It’s axiomatic that you can’t make an informed decision without information. While it’s true that you can certainly criticize congressional leaders for failing to object about not getting enough information truly to evaluate the legality or propriety of what Cheney and Addington were telling them in those meetings, accepting what they were told is not actually the same thing as knowing complicity. And what Cheney just took it upon himself to assert on Sunday ought to result in some immediate subpoenas from Congress, seeking each and every document actually shown to the congressional delegation and any tapes of the sessions that might exist.

Anybody think Cheney and Addington provided copies of whatever legal memos the OLC or NSA had prepared to justify the supposed legality of these programs? Think there was any mention of a majority of the DOJ threatening to resign over these programs, of Ashcroft and Comey refusing to reauthorize them, of pressure applied to a sick man in a hospital bed? I don’t either. Was any of this “legal justification” information allowed to be reviewed by congressional legal counsel? Apparently not. But the program was “thoroughly” presented to the delegation and conscientiously approved by Congress, who “urged” Cheney not to make any further report? Right.

It isn’t just that Cheney is a liar entitled to no credence, though it’s certainly partly that. It isn’t even that Addington is known for out-shouting anyone who objects. And it isn’t that Cheney actually said anything all that shocking on Sunday – after all, the existence of congressional briefings is not news. It’s the fact that Cheney went out of his way to summarize and characterize the substance of the supposed briefings and the “instructions” of those briefed. By doing so, Cheney must be considered to have (as he claims he can) declassified the briefings to allow such reports of them. And, in legal parlance, he has also waived any claim of privilege by making direct claims about what was discussed, who was told what, and who said what. At least to the extent of allowing review by congressional committee in camera or closed session, it’s just patently unfair to bind the tongues of those present (as was done) but then lay blame and consent at their feet when it becomes expedient to do so.

And as it seems plain that actual assessment of the “legal propriety” of these programs was not possible during these meetings, since no documents were provided and no congressional legal counsel was permitted to participate, it seems to me that the “why this is legal” portion of these meetings went something like this: “Of course it’s legal, don’t worry your pretty little head about that, Nancy.” And do we all remember Addington’s recent testimony before a congressional committee this very year, where he was asked whether he believed the President’s actions to have been legal and responded “I’m not here to give legal advice to Congress, you have your own lawyers.” How does that worldview sound about now? Anyone think he suspended that level of disdain and contempt for these meetings at which, conveniently, Congress' "own lawyers" were excluded?

I’m not trying to give Congress a pass. If they’re entitled to our revulsion, fine, I wouldn’t miss Nancy Pelosi and I won’t send her a card in prison. But neither do I find anything Cheney said to be anything more than an open invitation crying out for a congressional (or Special Prosecutor’s) subpoena. Letting that snake, Cheney, treat these dog and pony shows as if they were open sessions resulting in active and knowing congressional complicity in flagrantly illegal acts is not justified based on the one-sided and scripted accusations Cheney mouthed on Fox News.