the "king of hush" is at it, again -- in howards' colorado case.

more of dick cheney's now-
goofy quest for secrecy -- about
everything -- everything! -- he
touches, arrests, tortures or later
lies about. [today, H/T thinkprogress,
we learned that addington personally
approved the jack bauer-esque approach
to interrogation down at gitmo -- now,
he did so, with 'berto plainly in tow,
but when he did so -- yep! -- he was
dick's no. one -- chief lawyer. this
little fact, we've learned almost six
years too late. but i digress.]

so -- when was the last time a NON-PARTY
to a private piece of civil litigation -- a
non-party who steadfastly avoids being
sworn, and deposed -- even though he is
a "material witness" -- in that
litigation. . .

[even though, on his orders, the plaintiff
was arrested, and held, for simply speak-
ing his mind about the war in iraq, before
this self-styled "king of hush". . .]

so, when was the last time such a non-party
filed papers to admonish a magistrate judge
to keep his secrets. . . secret?

well, pretty often, if the non-party is
the sitting vice president of the united
states, apparently.

quoting now, from the papers he filed in
the colorado united states district court,
yesterday evening:

RESPONSE BY NON-PARTY
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT. . .

. . .Non-party Office of the Vice President (“OVP”) responds herein to the objections filed by plaintiff Steven Howards to the Magistrate Judge’s March 11, 2008 protective order barring public release of the videotapes – but not the transcripts – of depositions given in this case by two OVP employees. The Magistrate Judge determined that good cause had been shown for a protective order, finding that the potential for widespread dissemination and abuse of these videotapes, with a consequent loss of privacy and personal embarrassment to the witnesses, is “sufficiently real” to warrant maintaining the tapes under seal. The Magistrate Judge also found, after personally reviewing the publicly available transcripts, and video excerpts submitted by plaintiff, that releasing the videotapes would not meaningfully enhance the public’s understanding of this case or allegations traded between two of the defendants. . . Plaintiff has identified no ground on which these findings could legitimately be set aside as clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s protective order should be affirmed.. . .

[Emphasis supplied.]

he is such a. . . well. . . dick, isn't he?

n a m a s t e