BREAKING: AP via MSNBC reports that the DOJ has opened a criminal investigation regarding the destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes. As LHP points out clearly below, Mukasey has some substantive conflicts on this issue -- which raises a whole host of questions, such as the ones Glenn raises here, about the DOJ investigating this that ought to be answered, and soon. More news as we get it on this, meanwhile some exceptional analysis from LHP on obstructive behavior with the 9/11 Commission. -- CHS
Today's NYTimes Opinion section had an "Op-Ed" that is short on opinion and long on facts, it even has a time line of sorts. You know how I love time lines. This Op-Ed was authored by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton the bi-partisan co-chairs of the 9-11 Commission and, boy, does it call bullshit on the Georges: Tenet and Bush!
A little background:
MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11 commission....Soon after its creation, the president's chief of staff directed all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the commission.
The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.
Well, THAT's quite the opening salvo!
When the press reported that, in 2002 and maybe at other times, the C.I.A. had recorded hundreds of hours of interrogations of at least two Qaeda detainees, we went back to check our records. We found that we did ask, repeatedly, for the kind of information that would have been contained in such videotapes
Oops, did someone at the CIA forget that the 9-11 Commission kept records?
Beginning in June 2003, we requested all reports of intelligence information on these broad topics that had been gleaned from the interrogations of 118 named individuals, including both Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, two senior Qaeda operatives, portions of whose interrogations were apparently recorded and then destroyed....Agency officials assured us that, if we posed specific questions, they would do all they could to answer them.
So, in October 2003, we sent another wave of questions to the C.I.A.’s general counsel. One set posed dozens of specific questions about the reports, including those about Abu Zubaydah. A second set, even more important in our view, asked for details about the translation process in the interrogations; the background of the interrogators; the way the interrogators handled inconsistencies in the detainees’ stories; the particular questions that had been asked to elicit reported information; the way interrogators had followed up on certain lines of questioning; the context of the interrogations so we could assess the credibility and demeanor of the detainees when they made the reported statements; and the views or assessments of the interrogators themselves.
The general counsel responded in writing with non-specific replies. The agency did not disclose that any interrogations had ever been recorded or that it had held any further relevant information, in any form. Not satisfied with this response, we decided that we needed to question the detainees directly, including Abu Zubaydah and a few other key captives.
In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, told us point blank that we would have no such access.
So, our intrepid Commissioners tried to go over Tenet's head to get the info.
A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel, the secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice Department also resulted in the denial of commission access to the detainees. Once again, videotapes were not mentioned.
This led the Commission to have sufficient misgivings that they included a CYA in the report:
So the public would be aware of our concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission report.
So, let's get this straight. At the President's request, Congress created the 9-11 Commission, then the President's own Executive Branch and its agencies willfully and "in your face mutha" withheld information and obstructed the very investigation that the President himself had requested.
If this is not a total kick in the pants to Congress and the American people, and to the friends and relations that we New Yorkers lost when the towers collapsed, I don't know what is.
I don't know if AG Mukasey can actually investigate this because of his obvious conflict of interest, but you know who absolutely can? And who should? Yep, the very branch of government who created the 9-11 Commission and gave it the power to investigate. Yo! Congress! Enough with the recessing already--get back to work! Or at least appoint a Special Prosecutor, 'cause fellas? According to the DOJ Criminal Resource manual this might be a violation of 18 USC Section 1505 and maybe 1515 as well. Oh, and then there is Section 1001, and.......................
Well, you get the drift. The closing graph from Kean and Hamilton:
As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.
[ emphasis in all quotes, mine]
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
LHP!!
Good news, however there is a potential downside. Congressional hearings might get put on hold now that there is a criminal investigation.
Seen this from emptywheel and AP?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....eheadlines
About friggin’ time!
Merry Durham-mas!!!
Are there legal grounds for prosecution for lying to the 9-11 commision?
Getting EPU’ed so I will put it here, West Texas Intermediate (the Cushing spot) is selling currently at $99.57. The EIA weekly report came out today and showed that crude oil stocks declined by 3.3 million bbls. This puts them just below the midpoint of their average range for this time of the year. Oil companies could be buying less now in order to push up the prices of their downstream products since their profit margins have been crimped by high crude prices at one end but insufficiently high (for them) gasoline and heating oil prices at the other end.
I still think that about $20 in the current price per bbl is pure speculation, indirect fallout from the subprime collapse. There is some awareness of tight supplies but I think the markets are only beginning to relate this to peak oil. In other words, the speculation happened and a rationale for it came after and indeed is still in the process of establishing itself.
