Comments (22)

Mimikatz wrote on January 2, 2008 3:50 PM:

In the case of Fitz, the AG had recused himself, so he needed to have the AG's authority to make decisions to, for example, widen the probe.

parrot wrote on January 2, 2008 3:55 PM:

Hmm, shouldn't a special prosecutor be appointed to completely avoid conflicts of interest within Justice? Looks like a controlled investigation from the get go. And when it Congress going to actually cite anyone with contempt for not actually testifying truthfully or refusing to testify at all?

Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 4:11 PM:

The Acting Deputy Attorney General is Craig Morford. He seems ligit. But what if Mark Filip is confirmed? Filip clerked for Justice Scalia which implies that he supports an outragiously powerful executive office, signing statements, and is a member of the Constitution-undermining Federalist Society.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001683

The Senate must not confirm Filip. He will hinder Durham.

Dusty wrote on January 2, 2008 4:11 PM:

Since career prosecutors like Durham got most of the grief from Gonzo and his Bushie bs..I would say Durham knows what position this puts him in..and he is smiling at the prospect of making life miserable for all those Bushies.

But I could be wrong ;p

modmom wrote on January 2, 2008 4:19 PM:

Thanks to anonymous @ 4:11

Filip is NOT sounding good:

For Deputy Attorney General, the number two slot: Mark R. Filip. He has a long record of political engagement in electoral trenches for the Republican Party (as the Chicago Tribune reports, he volunteered to work on the Bush-Cheney Florida vote litigation in 2000, for instance). He served as Vice President of the Federalist Society chapter at his law school. He clerked for Antonin Scalia and is close to Solicitor General Paul Clement. Critics of the Bush Justice Department regularly cite a secret subterranean network of former clerks of three judges (Scalia, Thomas and Silberman) who are highly partisan political ideologues, and who routinely shape policy and decisions outside of the formal channels of bureaucratic communication.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001683

Noncooperator wrote on January 2, 2008 4:21 PM:

Craig Morford was the acting USA in the eastern Michigan district that instigated criminal charges against Richard Convertino, ex AUSA, for withholding evidence in the nation's first terrorist trial. The terrorists were convicted, then released based on the charges against Convertino. Convertino was recently acquitted of all charges. The charges were bizarre when compared to the conduct in the Padilla trial. I think I detect an odor.

p_lukasiak wrote on January 2, 2008 5:00 PM:

A couple of concerns

1) Did Mukasey get WH approval for this first?

2) Durham's resume suggests that he's never been in a position to have a super-high level security clearance. Will this be a problem?

3) Who is going to staff this probe? Will Durham be operating out of the Eastern District of Virginia office --- the exact same USDA district that Bushco has repeatedly used to give its DoJ factotum's (like Monica Goodling) "prosecutorial experience". This could be a serious problem -- not just because of the strong posibility of the presence of political hacks in the office, but this is the same office that does the big "terrorism" prosecutions, and a thorough investigation is likely to lead to other instances of prosecutorial misconduct....

mo2 wrote on January 2, 2008 5:11 PM:

Aha - Dana Perino today said that Congress is not moving on nominees quickly enough. BAM - in your face, stupid hen - we saw that coming from an internet connection away.

anon wrote on January 2, 2008 5:36 PM:

...Who is going to staff this probe?...

Yup, that does seem like a serious problem here.

Also, is Mukasey's statement the brief (more or less) for the investigation? Because he just mentions the destruction of the tapes is that it for the scope of the investigation? Is the rest he didn't appoint a special prosecutor because the investigation will focus only on the destruction of the tape--presumably only CIA related people--and therefore there's no conflict of interest and no need for a wide ranging investigation?

Or, is the Mukasey's statement just everyday DoJ PR stuff and not much of anything one way or the other?

theWalrus wrote on January 2, 2008 5:37 PM:

Here's the investigation:

JD: "Did the President know what you were doing?"

CIA: "I can't recall".

JD: "Did you do anything wrong?"

CIA: "No."

JD: "OK, case closed".

Who, for one minute, is going to beleive that anyone in this administration has the priciples to investigate themselves?

anon wrote on January 2, 2008 5:38 PM:

Ah, some questions from above are answered in Lederman link.

Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 5:51 PM:

A. ICC

At what point does the ICC get involved: After the US government has miserably shown it cannot conduct an independent war crimes investigation? Seems like we've crossed that threshold.

B. Appearance of Conflict: Material loss of public confidence continues

The issue isn't just the investigation, but the "man on the street"-view: Is there or is there not a reasonable appearance of justice, independence, and competence?

This smells. Weren't were "promised" some changes in the stench from DoJ with this new AG? The "lessons" of the US Atty firing seem to have been lost on this AG.

C. New Governance For US

Let's talk about some solutions to this:
- Independent branch of government that does these investigations;
- Something that will remove from the Congress, Judiciary, and Executive Branch any ability to influence an investigation
- Something that will impose meaningful consequences on the lazy legal community that has permitted this abuse of power under Genva to continue without consequences.

Freewheelin' Freddie wrote on January 2, 2008 6:14 PM:

Jesus, the horse has been gutted before the gun went off. Its turned into some weird Damon Runyon type farce!

