your interpretation of it meaning that Congress somehow are the supervisors of themselves and the other two branches.

Your posts are getting more and more insultive and I no longer have time to continue this right now.

Thanks for the discussion (hopefully another time we can continue it) and have a Merry Christmas!

It doesn’t matter if “it” flies past you, what is established has been since the first Congress through implied powers. What Congress passes and the President signs gets (Or suppose to) checked.

What, is the Executive Branch suppose to take all the money/abuse all the laws and demand Congress look the other way? If you say no, welcome to the world oversight through implied powers (In order that enumerated powers can OPERATE efficiently). If you say yes, welcome to a corrupt government.

So by your notion of “implied” powers of Congress to oversee and supervise the President and Executive branch then the records, communications, and all files of the Executive branch should be made available to the Congress on a weekly or daily basis so that they can approve of whether or not there is any abuse of power in their opinion? You are claiming that the Congress has a “Implied” Constitutional power that has been granted to them right?

“...Congress somehow are the supervisors of themselves and the other two branches.”

I take corruption seriously. The fact that all these Branches have different functions and different kinds of oversight does not register to you.

The Executive Branch takes the money, diverts it through various departments, in charge of executing the laws, and other such powers like negotiating treaties.

The Legislative Branch is in charge of, to save my fingers Ar.1, section 8, impeachment/conviction, etc...

Oversight on Congresscritters by an investigation dept. of Executive Branch consist of corruption, bribes, and other laws if one or a group working together break. Hence we are not looking at various departments etc. they are looking for individuals, all these guys do is create stuff, to often times, spend on things they favor.

Oversight on the Exec. Branch consist of departments being managed correctly by not themselves but by Congress (As well as other Exec. Dept.), laws the Leg. pass are be followed correctly, and that abuses are not occurring. To deny this responsibility is asking for bad government with no responsibility what so ever. You actually approve of this? Good grief. Are you a relative of a Truman Administration employee that got busted by an oversight committee for abusing funds?

What is your take on the mid 1990’s IRS abuses found by a congressional oversight committee which led to reform protecting the tax payer? I guess all that stuff was unconstitutional in your eyes (Bad Congress, sticking your nose in the Executive's business).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.