There has been extensive coverage on blogs and in traditional media following the Federal Judge's decision ordering the release of Vice President Dick Cheney's FBI interviews concerning the leak of Valerie Wilson's undercover status. CREW brought the lawsuit seeking those interviews. Here's a sampling:

The BLT: The Blog of the Legal Times: Kudge Orders Cheney Interviews Released

The Washington Times: Judge releases Cheney papers in Plame probe

Politico: Judge orders partial release of Cheney CIA leak interview

Associated Press:  Judge orders release of Cheney interview with FBI

The HIll:  Cheney interview with FBI to be made public

USA Today: Judge: FBI must release Cheney interview about Plame

Marcy Wheeler:Judge Sullivan Rejects DOJ’s Expansive Claims to Protect Cheney Interview and "What Judge Sullivan's Opinion Means"

Raw Story:  Judge rules FBI can’t keep Cheney interview buried

Absent an appeal from the Obama administration, we should receive the transcripts by October 9, 2009.  And, as we noted yesterday, just because the Department of Justice can withhold some information, that doesn't mean it should. CREW again calls on Attorney General Holder to make good on DOJ’s commitment to transparency by disclosing even those materials the court found can legally be withheld.

Big news. 

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered the release of records of former Vice President Cheney’s interview with the FBI in the Valerie Plame Wilson leak investigation. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), CREW had sued the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking release of the records. Judge Sullivan agreed with CREW that because the investigation is now over the Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot withhold all documents based on an exemption that protects law enforcement records from disclosure. Judge Sullivan rejected DOJ’s argument that future White House officials would be unwilling to cooperate with law enforcement inquiries if these records were released.

The Court agreed, however, with the DOJ’s view that portions of the records are privileged, meaning they do not have to be released, because some discuss internal agency deliberations, while others reflect communications between the president and vice-president. Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the Declaration of David J. Barron detail the information DOJ can withhold. Although CREW had argued Vice President Cheney had waived the privileges by agreeing to the interview with no preconditions, Judge Sullivan disagreed.

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, stated

Judge Sullivan rightly rejected a Justice Department interpretation of the FOIA that would have allowed the government to withhold virtually any law enforcement record even where an investigation has long since been concluded. We are disappointed, however, that the judge allowed DOJ to withhold portions of some records because the American people deserve to know the truth about the role the vice president played in exposing Mrs. Wilson’s covert identity. High-level government officials should not be permitted to hide their misconduct from public view.

On March 19, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder issued guidance directing agencies not to withhold information under the FOIA just because they can do so legally. The attorney general quoted President Barack Obama’s January 21, 2009 directive, which stated, “The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.”

Although DOJ has won the right to withhold some material, CREW calls on Attorney General Holder to make good on DOJ’s commitment to transparency by disclosing even those materials the court found can legally be withheld.

Read Judge Sullivan’s memorandum opinion here and order here.

Read David J. Barron’s declaration here.

Last night, in a lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) against the Department of Justice seeking former Vice President Cheney’s FBI interview in the Valerie Plame Wilson leak investigation, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed papers, including a declaration from Lanny Breuer, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. Embracing the same arguments made by the Bush administration for withholding the interview, DOJ argues if it is disclosed, future high-level White House officials will be unwilling to cooperate with criminal law enforcement investigations. The documents from the case can be seen here.

According to Mr. Breuer, it is “not uncommon” for prosecutors to inform witnesses the government will try to keep the information they provide confidential. But Mr. Breuer ignores the fact that here Mr. Cheney was never promised confidentiality, as Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald confirmed in a letter to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), then Chairman of the House Oversight Committee. Mr. Breuer also argues if Mr. Cheney’s interview is made public, future high-level White House officials will be unwilling or at least “reluctant” to cooperate in criminal investigations. He suggests such officials will testify only if subpoenaed, possibly “thwart[ing] investigations.” Yet DOJ has subpoenaed White House officials in the past without such repercussions.

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, said:

It is astonishing that a top Department of Justice political appointee is suggesting other high-level appointees are unlikely to cooperate with legitimate law enforcement investigations. What is wrong with this picture?

What is wrong, indeed.

Upon learning that Scooter Libby had been convicted of perjury, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama stated: “The conviction today underscores what happens when our foreign and national security policies are subverted by politics and ideology.  Leaks and innuendo in pursuit of a flawed policy lead to shameful episodes such as this.  It should never happen again.” 

That was then, this is now.

Yesterday, in a U.S. District Courthouse a lawyer with the Obama administration’s Department of Justice argued that publicly releasing Vice President Cheney’s FBI interview, conducted as part of the government’s leak investigation, would serve no legitimate interests but instead just provide fodder for late-night talk shows and ammunition for Cheney’s political enemies.  Yes, this was the position of the Obama administration, now in its fourth month in office.  How quickly we forget.

Perhaps this should have come as no surprise.  After all, the same Justice Department filed a brief in the Supreme Court last month urging the Supreme Court not to accept Valerie and Joe Wilson’s civil lawsuit for review.  In language dismissive of any larger issues at stake, the government’s brief went even further than any arguments the Bush administration had made and characterized the Wilson’s factual allegations as “creative[] indeterminate pleading.”  What happened to the “shameful episode” from “leaks and innuendo in pursuit of a flawed policy” that candidate Obama spoke so eloquently about?

