« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
We all can get along. At least for the time being.
After the House intelligence committee threatened to issue subpoenas yesterday, the Justice Department backed down. Now the CIA will begin forking over documents relating to the destruction of the torture tapes, and the committee will hear from their second witness, the CIA's general counsel John Rizzo.
The DoJ seemed keen to paint Congress' reaction to their letter last Friday as an overreaction. Spokesman Brian Roehrkasse told the New York Times that "the department has 'no desire to block any Congressional investigation' and has not advised the C.I.A. against cooperating with the committee." And the AP relays that Department officials "denied they had changed their stance on the investigation."
And indeed, if you look at their letter to the committee from last Friday, where they "respectfully request" that the committee sit on their thumbs until the DoJ probes into the tapes' destruction wraps up, they have a point. They were just askin'. But somehow the graciousness and subtlety of the letter was lost on the House intelligence committee, who pronounced themselves "stunned" that the Department would move to block their investigation and said that, indeed, they'd been "notified that the Department of Justice has advised CIA not cooperate with our investigation."
Really, if the DoJ was just asking, it should have been pretty clear off the bat that the answer was "no." But apparently the threat of subpoenas was needed to drive the point home.
Now, while The Washington Post, straightforwardly calls this a reversal on the Department's part, the Times hedges, calling it a "partial resolution." Take, for instance, Roehrkasse (take him, please!):
“The wisdom, propriety and appropriateness of the decision to destroy these tapes are worthy and compelling subjects of an oversight investigation,” Mr. Roehrkasse said. But he said officials were still concerned that a Congressional inquiry could cause “disruption of our initial witness interviews, the delay and disruption of our document collection, and the tainting of any future criminal prosecutorial action because of Congressional grants of immunity to witnesses.”Accordingly, things will get interesting when it comes to Jose Rodriguez, the CIA official who ordered the tapes' destruction. The committee wants to talk to him in January, along with Rizzo. But, with Rodriguez's lawyer crying about witchhunts and scapegoats, that's going to be hairy:
Officials said Mr. Rodriguez’s appearance before the committee might involve complex negotiations over legal immunity at a time when the Justice Department and the intelligence agency were reviewing whether the destruction of the tapes broke any laws.
So enjoy the inter-branch comity while it lasts.
Comments (19)
tantalus wrote on December 20, 2007 9:56 AM:What it means is, DOJ has now developed a stonewalling line that Rizzo will emit when pressed by the committee. It took a few days of brainstorming.
Also likely -- a hasty document review has been completed at CIA, concluding that nothing that is to be turned over will be grossly incriminating.
jolly ranchero wrote on December 20, 2007 10:04 AM:I will make the shocking prediction--a month in advance--that no one will be able to recall much about what anyone told them about anything related to anything associated with these tapes being destroyed somewhere.
And if that fails (and it won't), they'll just throw it all on Gonzales.
al75 wrote on December 20, 2007 10:12 AM:TPM is the only source I had in 2004-2005 of the reign of corruption in the CIA under Porter Goss and his cronies, down to the "hospitality suites" cum hookers run in the watergate by "Dusty" Foggo when he was #3 in the agency.
Porter Goss was a ruthless republican apparachnick who took over to "reform" the CIA just as the US attorney purge. The tape destruction is utterly consistent with the overall m.o. of these characters.
Mr JJ wrote on December 20, 2007 10:13 AM:In letters to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee and others, Mukasey also reiterated his opposition to appointing a special prosecutor to the tapes investigation, saying he was "aware of no facts at present" that would require such a step.
AG Mukasey has a conflict of interest problem already, and should recuse himself and appoint a Special Prosecutor.
Jose Padilla's lawyers argued before the Florida Federal Court that Abu Zubaydah was tortured into saying Padilla was an al Qaeda associate. The DOJ dismissed Padilla"s allegations as "meritless," asserting Padilla's legal team could not prove that Abu Zubaydah had been tortured. Well, it's clear now that they certainly COULD have, if the tapes of the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah had been made available!
Now here is where Mukasey's role comes into question.
U.S. District Judge Mukasey, now attorney general, was the one who signed the warrant used by the FBI to arrest Padilla in May 2002. Court records show the warrant relied in part on information obtained from Abu Zubaydah"s interrogation. So we have a problem Houston.
The then Judge Mukasey could only issue a warrant based upon legally obtained evidence, and confessions under torture are certainly not "legally obtained". So either Mukasey was misrepresented the evidence, and would be liable to be
potentially a party in those who were presented with "perjured evidence"; or he knew that torture was used in obtaining the confession and ignored it.
In either case he is unsuitable to run an investigation, as it will, inevitably, involved himself. Thus a Special Prosecutor is necessary... Odds that this will happen? Zero percent.
Dennis wrote on December 20, 2007 10:52 AM:I wish I could be as optomistic as some of you that there will be ongoing investigations and big wigs will suffer.
But, frankly, I don't trust the Democrats to follow thorugh after the next elections.
Too many of them have given their tacit approval to the misdeeds and coverups of the Bush administration. There is a need to cover Democcratic buns and thereby, the Republicans will be covered as well.