I'd sure like to open the bottom drawer of that obscure desk in the unknown anteroom in Area 51 where all the REAL reports get stuffed.

aquart wrote on January 2, 2008 7:06 PM:

Durham has a spotless record. He doesn't mind taking on corruption and he's never lost a case.

Try finding out a guy before you decide he's useless.

Google is your friend.

Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 7:06 PM:

Freewheelin' Freddie wrote on January 2, 2008 6:14 PM

It's called, "Lack of confidence" and "burden on US government to show it's competent."

Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 7:14 PM:

aquart wrote on January 2, 2008 7:06 PM:

Durham has a spotless record. He doesn't mind taking on corruption and he's never lost a case. Try finding out a guy before you decide he's useless. Google is your friend.

---------------------

Same could be said of Fitzgerald.

"Never lost a case" assumes WH-CIA will cooperate and yield evidence. Libby shows us what they're capable of doing.

CIA agents have refused to cooperate with Italian prosecutors in re rendition.

The American system of obstruction with meaningless-untimely-consequences is the issue. We're not only talking about an investigation, but the style of brick wall.

Google reminds us of "ICC" and "Lawyer fidicuary duty to enforce Geneva." That seems lost on this US government. Google doesn't yet have a swing vote on the Supreme Court nor ICC.

Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 7:25 PM:

Feinstein and Schumer still pleased with their decisions to support AG Moo-crazy? A decision of Congress to independently investigate -- despite "AG assurances" -- suggests the Senate has reservations about this AG and this President. As they should. But they didn't need to rush a confirmation.

Even if the lingering doubts snowball into a larger ethics investigation into Moo-crazy, would Congress do anything about it? We've got years of alleged war crimes, WMD farce, and an illegal occupation which this Congress has been funding. They've pretended Habeas was lawfully denied; then ask that we believe Congress must "undo" that with Habeas "restoration".

Rather than just sit here an throw peanuts at this farce of governance, how about the public use this time to broaden the discussion:
- What can be done to better regulate/oversee legal counsel;
- What structural changes are required in the US government to ensure these types of war crimes are more quickly prevented;
- How will, in cases where a treaty like Geneva is allegedly abrogated, will Members of Congress be timely held accountable for their failure to assert their legal power to punish the President for denying them the vote to abrogate the Geneva conventions?

Unless we discuss some real solutions -- which this US government seems unwilling to do, unless forced -- we're simply communicating, "Despite the Iran-Contra non-sense, we're going to go through this evidence destruction again."

How about an independent, NSA-like system for the Congress that will independently target, sample, and review attorney work products and other documents within EOP-OVP to ensure they are meeting data retention standards; and that the CIA evidence-retention policies are consistent with their practices? President says, despite this many years of FISA violations but no evidence warranting support for the theory that there are sleeper cells in the US, that he needs NSA; why can't Congress be given a similar capability to check the other two branches to ensure compliance with Federal law? Yes, let's discuss an open contract that will allow the Congress to -- without notice -- get access to Presidential data, just like the NSA accesses our e-mails -- and review whether the President is or isn't complying with the Constitution, Federal law, and treaty obligations?

brian wrote on January 2, 2008 7:43 PM:

Suggestion :

Find out if there are any copies of the tapes on any computers or DVDs that happen to be lying around the Agency or maybe Dick's lair.

People are running with the assumption that the 'tapes were destroyed' ... why assume that ?

Look for copies.

Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 8:06 PM:

brian wrote on January 2, 2008 7:43 PM

Good point: There are likely copies.

Don't limit the search to US government. Could be copies anywhere worldwide:
- School of the Americas
- CIA contractors involved with translation/transcription, under contract with the DoJ [like Abraxas, CIA contractor]
- Foreign powers
- Military bases
- Senate/House secret files

Require all contractors' legal counsel to certify, as part of all contractors -- before award of any fees, stock options -- "We are not in the position of, nor do we know, about any tapes, recordings, or copies of any prisoner abuse worldwide."

danger wrote on January 2, 2008 10:33 PM:

On the whole, Democrats should oppose any and all Federalist Society members as a requisite for nomination.

They've created an entire alternate universe not based on the principles of the Constitution. Unlimited executive power is certainly not one of them.

Over the last 30 years or so they have regrouped the broken ideals of the Nixon administration and infiltrated evry part of our justice system through an ideology of conservatism designed really to enable the better flow of power into their base. They're like some monster from a bad space movie -- if you want to defeat it, you need to neutralize it's disposal of the power it has accumulated.

This country has had enough, and since these lawmen have been complicit in aiding and underwriting the entire grab of the Bush administration, it's time they get the boot too. Are we really still willing to give these people the benefit of the doubt on anything??

danger wrote on January 2, 2008 10:35 PM:

Brian - like any celeb porn tape, one has to assume there is always another copy safe somewhere. Even for the administration and the CIA, it's too valuable for them to scuttle it out of existence.

chabuka wrote on January 3, 2008 10:28 AM:

Humm..Mukasey is Durhams boss...and Bush is Mukasey's boss....so ya think it will be a real criminal investigation..do ya? Be sure and thank Chuck and Diane for the great A.G. pick...by not voting for them...