What do you think of the guy who was appointed to head the probe?
And how long do these investigations usually take?
Already read AP, EW and HuffPo. All this stuff happened rght after I finished writing the damn post!
My next to last pargraph lists a few of statutes that may be possibilites for prosecution
Never mind!
Oh my, I need to stock up on the popcorn.
I wonder if we are going to see another round of the Abu duck and weave, “I don’t Recall”.
I know you don’t want to be rude, as this will probably get lots of Diggs, but the kick hsa to be somewhere… possibly the face? /proofreading
I am waiting for the professional progressive opinion of this attorney as well
:waits, eating popcorn for fun to begin:
I don’t know him. Believe it or not there a couple or few lawyers in the Second Circuit that I don’t actually know.
EPUed:
Assuming this article is about the same John Durham, he seems to be a career prosecutor with experience prosecuting serious wrongdoing by government officials, including FBI agents. So, it looks like this is not being given to a Bush regime partisan hack.
http://www.laborers.org/Hartfo.....-28-01.htm
we’ll have to wait then for proper evaluation
:popcorn:
Well,…. Libby took a bit of time. ANd it depends on who flips, who’s defense lawyer stalls for time, who Shrub decides to pardon…..
BOOYA!!!
:more popcorn:
For some reason, wordpress keeps eating it there was an “” that I keep putting in, that keepss disappearing. Maybe I should not have used the arrows
If they put the right career CIA offical under oath, Congress will likely get an earfull. I gotta believe that most of those folks are patriots and just as ticked as what’s happened as anybody. Right now, I’d bet the political hacks at the CIA are busy making sure congress doesn’t get anybodies right name.
The politicians memories are already fading…..
Boxturtle(Still no hope for impeachment, so this likely just another Jan Pardon)
Lest I forget: LHP!
I put this up earlier but it fits here. From my scandals list, this was not the only instance that Bush tried to dink with the 9/11 Commission.
The pile of sh*t waiting to be shoveled away by our Congress is getting woefully high.
Hopefully this investigation will be done or revealing all kinds of Repube malfeasance just before the elections in Nov.
Can W pardon someone before he’s even indicted?
OK, the wrong quote went into my reply to Marion AND
it ate the word “ahem” again. I keep putting the word “ahem” in and it keeps getting eaten. It’s not my usual failur eof proffreading, ti’s the website playing tricks on me
Is it RICO?
My hunch — that’s all it is — is that Mukasey went with a prosecutor with a reputation as
honest,
thor…ough,
me…..ti…..cu…..lous, and
care………ful, who
dots……all…..the i’s…….and crosses………all……..the……t’s……
and will pursue the investigation wherever it leads, relentlessly, honestly, and thoroughly, well into the next presidency.
BTW, LooHoo had a Durham evaluation on last thread. Don’t see LooHoo here, so will EPU it.
Perhaps the best outcome would be if the investigation will generate news for a year, but the convictions won’t come until after Junior is unable to pardon the miscreants.
Looks like it definitely is the same John Durham, who looks to be an ideal choice for this prosecution.
The fact that Mukasey made this choice has slightly ratcheted down my Schumer annoyance-meter. (This may only make sense to eCAHN.)
That’s what Ford did with Nixon. No o ne knows if it’s legal becasue it has never been challenged in court
please inform mizzzzzzzzzzPelosi,she might need a new table
Heh heh.
yup
Here’s Loo Hoo on Durham (93 on prior thread
Yepperoonie.
Indictments, that is. I believe charges alone (before trial and or convictions) can be pardoned.
Yes, didn’t convicted felon Scooter Libby’s conviction take about 2 years?
That’s amazing.
Without answering your question, whether or not it might qulaify under RICO, for purposes of avoiding jury nullification, I would not like to see a governmental agency described in an indictment as a Racketer Influenced Corrupt Organization. I would want to actually convict.
Starting impeachment proceedings would stop W from being able to pardon anyone..right?
Obviously IANAL, but the now past governor of Kentucky got away with issuing a blanket pardon for his entire admin, indictments or no, for fraud and crimes associated with the state’s Merit System (civil service).
works for me
i believe he can pardon anyone at anytime,i dont know if he can pardon himself
Here is a nice quote from the article I linked:
Sounds like Durham and our man Fitz have a lot in common, career wise.
well, we sort of know it’s not legal but we don’t know how the courts would find
as far as I can see, alito and roberts would think it’s fine so long as it were a republican that does the pre emptive pardoning
on the other hand, if it’s Clinton that does the pre emptive pardon then we can say it’s a lock unconstitutional
there is however the precedence Nixon set and even though it is not established case law it might be established as socially established
seems like this bunch doesn’t gather info to decide their decision, they gather info to support their decision
Even longer. Fitz was appointed 12/30/03. Libby was convicted in March 2007.
ive said this since,the Downing Street memo came out….the only way to stop an IranContra type misscariage of justice ,is to start impeachment ASAP
OT - via MyDD, apparently Obama is now advertising on Drudge.
