Cheney, Halliburton, and 18 USC §§ 434 -- meaningful remedies to apparent conflicts of interest?

Update [28 Oct 2004]: FBI investigation -- Ref

Allegation: Admissible evidence [a] Prior knowledge; [b] denial not supported; [c] e-mail confirming discussion between contractor and Vice President

inquiry's findings appear to undermine claims that he had no prior knowledge of the contract. .... In the midst of the din over the oilfields contract in September last year, Mr Cheney told NBC television that he had "absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of, in any way shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government". ...In a letter to Mr Cheney, the California democrat Henry Waxman, who has led the congressional investigation, said the circumstances "appear to contradict your assertions . . . [Waxman aslo] asked for clarification on an email that recently surfaced from Stephen Browning, of the Corps of Engineers, to Mr Feith on March 5 2003, which said the contract "has been coordinated with VP's [vice-president's] office". Ref

Sanctions on Halliburton are possible

364 U.S. 520: Contracts formed on the basis of a lobbyist are not enforceable, can be rescinded.

Why aren't the Halliburton contracts [because of the Vice President's special position and continued reception of ongoing financial benefits (deferred salary, contingent upon profits ref)] simply found null and void, and have all payments stopped?

Identities important

Further, principals on the "Cheney Energy Commission" need to be identified, per "18 USC §§ 434", to determine whether anyone improperly influenced the decision-making:

(2) Persons who may not be contacted. - The persons referred to in paragraph (1) with respect to appearances or communications by a person in a position described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) are -
(A) any officer or employee of any department or agency in which such person served in such position within a period of 1 year before such person's service or employment with the United States Government terminated, and
(B) any person appointed to a position in the executive branch which is listed in section 5312, 5313, 5314, 5315, or 5316 of title 5.

At this point, we do not know which private contractors were in attendance, or what government officials in attendance, if any, were in "receipt" of anything.

Yet, "despite all that we don't know," we hear many excuses to do nothing--that does not inspire confidence in either government or in how contracts are awarded.

Exception: EO 11222 revoked.