[ConsistentLibertarian]

"I think that he would tell the truth in either case, or at least I hope so." But Bush and Cheny have not discosed what you argue the law requires them to disclose as our number one and number two public servants. And I can't see anyway to avoid your compelling analysis of the law, so for now I'm stuck with that troubling conclusion. The only issue still open is, how bad is it for them to have failed to disclose what the law requires them to disclose? And if we use Clinton's failure to disclose what the law required him to disclose as a private citizen in a civil suit to calibrate, what conclusion should we draw?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

They don't want to discuss what law compells them dlsclose the energy documents because it will make them look stupid. What conclusions can we draw from this? It is hard to consistent leaders, I am sure that you can relate.

[1rudeboy]

Your problem is that you are "calibrating" what you know Clinton did, with what you think Cheney has done. Even if the final trier-of-fact finds a violation of one Act or another, the remedy will be for Cheney to turn over the documents. Hardly grounds for impeachment, and hardly grounds to argue that Cheney should have turned the documents over in the first place.

After all, Clinton was not impeached because he claimed "secret service" privilege (which was ultimately shot down), nor will Cheney find himself impeachable because he claimed executive privilege, as is his right.