Comments on: David Addington? http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/ Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:48:32 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Pachacutec http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103234 Pachacutec Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:10:21 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103234 <p>I missed this when it first went up.</p> <p>Sigh.</p> <p>If only we could live blog Addington: The Sequel.</p> I missed this when it first went up.

Sigh.

If only we could live blog Addington: The Sequel.

]]> By: lllphd http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103164 lllphd Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:57:50 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103164 <p>well, separation of powers complaints may not be available to the fourth branch, but i do believe barnacles are.</p> well, separation of powers complaints may not be available to the fourth branch, but i do believe barnacles are.

]]> By: stryder http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103143 stryder Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:35:12 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103143 <p>Zingers of the week<br /><a href="mailto:Mary@7" rel="nofollow">Mary@7</a> on ew’s 60 post<br /> “She could be Mother Teresa, Clarence Darrow, Joan of Arc, and a Hockey Mom complete with Cover Girl’s decade commemorative set of lipsticks, it doesn’t really matter.”<br /> and now this<br /> “Is all the concern about video of the depo just a normal litigator-y thing, or is it possible they are worried he won’t show up on film?”</p> Zingers of the week
Mary@7 on ew’s 60 post
“She could be Mother Teresa, Clarence Darrow, Joan of Arc, and a Hockey Mom complete with Cover Girl’s decade commemorative set of lipsticks, it doesn’t really matter.”
and now this
“Is all the concern about video of the depo just a normal litigator-y thing, or is it possible they are worried he won’t show up on film?”

]]> By: bmaz http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103091 bmaz Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:13:39 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103091 <p>Yeah, I would take infrared just to cover the bases.</p> Yeah, I would take infrared just to cover the bases.

]]> By: Mary http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103061 Mary Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:02:34 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103061 <p>34 - Is all the concern about video of the depo just a normal litigator-y thing, or is it possible they are worried he won’t show up on film?</p> 34 – Is all the concern about video of the depo just a normal litigator-y thing, or is it possible they are worried he won’t show up on film?

]]> By: bmaz http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103049 bmaz Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:49:42 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103049 <p>I talked to the clerks office. The case number in DCCCA is 08-5412, but I haven’t had a chance to look for it since earlier, when it was not yet on PACER. She indicated that it would almost certainly be a panel, but none assigned yet.</p> I talked to the clerks office. The case number in DCCCA is 08-5412, but I haven’t had a chance to look for it since earlier, when it was not yet on PACER. She indicated that it would almost certainly be a panel, but none assigned yet.

]]> By: Neil http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103047 Neil Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:11:19 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103047 <p>What’s your reason?</p> What’s your reason?

]]> By: Mary http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103046 Mary Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:07:33 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103046 <p>Where is the Petition for Writ? At the CREW site the link is for the Motion for Stay Pending Application for Writ, but no application for Writ is incorporated in that and I don’t see any other link for it.</p> <p>So they are asking for the stay when they haven’t even gotten around to filing the writ yet? Or is it just not linked? It’s phrased as though the application for writ is going to be in the future. </p> <p>22 - I’m not sure since I haven’t been following closely and reading the filings but my understanding is not that the issue is technically one of discoverability. I could be wrong, but just looking at the pleading list from the Crew site, I would spec that what you have is the original complaint, then a request for an Injunction regarding existing and future records. Loyal Bushie at the DOJ says - no no no, Cheney can do whatever he wants with his records bc we’ve filed an affidavit that [under Bush’s determination of law] Cheney is complying with PRA and these guys have no standing anyway. </p> <p>Plaintiffs win the injunction request and as best I can tell it is on that ruling that loyal Bushies are going to go to the Circuit and ask them to mandamus the lower court to ???? well, to do something dispositive of the case, which would then mean the discovery would be unnecessary. So it reads as if the motion to stay discovery is because there is, or will be. a petition for mandamus of some kind (as opposed to an appeal of an interlocutory order?) that would be dispositive of the case. Since mandamus is reserved for directions to perform ministerial acts and not meant as a substitute for an appeal of an order where there are legal issues, I’m not sure exactly what they are getting at - maybe Taylor’s just read so many references to how the Dems should get the DC courts to mandamus him to serve/enforce the Congressional subpoenas that he’s just curious.</p> <p>Or - more likely - I have no clue what is going on from just the cursory listing and a writ has been filed already. I should go an read carefully through the motion for stay, but a fast glance (relying probably too much on subheadings) didn’t really reveal what they were going to ask that the lower court be ordered to perform.</p> Where is the Petition for Writ? At the CREW site the link is for the Motion for Stay Pending Application for Writ, but no application for Writ is incorporated in that and I don’t see any other link for it.

So they are asking for the stay when they haven’t even gotten around to filing the writ yet? Or is it just not linked? It’s phrased as though the application for writ is going to be in the future.

22 – I’m not sure since I haven’t been following closely and reading the filings but my understanding is not that the issue is technically one of discoverability. I could be wrong, but just looking at the pleading list from the Crew site, I would spec that what you have is the original complaint, then a request for an Injunction regarding existing and future records. Loyal Bushie at the DOJ says – no no no, Cheney can do whatever he wants with his records bc we’ve filed an affidavit that [under Bush’s determination of law] Cheney is complying with PRA and these guys have no standing anyway.

Plaintiffs win the injunction request and as best I can tell it is on that ruling that loyal Bushies are going to go to the Circuit and ask them to mandamus the lower court to ???? well, to do something dispositive of the case, which would then mean the discovery would be unnecessary. So it reads as if the motion to stay discovery is because there is, or will be. a petition for mandamus of some kind (as opposed to an appeal of an interlocutory order?) that would be dispositive of the case. Since mandamus is reserved for directions to perform ministerial acts and not meant as a substitute for an appeal of an order where there are legal issues, I’m not sure exactly what they are getting at – maybe Taylor’s just read so many references to how the Dems should get the DC courts to mandamus him to serve/enforce the Congressional subpoenas that he’s just curious.

Or – more likely – I have no clue what is going on from just the cursory listing and a writ has been filed already. I should go an read carefully through the motion for stay, but a fast glance (relying probably too much on subheadings) didn’t really reveal what they were going to ask that the lower court be ordered to perform.

]]> By: WilliamOckham http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103043 WilliamOckham Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:54:27 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103043 <p>They wouldn’t have to throw Addington under the bus. If Cheney asked him to, Addington would figure out how to drive the bus over himself all the while defending Cheney’s right to ask him as an important unitary executive perogative.</p> <p>Addington probably shows up in his high school yearbook as the guy ‘most likely to spend years in jail for contempt of court for refusing to answer questions about something he believes was right.’</p> They wouldn’t have to throw Addington under the bus. If Cheney asked him to, Addington would figure out how to drive the bus over himself all the while defending Cheney’s right to ask him as an important unitary executive perogative.

Addington probably shows up in his high school yearbook as the guy ‘most likely to spend years in jail for contempt of court for refusing to answer questions about something he believes was right.’

]]> By: DefendOurConstitution http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103037 DefendOurConstitution Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:27:53 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/david-addington/#comment-103037 <p>Yup, if they throw him under the bus, they all go under.</p> Yup, if they throw him under the bus, they all go under.

]]>