On The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru asks: Does he [Cheney] have a leg to stand on, legally? He sure doesn't seem to. When you say legally, Mr. Ponnuru, it’s not clear what context you mean, and your question simply can't be answered without knowing the c...

But how on earth do you impeach Cheney for violating an EO that Bush says he's not violated?

Congress is not dependent upon the president to set the standards for impeachable offense.

If, in the view of congress, the behavior expected by those covered by the Executive Order in question was behavior that congress had a right to expect from any member of the executive office then non compliance would be an impeachable offense.

Congress has every right to expect that Cheney guard our national secrets honestly and diligently. If he refuses to do so Congress can remove him from office, if they wish.

But how on earth do you impeach Cheney for violating an EO that Bush says he's not violated?

I'm certainly no Bush defender, but as a pure matter of law, I can't see how JJ's wrong on this one. And JJ agrees that exempting OVP is a terrible idea.

I can be against the law; just ask Bobby Fischer.

I don't think anyone could be prosecuted in this instance, but the White House's excuses clearly go against the intent of the Counterintelligence and Security Enhancement Act of 1994, which gave impetus to the EO.

An EO is merely a set of instructions to his functionaries on how to execute the law. There are administrative consequences for violating these orders but, surely, not criminal ones.

Violating an EO isn't against the law, true. But mishandling classified info clearly is, and that's the still-unanswered question that started this whole kerfuffle - Cheney's refusal to allow any oversight at all of his office's procedures.

1) The president issued a clear written order.

2) The president through a spokeman says that the clear written order means something other than what the clear written order clearly means.

3) Therefore the president has 'made the call' on the tricky question of when do clearly written and widely understood executive orders mean something else entirely.

You have got to be a committed republican to go along with that reasoning James.

Perhaps it's best to take a moment to summarize the questions that need answers:

* Why did Bush and Cheney abide by the executive order in question in 2001 and 2002, and then stop in 2003? Is it a coincidence they started ignoring the E.O. on handling classified materials just as they started mishandling classified materials?

* Why did Cheney abide by the E.O. in 2001 and 2002 if he's not part of the executive branch?

* Why did the President exempt the Vice President from an executive order he was already following? Why did he later exempt himself?

* When, precisely, did the White House decide that Bush and Cheney should exempt themselves from their own rules?

* Does Bush consider Cheney part of the executive branch? Why has the White House thus far refused to respond to this question? Does the President consider this a trick question?

* In its response to questions about the E.O., why did the White House point to a provision of the E.O. that doesn't exist?

* The White House insists, "There's no question that [Cheney] is in compliance" with the E.O. If there is no oversight, and Cheney is unaccountable, how does the White House know?

* In yesterday's press briefing, the president's spokesperson dismissed the oversight provision of the E.O. as "small" six times. Does the White House believe only "big" provisions need to be followed? How does the administration make the distinction?

Regards, C

The president has not made the call. That implys that a press spokemen can override the clear meaning of a written executive order.

I'm operating under the assumption that the president's spokesman is speaking for the president.

The president gets to make the call legally; he's made the wrong one.

Ah James, there you go trying to confuse the issue again.

The president has not made the call. That implys that a press spokemen can override the clear meaning of a written executive order.

If the president want to 'make the call' and exempt himself and Cheney from oversight then he needs to amend his own executive order which clearly places both his offfice and staff and the vp and staff under the oversight of the independent office in these matters.

What you and the republicas are saying is clear nonnense and is meant to confuse and obfusticate the issue.

You might as well be arguing that independent agencies should be taking their orders from Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh instead of relying on clearly written executive orders.

if Cheney really tries to stick to his guns on this, is it impeachable? It's a pretty damn blatant disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law...

No crime has been committed. President's can't pass laws on their own authority. An EO is merely a set of instructions to his functionaries on how to execute the law. There are administrative consequences for violating these orders but, surely, not criminal ones. How on earth could it be constitutional otherwise?

James, you are clearly sympathetic to the use of obfuscation when it protects your people. But don't you think in matters of national security when the interests of Americans are at stake that you should set aside your partisan ideology and support the nations best interest instead?

Ken, there are two different issues at stake:

1. The legal matter of who has to follow an EO and who gets to decide. The White House/VP is right on this one. (Although I fully concede that the WH is likely being disingenuous about the original intent of the EO.)

2. The public policy matter of whether competent independent authorities ought ensure that WH and OVP staffers are properly handling classified info. On this one, I don't know how I could be more clear: Of course they should. Even presuming the total honesty, loyalty, and good intentions of all concerned, oversight is absolutely crucial in such matters.

The president gets to make the call legally; he's made the wrong one.

And while it may be a simple matter of a pen stroke to change it, that pen stroke still has to happen. Cheney absolutely must not be allowed to violate it simply because it'd be simple for Bush to exempt him any more so than random citizens are allowed to violate poorly-written laws. The law (or EO) has to be changed first, or you're still in violation.

And I don't think the question was ever answered in the previous thread - if Cheney really tries to stick to his guns on this, is it impeachable? It's a pretty damn blatant disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law...

If Bush wants to tell him to lay off Cheney and that both his staff and Cheney's staff can do whatever they want with classified material then Bush needs to put this in writing. A press spokesman's word is not enough to change the meaning of a previously issued executive order.