In summary, while the CIA had found a number of documents that aren’t “covered by any exemptions that may be asserted by the CIA”, they’re still not going to turn them over because they would “interfere with Special Prosecutor John Durham’s ongoing criminal investigation into the destruction of the videotapes.” (My Bold)

Interesting that it is still “ongoing”, but I still am standing by my bet with EW that no indictments get handed down, and hence, no convictions.

I am still inclined to think (hope?) that timing is everything, and that sometime after the State of the Union message next January, Durham will find the way clear to indict a few people (who happen to be Republicans). After all, next summer, with elections only a few months away, would be a good time to remind the voting public about the corruption of the Republican brand.

Oh, but I am *not* suggesting [slaps hand over mouth] that a prosecutorial discussion will be influenced by political considerations. Perish the thought! Just because our president was schooled in Chicago politics….

Um, what was the question again?

Bob in AZ

Government’s letter to District Court regarding processing of records related to destroyed videotapes (10/19/2009) (2 page PDF)

The latest CIA letter has to do with the CIA’s response to Judge Hellerstein’s April 20, 2009 “paragraph 4″ order regarding their production of CIA documents that relate to the CIA’s destruction of the torture videotapes.

In summary, while the CIA had found a number of documents that aren’t “covered by any exemptions that may be asserted by the CIA”, they’re still not going to turn them over because they would “interfere with Special Prosecutor John Durham’s ongoing criminal investigation into the destruction of the videotapes.” (My Bold)

Interesting that it is still “ongoing”, but I still am standing by my bet with EW that no indictments get handed down, and hence, no convictions.

It was for a nickle, right EW? :D

It doesn’t work – no amount of interposing a largely ceremonial Congressional committee as a “reviewer” (without power to prevent or punish) of Executive activities can effectively replace the Constitutional scheme of “oversight” that REQUIRES PRIOR JUDICIAL review and approval. It’s like saying let’s have the Executive decide what laws it wants and then the Judiciary can appoint an oversight committee to get reports from the Executive on how it is enforcing the laws it decided it wanted, and that way everyone can just skip Congress being involved in the legislative process at all The courts are supposed to be the oversight branch for Executive search and seizure – not Congressional committes getting reports from IGs who operate under classified review and exec privilege stritures, and who are Exec employees despite their supposed duty to report to Congress.

Link.

In one sense, I’m not sure what the Patriot Act can restore as long as banks and corporations can keep sending money to tax havens for laundering…

Without somehow linking the insta-declassification in the national security sector to insta-legal changes in the financial structure (via Treasury rules, or Commerce procedures), I don’t see how even these proposed changes can make all that much difference.

Sorry to sound pessimistic, but I simply don’t see these proposed changes linking up to the financial processes and money laundering activities that seem to be undermining the stated policy goals of say… Dept of State.

Perhaps it was this week’s news that hedge funder Raj Rajaratnam, arrested based on evidence obtained by wiretaps, was helping fund the Tamil Tigers that has me pessimistic that these piecemeal fixes are actually going to be all that effective.

You can fix DoJ, but if they have no ability to investigate Commerce, or Treasury changes (and yes, I’m thinking TARP) what’s the point over the long term?