Comments on: Cheney Interview: The New Jon Stewart-Worthy Excuses

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:08:18 +0000

Well, like I said, I do not trust the man who pushed him hard for the job, Kevin O’Connor. Secondly, I do not trust anybody out of the Bush DOJ. Thirdly, I heard reports from within and without the DOJ that he was fully prepared to wrap up his investigation, with no resultant implications for anybody, prior to the Foggo bit breaking it open. I am not naive on this stuff, this is what we do here, and I have seen no indication that his jurisdiction was expanded.

I sincerely hope you are right.

By: alinaustex

alinaustex — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:55:14 +0000

bmaz @49 , mary @ 50 ,
I repeat to you both patience is a virtue regarding the” destruction of the CIA torture tapes” investigation . And Bmaz don’t understand your pessimistic outlook regarding US Attorney Durham -law enforcement of all jurisdictions up and down the Northeast swear by his work . And how pray tell do we know that Durham has not done squat -has there been any reporting to that effect -is not the investigation ongoing ? And I do believe Durham and his team have been given a broader mandate to investigate any individuals that would have been helped by the said destruction of the torture media -clearly the horrorific practices that migrated from the OVP to Langley then to the OSD -and then to Camp Nama could very well fall under Durham’s expanded mandate -(Clearly I can’t proof this -but its what I hope and have a modicum of reasons to believe is going on even as we blog today ..)
Bmaz perhaps you should ask Whitey Bulgher just how good a prosecutor US Attorney Durham is once the investigation is completely finalized.
And this is probably all I will comment regarding this matter -and remain cheerfully optimistic about my somewhat eludicated guesses until proven wrong .
“The pessimist may be right in the end - but the optimist has a better time getting there ” Samuel Clemons

By: TheOracle

TheOracle — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:48:42 +0000

It is looking more and more like Attorney General Holder, no matter what he may believe or has said previously, was selected a) to be a suitable replacement for Mukasey and b) to obey the political operatives in the White House (with Rove just being replaced by Emanuel and Axelrod).

Any independent DOJ Attorney General would have ordered his subordinates at the DOJ to launch investigations, appoint special prosecutors, seat grand juries, subpoena witnesses to testify and conduct a thorough/transparent housecleaning of the Bush/Cheney years…no excuses, no hiding behind executive privilege or states secrets…otherwise, we’re just seeing a repeat of the Bush/Cheney years and the continuing conservative politicization of the Justice Department.

By: MaryCh

MaryCh — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:05:54 +0000

UR such a TEEZ!

I’m hopin’ you’re right, since I didn’t remotely get what I wanted for Fitzmas ;(

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:53:20 +0000

Oh, I am more than familiar with that episode, Foggo, Goss, MZM, Mitchell Wade, and Brent Wilkes/ADCS etc. Quite frankly, I have always been a little suspicious of Durham because he was pushed so hard for by Kevin O’connor, who was more than willing to be a lackey for Alberto Gonzales. Not a very admirable genesis in my book. Never heard of Rice being actually summoned to the GJ, I do not believe there is any evidence of that whatsoever, other than the speculation that she and Cheney “might be” called when Durham was first appointed. Keep in mind that Durham appears to have done squat, and was going to put the case to bed, before Foggo spurred him back to action.

I sincerely hope you are right, but I will have to see it to believe it.

By: alinaustex

alinaustex — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:43:20 +0000

Bmaz @ 468 ,
Sorry cannot reveal sources & methods-but my full faith and confidence is in US Attorney Durham - One thing you might go google on the “internet tubes ‘ is how Durham was given an extension on his efforts back in March 2009. But I guess you and I will just have to wait and see if I am right - however it might be good to remember that Foggo leads to MZM , which leads to the OVP /and backroom deals with not only OSD Rumsfeld , but also the special forces pukes that perpetrated Camp Nama & other atrocities -also we might better keep an eye on Cambone & Feith as this unfolds…
bMAZ ,at this time regarding Durham patience is a virtue & again without revealing sources and methods -this is going to be fun to watch in the next year or so,
And can anyone verify after the two public meltdown former Sec State Condilezza Rice had that she too had been to see the Durham grand jury ?
“Time will tell who has failed and whose been left behind when you go your way and I go mine ” Bob Dylan

By: phred

phred — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:22:07 +0000

Agreed. I think there is still a lot to learn about the tape destruction. I am really hoping that Durham is thorough, honest, and devoted to the rule of law…

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:45:17 +0000

I am curious why you think Durham is going to do that considering the limited scope of his inquiry jurisdiction? Lots of prosecutors have great conviction records, and it is mostly because they do not prosecute the really tough cases where convictions are not slam dunks. Why do you think Durham is so different? Especially since he was in the process of walking away from this case not that long ago until the Dusty Foggo bit rose its curiously odd ugly head.

So what gives, why all the enthusiasm?

By: Mary

Mary — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:07:41 +0000

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out that the normal crew in Thailand didn’t want to be the ones to actually destroy the tapes. So Rodriguez had to send someone over to have it accomplished. Someone who appeared on the tapes would probably not have the same compunction about destroying them, or someone who had other liabilities on torture and ordering torture.

By: Mary

Mary — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:05:22 +0000

I guess we now know, too, that the tapes were in actual CIA control (their safe) and not just constructive control (possession held by foreign interests, even if subject to CIA’s command)

I like how Radsan is trying to spin the CIA lawyers out of trouble. When you have court orders on production and/or preservation of evidence and you have litigation proceedings where you have duties under Federal Rules and ethical obligations even if no orders are outstanding, then you do not have a situation where *incompetence isn’t the same as obstruction*

If your client is involved (directly or as a witness) in criminal litigation and you know of incriminating evidence and you don’t tell them to preserve, you are already over the line. When you know about their destruction (even if you didn’t tell them to) and you allow your colleagues to sign off on discovery and court filings that don’t disclose that destruction and actively misrepresent that all relevant information is being turned over, you are way past incompetence and well into obstruction.