A federal judge yesterday sharply questioned an assertion[…] 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." […]
[An attorney in the case] told the judge that if Cheney's remarks were published, then a future vice president asked to provide candid information during a criminal probe might refuse to do so out of concern "that it's going to get on 'The Daily Show' " or somehow be used as a political weapon.
But what's downright revolting is that the argument wasn't made by one of Cheney's defenders (well, at least not strictly speaking); it was made by "career civil division lawyer Jeffrey M. Smith" of the Obama Justice Department!
Let me see if I've got this: Cheney conspired with others in the Bush Administration to out an undercover CIA agent as political payback because her husband wrote a perfectly accurate NYTimes op-ed piece disagreeing with one of the smaller lies Cheney told to get us into Iraq and keep us there--and the Obama "Change You Can Believe In" Administration doesn't want to compel Cheney to cooperate in the investigation because it might provide fodder for Jon Stewart?
As Jim Naureckas of FAIR asks:
Do they still teach the First Amendment in law school? […]
Here's an alternate plan: How about instead we allow the media to criticize and even satirize the statements of public officials, and make sure that officials cooperate with criminal investigations by subpoenaing them if they refuse to do so?
But at least maybe it will provide some fodder for Jon Stewart.