Category Archives: cheney DoJ access memo may 4 2006 gonzales dereliction

cheney’s access to DoJ case files — at least since may 4, 2006

many others have already done a
better job than i likely will, in
detailing the manifold reasons why
this memo should be viewed with great
suspicion, if not outright incredulity.

[a sincere thanks goes to rawstory
for the original PDF file — from which i
have derived the below images] but, i
will have much to say about this in the
next few days, as well. very much, indeed.

why on earth should dick cheney have
access to the duke cunningham investigatory
files at the DoJ? what reason on earth could
there be — save an unlawful one — for
his having this access? seriously. dude. what?

while the last paragraph, above, seems
sensible, keep reading — the last para-
graph, below, undoes all of the above. . .

as ever, click to enlarge — here
is the “money clause” of the memo. . .
but — it seems odd, to have all
the real business handled at the end
[unless — of course, it was added later,
to cover prior practices — as was the
case, apparently, in the plame “insta-de-classification”,
revealed by team fitz in the libby trial, for example]. . .

Advertisements

cheney’s access to DoJ case files — at least since may 4, 2006

many others have already done a
better job than i likely will, in
detailing the manifold reasons why
this memo should be viewed with great
suspicion, if not outright incredulity.

[a sincere thanks goes to rawstory
for the original PDF file — from which i
have derived the below images] but, i
will have much to say about this in the
next few days, as well. very much, indeed.

why on earth should dick cheney have
access to the duke cunningham investigatory
files at the DoJ? what reason on earth could
there be — save an unlawful one — for
his having this access? seriously. dude. what?

while the last paragraph, above, seems
sensible, keep reading — the last para-
graph, below, undoes all of the above. . .

as ever, click to enlarge — here
is the “money clause” of the memo. . .
but — it seems odd, to have all
the real business handled at the end
[unless — of course, it was added later,
to cover prior practices — as was the
case, apparently, in the plame “insta-de-classification”,
revealed by team fitz in the libby trial, for example]. . .