Strange coincidence behind Cheney's destruction of records

[IChing]

I don't think this is possible but I read this and would like it debunked because it makes too much sense.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vice President Dick Cheney asked the Secret Service last September to delete the records of which political figures visited his residence. Cheney's lawyers cited the Presidential Records Act of 1978 as an excuse.

This is all part of a court battle involving an advocacy group that says Cheney must turn over his logs because they are subject to the Freedom of Information Act:

The Justice Department filed the letter Friday in a lawsuit by a private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, seeking the identities of conservative religious leaders who visited Cheney at his official residence.

The ironic part about all this is the fact that an unidentified member of the Senate has placed a secret hold on a bipartisan bill specifically designed to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act. Since Dick Cheney is the president of the Senate in addition to being Vice President, is it possible that he is the one secretly placing the hold on the bill?

http://www.thebluestate.com/2007/05/strange_coincid.html

__________________________________________________________________________

Links to news articles and lawsuits in the above link.

[havocmom]

1. Some time ago, there were pics of trucks from a company that shreds papers at the residence

Anybody remember that?

[IChing]

2. Wonkette had the photo I posted it on DU when it came out.

The question is:

As President of the Senate would Cheney have the right to put an anonymous hold on the legislation?



Spotted on 10/19, by an eagle-eyed Wonkette reader: The Mid-Atlantic Shredding Services truck making its way up to the Cheney compound at the Naval Observatory.

Fun fact: Mid-Atlantic Shredding Services has been contracted by the Secret Service for our Executive Branch’s record-not-keeping needs.

The present contractor providing Pickup & Destruction of Sensitive Waste Material services is Mid Atlantic Shredding Services and the current rate is $0.095 cents per lbs.

http://wonkette.com/politics/dick-cheney/shreddin-with-dick-211028.php

[havocmom]

5. Thanks for re-posting that photo and info, IChing

That pic needs to be shown often ;)

[Kagemusha]

3. ...With all due respect, Cheney is not a senator.

My response to the idea of him placing the secret hold is, are you (censored) kidding me???

[IChing]

4. the vice president oversees procedural matters

Under the original code of Senate rules,
the presiding officer exercised great power
over the conduct of the body's proceedings.

Rule XVI provided that "every question of order shall be
decided by the President of the Senate, without debate;
but if there be a doubt in his mind, he may call for a
sense of the Senate."

Thus, contrary to later practice,
the presiding officer was the sole judge of proper procedure
and his rulings could not be turned aside by the full Senate without his assent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States


http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm

[Kagemusha]

6. And not one single thing in what you just quoted gives him a senator's power.

The idea of Cheney exercising a senator's hold on a bill is utterly flat out insane. That is not overseeing the proceedings. That is participating in them, and there is no way, no how, that is proper or constitutional.

[BeHereNow]

7. Lest we not forget... Cheney threw the subpoena bearer off the WH grounds when served

for the notorious "Energy Task Force" meeting minutes.
Anyone remember that?

BHN

[IChing]

8. When was the last time there was a "secret hold" in Senatorial history?

I would like to read about a historical example of that of a bill this magnitude
that concerns national security. Please give me an example.


Don't forget the senate thought they had the power
to confirm United States attorneys and they didn't according to "hidden clauses'
that no one knows why they put in. (Specter-R).




Don't get so fricking arrogant, I was asking to debunk this.

[Kagemusha]

9. Look, holds are routed through majority and minority leaders.

There is no way that Reid and McConnell don't know who's doing a hold if it's a senator from their party, they just aren't saying because this is a collegiality thing, a Senate thing.

As for Senate rules, there's the Senate parliamentarian who can be asked his opinion and then Cheney can do some evil with the cooperation of a majority of senators - that's how 'the nuclear option' was going to work. The Senate rules are not secret. There can be no "hidden clauses" with the Senate. Obscure clauses, yes. Hidden processes, secret holds, yes. But never, ever secret rules.

And if you think there are secret rules, Reid must be fully complicit in the matter. I may not hold Reid in as high regard as some, but I regard the idea that he is complicit in secret Senate rules allowing a non-Senator to place secret holds on pieces of legislation to be so abhorrent to the constitutional power of the Senate that only a Senator with the absolute lowest respect for the institution he sits in could possibly even conceive of such a move. It's only about 5000x easier for Cheney to find a sympathizing Republican senator to do the dirty work for him. And I may be underestimating slightly in that.

Your reference to the US attorney issue is flippant, oversimplified and unhelpful.

And no, I do not have a list of historical examples. I'm not a professional Senate historian. What I relate to you, I recall from the debates over "the nuclear option" a short two years ago, and on the simple blunt fact that if Cheney did have the power you suggest, it would be... how to put this gently... an extra-constitutional horror that would completely nullify the Senate's existence as a legislative chamber separate from the executive branch. The Senate would not be a part of a co-equal branch of government anymore. It'd be like letting Bush table and call votes on his own money bills in the House. It doesn't happen, it will not happen short of an abolition of the Republic, it's just unconscionable that the leaders of the Senate, of either party, would allow it, because it reduces their own personal importance in the Republic to that of pack mules.

If you haven't heard, Senators have rather large egoes so no, they wouldn't allow it.

[IChing]

11. Good......now we are getting to the heart of the matter

I researched this last night and couldn't find anything
of this magnitude ever being recorded in the history of the senate.

This whole "We don't know who put a hold on it" is a crock of shit
I wish this point would be investigated, a multitude of people know
because it has to be recorded somewhere.

[Kagemusha]

12. We know now. It was Kyl.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1016827

I only found out 2 minutes ago.

As I explained, it's 5000x easier to just find a willing shill than to end the constitutional sanctity of the Senate.

And I'm not sure about it being recorded somewhere or not. The process runs through the majority and minority leaders so some kind of note that is then physically destroyed could easily be at issue - as long as the hold is in the mind of the majority leader, it is quite valid, provided the majority leader does not break collegiality to end the process of secret holds. Didn't see Reid running to the parliamentarian to get that done? Neither did I.

[OneBlueSky]

10. this administration is the largest criminal conspiracy in history . . .

and we continue to let them get away with it . . .

our "representatives" in Congress best get their shit together and stop these people -- before the new presidential directive regarding emergency powers goes into effect . . . sometime this fall, I suspect . . .