Sadly, this is becoming a recurrent theme of this administration.  From the Secret Service’s White House visitor logs to Vice President Cheney’s FBI interview, this administration is demonstrating we have yet to see real change we can believe in.

The Obama administration continued to defend the position that Vice President Cheney's interviews with Patrick Fitzgerald should not be made available to CREW.  We've been seeking those portions of the interviews relating to the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson.  The "Daily Show" defense, first proferred by the Bush administration, didn't seem to impress the judge according to the Washington Post:

A federal judge yesterday sharply questioned an assertion by the Obama administration 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."

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan expressed surprise during a hearing here that the Justice Department, in asserting that Cheney's voluntary statements to U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald were exempt from disclosure, relied on legal claims put forward last October by a Bush administration political appointee, Stephen Bradbury. The department asserted then that the disclosure would make presidents and vice presidents reluctant to cooperate voluntarily with future criminal investigations.

At the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jamie Riley wrote the Obama administration siding against out CIA spy Valerie Wilson in her lawsuit against top Bush administration officials:

And now comes this word from CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington):

CREW learned today that the Obama administration is opposing our request that the Supreme Court reconsider the dismissal of the lawsuit, Wilson v. Libby, et al. In that case, the district court had dismissed the claims of Joe and Valerie Wilson against former Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage for their gross violations of the Wilsons’ constitutional rights.

So, President Barack Obama is on the side of the patriotic folks who outed a CIA agent working to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of an intemperate leader of a Middle East nation hostile to the United States.

Well, not likely. But the Obama administration apparently understood the “exemption” of the offices of the president and vice president from a federal law on privacy. And apparently it also understood that even with jurisdiction,  Plame would have to prove that she was harmed directly by the actions of those named in the suit.

Go figure.  Cheney’s scheme worked. At least it worked long enough for him to get the war he wanted and how he wanted it. If he had to ruin the career of a CIA agent in the process, well, that’s just collateral damage.

Plame understood the standard of proof and was prepared to meet it -- because this wasn't just "collateral damage."  This was her life.

CREW learned today that the Obama administration is opposing our request that the Supreme Court reconsider the dismissal of the lawsuit, Wilson v. Libby, et al. In that case, the district court had dismissed the claims of Joe and Valerie Wilson against former Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage for their gross violations of the Wilsons’ constitutional rights.

Agreeing with the Bush administration, the Obama Justice Department argues the Wilsons have no legitimate grounds to sue. It is surprising that the first time the Obama administration has been required to take a public position on this matter, the administration is so closely aligning itself with the Bush administration’s views.

In fact, the Obama administration has gone one step further, suggesting Mr. Wilson failed to provide any evidence that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rove or Mr. Libby harmed him. This is particularly ironic because the government had moved to have the case dismissed before the Wilsons had the opportunity to uncover the details of how Ms. Wilson’s covert identity was revealed.

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of CREW and one of the Wilsons’ attorneys, said:

We are deeply disappointed that the Obama administration has failed to recognize the grievous harm top Bush White House officials inflicted on Joe and Valerie Wilson. The government’s position cannot be reconciled with President Obama’s oft-stated commitment to once again make government officials accountable for their actions.

An editorial in today's New York Times makes an important point about Dick Cheney's newfound interest in transparency:

When he was vice president, Dick Cheney never acknowledged the public’s right to know anything. Now, suddenly, he has the full disclosure bug. He told Fox News this week that President Obama’s decision to release memos written by the Bush Justice Department authorizing the abuse and torture of detainees inspired him to ask the Central Intelligence Agency to release transcripts of those interrogations.

While Cheney has the "full disclosure bug" and is urging the release of transcripts, we'd like to add one more to his request:  Cheney's interview with the FBI about the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.  

As we noted yesterday, CREW made a FOIA request to the Bush administration's Department of Justice for that interview, which was denied.  We're asking the Obama administration to release it.  So far, no response.  But, since Cheney thinks releasing transcripts involving the CIA is important and appropriate, it's should now be a no-brainer to give us his FBI interview.

In 2008, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), CREW sued the Department of Justice (DOJ) for failing to turn over former Vice President Cheney’s FBI interview regarding the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson’s covert identity.

No surprise, the Bush administration had refused to disclose the interview even though Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald had never promised Cheney confidentiality and the criminal investigation is over.  When the administration changed, President Obama expressed a commitment to transparency and accountability and Attorney General Eric Holder followed up with a memo to agencies requiring greater responsiveness to FOIA requests.

Dick Cheney is upset with his former boss, George W. Bush.  Cheney wanted his former Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, to get a full pardon.  Bush didn't do it and Cheney isn't happy:  

Just one day after leaving the White House, former vice president Dick Cheney publicly broke with his boss of eight years, saying he disagreed with Bush's decision not to pardon convicted felon I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff.

After Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for his role in the outing of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to the news media, Bush commuted his prison term, a move he later described as "fair and balanced." But he refused to pardon Libby, a decision that angered many of Bush's supporters -- including, we now know, Cheney.

In an interview Wednesday with Stephen F. Hayes, a writer for the conservative Weekly Standard and author of a Cheney biography, the former vice president said: "Obviously, I disagree with President Bush's decision."

Cheney added, "Scooter Libby is one of the most capable and honorable men I've ever known. He's been an outstanding public servant throughout his career. He was the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice, and I strongly believe that he deserved a presidential pardon."