Wow!
He looks to me like an over-zealous prosecutor chasing something with no underlying crimes. Swift boat him most rickey tic.
Mukasey named John Durham, a federal prosecutor in Connecticut, to oversee the case. Durham has a reputation as one of the nation’s most relentless prosecutors. He served as an outside prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the FBI’s use of mob informants in Boston and helped send several Connecticut public officials to prison.
I read up on it, and I see exactly what you mean.
you know, the right wing nuts are gonna go nuts and make rediculous claims that we won’t be able to gather information if tapes like this become public or the people that destroyed them are prosecuted
and we can put them straight in their place with discussion like this;
“who knows how much information was squandered and lost because these depraved minds insisted on using torture instead of the methods we know gives us much more valuable information, we could have cought bin laden by now, we might have been able to prevent the bhutto assasination”
turn it in their friggin face these sadistic morons
impeach Impeach IMPEACH
You know, I’m starting to think that if it comes down to a choice between Clinton and Obama (and I hope it doesn’t) I’d prefer Clinton.
Thanks. Yeow.
I’m also starting to wonder if Obama really wants this job.
oh ma gawd
is he now running as a republican?
what is WRONG with these people?
Obama is at the bottom of my list, Fern - has been for awhile…
He’s going for the centrist vote, you know the one between the far, far right and the far right.
nd there is this problem
http://www.latimes.com/news/na.....crosspromo
Reeks of desperation in Obama’s camp or simply stupid IMHO.
Marty Lederman’s take on ” outside prosecutor”
http://balkin.blogspot.com/
I started to think this several weeks ago. I am done thinking, and am very comfortable with that conclusion.
I’ve been there for awhile, and I’m no Clinton fan. Part of it’s “the devil you know,” but in that context, if you see the devil you don’t know advocating things you don’t like, it doesn’t take a lot of evidence.
Wonder when the scapegoats start queing up for the slaughter.
Like, destroying evidence obtained from “terrorists” has made us less safe…not giving the evidence to the 9/11 Commission so that they could make appropriate recommendations to keep you safe, has made us less safe. And…it all happened, 9/11, and all of it, all of it. Under Bush’s Watch!!!
Just like his mentor taught him.
A friend of mine with family in Illinois, still really likes him, based on that really nice speech he made way back when. And you can’t tell her any different.
Good for you!
FWIW, this is a direct quote from the Obama campaign on the Drudge ad issue:
“Someone is circulating a screengrab of an Obama ad on drudge. Even
if it’s true, it wasn’t intentional, the site isn’t on the approved
list of sites we advertise on.”
OTOH, the ads have been up for about two weeks, a source tells me. So I’m awaiting some further clarification from the Obama staff on this one and will let you know if and when I get it.
my first reaction was, “Wow! what an idiot!”
Good one! My brother-in-law actually said to me with a straight face the other night that Bill O’Reilly has very moderate political views. How do you even engage with that?
Maybe Obama has to cast a really wide net to win in order to off-set the bubbas that hate him for his color.
and DENNIS KUCINICH …has thrown him support
I think he is going after those folks who have switched from independent and Republican for this election. He may be on to something because there is a chance these people might buy someone who sounds like the kind of conservative they can no longer find in the republican party.
Why is this a surprise?
It may prove interesting to have a look at the list of those Mr. Bush will pardon before he finally leaves Fort Ricomagus.
he is way to dark for them…just sayin
True. I keep forgetting that.
Since Nancy’s table is so empty, perhaps she’d like some help setting it. “I’m” going to recommend some “peach”es and a “mint” on the side.
An unprincipled man.
because i really thought DK was the most liberal just listening to him
my bad
In my opinion, a reasonably progressive and economically populist Democrat doesn’t need (or want) to pander to those voters to win. If Edwards win the nomination, I believe that he could run in the general on a populist “it’s the economy and the warmongering, stupid” platform and win in a landslide.