Still, it's fun to watch and see if I'm wrong.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
OmniMod wrote on December 20, 2007 11:01 AM:I really don't believe any cooperation is going to come from the Admin - at all. And given all of the drama from BushCo I think it is naive to think they will cooperate. It would be much better to assume that this is some kind of ploy to buy time over the holidays. We all need to keep pressure on the people/leaders that can put pressure on the Admin. The more we talk about it and the more we show that it is unacceptable to do anything other than open up on the evidence destruction, the better it will be for The Republic and for The People.
JohnG wrote on December 20, 2007 11:04 AM:The fall guy has been selected - Gonzales did it on his own, against advice, and didn't tell anyone before (or after) he did it.
JohnW1141 wrote on December 20, 2007 11:09 AM:How many times does the Bush gang have to lie to people before they wake up?
This "new development" is more Bush bullshit coming from the worst Administration in our History.
brian wrote on December 20, 2007 11:36 AM:Copies of the 'tapes' still exist, bet money.
The objective is to stall, to stonewall, to deny.
Getting everyone to believe that 'the tapes were destroyed' was the first and best stalling tactic.
Insist that copies exist and keep insisting on seeing the copies.
Blow right past this fake tale of 'the tapes' being 'destroyed'.
danger wrote on December 20, 2007 11:50 AM:For all of the insistances that the tapes don't exist, for all of the conspiracies surrounding the fire at Chez Cheney, those tapes are too good a piece of blackmail for anybody to consider destroying it's existence.
So many smoke and mirrors here nobody knows who's really pulling the strings. So much internal factioning and infighting it's hard to tell who's on who's side anymore. We've all been fed so much bullshit we don't know what reality is anymore, except that we don't trust or believe what we see.
I just hope that the video 'mysteriously' 'appears' on the internet.
anon, too wrote on December 20, 2007 12:00 PM:WP says: "the Justice Department and the intelligence agency were reviewing whether the destruction of the tapes broke any laws."
Interesting that WP article fails to mention that even if the destruction of the tapes broke no laws, there was an outstanding court order to produce the tapes. So while it may be true that no laws were broken, the destruction of the tapes is surely contempt of court.
Once again the focus is only on the narrow issue that serves the administration, not the bigger picture of what the administration was doing, and continues to do - obstructing justice.
dixiegrl wrote on December 20, 2007 12:07 PM:Is TPM or anyone else keeping a handy dandy list of all the investigations and probes the Dem. oversight Comm. have SAID they are doing?
Nice little database of who, what, when and what happened.
Fer instance, Leahy said in July his comm. had authorized contempt citations for the Rove/Meirs no-show...
wha happened since then?
Is it all falling off the edge of the Earth?
anyone?
Legalize wrote on December 20, 2007 12:21 PM:No real cooperation will come from the Administration, and the Dems will continue to do fuck all about it. No one knows anything; it was all Gonzo's fault. Blah blah blah.
parrot wrote on December 20, 2007 12:36 PM:So many deciders...so little time.
Shame Shame wrote on December 20, 2007 12:55 PM:Same obfuscating ... same stonewalling ... same blameless usage of entitlement Bush has used over and over just like saying that ditching his requirements for success in TANG amounted to "They knew where to find me", after refusing mandatory drug tests and going off to "college" while being paid for having completed his National Guard committment, when he wasn't anywhere around his appointed assignment location. He's instructing the other's involved in this to hold their collective noses and he'll keep any questioning at bay until it's all eventually over. What a truly tragic ordeal this has been for the American citizens, and what a solid humiliation on our perspective of what we are and what we were supposed to stand for. Someone should be arrested for impersonating a human being. I didn't vote for the filthy swine bastard.
Utopia wrote on December 20, 2007 4:32 PM:1. So, the strongly worded letter seems to have worked this time.
2. Anyone else find it strange that before anyone in Congress even starts to *think* about an investigation, Jose Rodriguez’s appearance before the committee is already mucked up over legal immunity? The guy said what he did was A-OK and had the White House's "green light". So why's he need immunity? And just who's he going to give up in exchange for that immunity? Surely not Bush or Cheney. Will Rove of Fredo get the blame?
U
ann wrote on December 20, 2007 6:10 PM:Utopia raises interesting points. What I don't understand: Why is there a complicated process to offer Rodriguez legal immunity? Did the nation gain any startling info from the DOJ hacks that were granted immunity? What happened to NOT offering immunity and issuing a subpoena and requiring Rodriguez to appear and answer questions? So, he doesn't honor subpoena, then jail him. So he shows up but refuses to answer questions, then jail him. If he "takes the fifth," that proves that destroying the tapes were not lawful. Someone explain why he is being offered immunity, please!
chisholm wrote on December 20, 2007 7:44 PM:It'll be a cold day in hell before Mukasey permits scrutiny of anything relevant. I'm with Tantalus--they've figured out a plan of action.
olo wrote on December 21, 2007 5:17 PM:I keep hearing about these "tapes"...
My question is - What kind of tape(s)?? VHS, DV, Betamax, lol, or whatever?
This is not a trivial question. If this material was shot in, or converted to, a digital format, then there is a very good chance that copies exist in places not previously considered. Data processors and competent audio/video techs know that anything can/will happen so they stash backups in multiple places and on various media as insurance against loss of source material.
In addition, if this material was ever put on an enterprise grade LAN, it likely would have been stored on a file server(s) as well as automatically backed up by the backup service.
The people who want to delete files from this kind of environment rarely know how to do it right. Even pros can miss things if the job calls for scrubbing a files (millions of emails anyone?) from an extensive system with many users across scattered data centers.