Comments on: DOJ Launches a Criminal Probe into Torture Tapes

By: bmaz

bmaz — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:07:21 +0000

Thanks houndcat; and welcome.

By: houndcat

houndcat — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:57:17 +0000

Yes. Same guy.

I used to practice criminal law in New Haven. Never did much federal, but I certainly was aware of Durham’s reputation. Never heard anyone speak anything but highly of him. The New Haven lawyers quoted in the article in Empty Wheel’s update do not dole out such praise liberally.

I think he’s the real deal.

By: MrMurder

MrMurder — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:29:21 +0000

Nothing to this point has convinced any rational being that a move starting at Bush’s hands is entierly honest.

Ditto the DoJ.

However, the thing that Fitzmas brought about was a fraying crack through the foundation of the OVP, Bush’s boss man.

Addington’s name came up frequently in the tape burnings talks among those who held scrutiny to the event…

This could be the breakway strategery of Bushco. as a way to try and save his failed legacy, or the AG himself could be undertaking self preservation as well…

By: LabDancer

LabDancer — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:51:10 +0000

Ms E Wheel & disciples: I wish to express my gratitude for your kind forebearance in leaving to me - the resident paisan if you will [I expect bmaz might be able to claim the same] to point out the obvious.

Durham … New England baseball …

Welcome to the Show, Bull Durham.

By: Neil

Neil — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:45:50 +0000

Patrick Fitzgerald denied Tuesday that he interrogated a deputy US marshal suspected of leaking secrets to the mob last year and instead characterized it as … Chicago Tribune, 12/22/07

By: Neil

Neil — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:40:21 +0000

Talking about Fitz, he’s been on the stand in a case of a federal marshall leaking information about an informant to the mob boss the informant was informing on. It sounds like a page right out of The Departed.

Anyway, in this pre-trial hearing, the defense attorney wanted his client’s statements struck as inadmissable becuase, he argued, Fitz’s questioning of the agent in FBI offices was constructive arrest without proper Mirandizing.

Who? would believe Fitz would not have said all the right things to preserve the admissability of the defendent’s statements?

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:36:30 +0000

Nothing will come out for some time. I would expect the Congressional committees to consult Durham before they offer anyone immunity (at least I hope they’d do so). That said, they figured out this should go criminal pretty quickly, so it may be that the evidence leads quickly to something. Mukasey sure would like early proof he isn’t bought and paid by Bush.

By: Neil

Neil — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:33:56 +0000

If Durham is as discplined as Fitz, we won’t be hearing leaks from his office, just news about matters of public record, subpeonas, indictments, pleadings and investigative journalists who wear down their gum shoe… McClatchy.

By: LS

LS — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:31:12 +0000

Does it mean that we’ll learn nothing new for years…or will info come out? Does Congress have access to material during the investigation?

By: Loo Hoo.

Loo Hoo. — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:29:14 +0000

Nothing in Wiki.