OT, FYI - Rep. Lantos to retire due to cancer
I agree with Marty. This is being dressed up to mimic the Fitzgerald appointment, but it is not the same at all. However, this will confuse the MSM and maybe the public into thinking that Mukasey has relinqusihed control of this investigation, but he has not.
This is not like the PatFitz appointment at all
“Is it RICO?”
The short answer is that any entity or association-in-fact with a continuing existence and goal/profit motive (Beyond just the entity’s continuing existence) can be the basis of a RICO prosecution. But, the short answer is miseladingly simple. RICO has about 10 essential elements, lawyer-speak for major issues which must be proven. One of these is the proof of “predicate acts”. one must prove the two or more predicate acts - separate crimes themselves - done in furtherance of the entity’s racketeering existence. The predicate acts come from a relatively short list of crimes and, so far as I’ve seen, the crimes which may have been committed here do not fall within that list.
As to whether a government agency/entity can be a RICO entity, I remember a case from 10 or 15 years ago where the Office of the Governor (in Tennessee, I think) was successfully prosecuted as a RICO conspiracy for selling pardons (i.e., accepting bribes in return for official action). I do not think a RICO prosecution has ever been brought against a federal agency, ever. But, this is an administration of firsts, so maybe we’ll get this, too. But, remember, under pretty stringent guidelines written after Giuliani (and other prosecutors) in the late 80s went absolutely ape-sh*t prosecuting anything and everything under RICO, the Attorney General personally must approve the RICO prosecution prior to filing it. Mukasey did not appoint this prosecutor under the same provision as Fitz was appointed - this prosecutor is subordinate to Mukasey, not having all the powers of the AG but limited to this case (as was Fitz). Avoids the Appointments Clause challenge Scooter was going to try to raise in his case.
Is anyone else worried about this part of how Durham was appointed (from the AP article on the appointment):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....svJeGs0NUE
To me, if Mukasey is still calling the shots, then for all the reasons alluded to in the main part of the post, there is no reason to believe that this will be a valid investigation. Sorry to inject a bummer into the party, but I’m worried.
Well, he certainly sounded credible, and he’s smart, and right about a lot of things. It’s the reasons for his opinions, not the opinions themselves that are important in this case. Too much libertarian underpinning.
PLEASE SCREAM THIS
9/11 HAPPENED ON CHIMPIES WATCH!!!!he got MANY WARNINGS while on vacay
IMHO, Obama jumped the shark when he attacked Krugman. But I think a lot of more astute people saw it much sooner than I did.
I think Obama is a very shallow person with a very smooth delivery. So the key question is who are his advisors that they’d be pushing in such a rightward (aka “centrist”) directon?
Agreed. And I do wonder why more people don’t campaign to that side of the American spectrum.
So I guess Kean and Hamilton are finally pissed! I don’t know whether to say “Good for them!” or “It’s about time!”
IIRC, you are talking about Gov Blanton of Tennessee, who was convicted by the USA now running for Preznit on the R side - one Freddie of Hollywood Thompson.
thank you for splaining…i have a tendency to take peeps at their word….must stop that lol
Top story on Wolfy…big deal for WH….Bush in for the remainder of its tenure subpoenas and on and on….
Spin….the Fitz story…but Fitz won….case will take a long, long time….blah, blah, blah..
This appointment is not like the PatFizt appointment but is being dressed up to try to look like it. Mukasey is still in this chain of command. Durham, who if you beleive his press, seems to be the real deal ( I don’t know the guy myself)does NOT have the same autonomy that PatFitz had
The type of appointment does seem somewhat problematic but Durham himself appears to be a straightshooter.
He prosecuted John Connolly in Boston, the FBI agent who protected Whitey Bulger as an “informant” while Whitey was using the FBI to protect his criminal enterprises.
$$$$$ are on the right.
“The situation with Scooter Libby is precisely analogous…” legal expert tells Wolfie. WH will have subpoenas and grand jury testimony to deal with….
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch of “folks.”
if you read bartcop…they are known whitewashers.im puzzled as to why they bring this up now
Nothing that Lederman says, even if true (Durham is Neither “Outside” Nor “Special,” Nor “Independent”), gives any reason to think that Durham will not handle this prosecution zealously and impartially. Durham is a career US attorney and prosecutor, and Mukasey is essentially a lame duck.
You really think someone like Durham appears to be is going to endanger his post-Bush career, reputation, and/or legacy by politicizing this case? And, as someone else pointed out (here?), there are likely to be multiple career CIA people who really want the truth to come out, and will participate eagerly in the investigation.
LHP, would this mean that Congress would need to stop (or not start) any investigation of their own?