Shorter Rizzo to Rodriguez: Well, If You’re Not Going to Testify, I Will Screw You

Remember how I suggested that this passage from Pincus’ love letter to Bob Bennett and his client Jose Rodriguez might be targeted to (among others) Porter Goss and John Rizzo?

"In 2003 the leadership of intelligence committees were told about the CIA’s intent to destroy the tapes. In 2005, CIA lawyers again advised the National Clandestine Service that they had the authority to destroy the tapes and it was legal to do so. It is unfortunate," Bennett continued, "that under the pressure of a Congressional and criminal investigation, history is now being revised, and some people are running for cover."

Well, here’s what Rizzo had to say to that.

 "I told the truth," Rizzo said in a brief appearance before reporters.

Which doesn’t sound like it was all too helpful for Rodriguez’ little story.

A congressional official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation said the document trail the committee is following strongly suggests Rodriguez knew destruction would be against the advice and wishes of his superiors.

"If you look at the documents, you get very close to a direct order (not to destroy the tapes) without it being, ‘Jose, you’re not going to do this,’" the official said.

Another committee official said the guidance to maintain the tapes might have been even more direct.

"The line we got today was you are not going to destroy these, but it does not say you would be breaking the law if you destroy these," the second official said.

The first official said the committee will try to determine whether any CIA officials suggested "with a wink and a nod" that the tapes should be destroyed, and whether Rodriguez was being forced to take the blame.

Rizzo told the committee that CIA lawyers wrote a memo that said destroying the tapes would be legal. Rizzo advised against it. Then-CIA Director Porter Goss also recommended against the tapes’ destruction, said the official, information confirmed by several former intelligence officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of an ongoing Justice Department criminal investigation into the matter.

Not that I trust either Rizzo or Goss, because I don’t–I just think they’re working the press than Rodriguez, even with Bob Bennett’s expert assistance. But it does seem clear that Rodriguez didn’t even hold up his end of the bargain that Rizzo and Goss struck with him.

At the meeting it was decided that Rizzo would inform White House counsel Harriet Miers, Rodriguez would tell the leaders of the intelligence committees on Capitol Hill, and Goss would inform the director of national intelligence, according to former intelligence officials.

But intelligence committee leaders said they were not informed until more than a year later.

That seems like a great way to piss off Congress–though I’m not convinced that Goss told DNI Negroponte either, from the sounds of Negroponte’s apparent leaking about the letter he sent to Goss. And while we’re talking about secrets people were keeping, if Rizzo was tasked to tell Harriet after the tapes were destroyed, it sure seems like he would have met with her beforehand to discuss the terror tapes, too, as I speculated earlier.

At this point, I’m really unimpressed that HPSCI has made no noises about subpoenaing Goss. Yeah, I know he’s a former colleague. Does that mean he’s immune from your oversight? Because he sure seems like someone who was at the center of destroying tapes that everyone told him not to destroy. And it sure seems like he was ignoring a great deal of direction when he let Rodriguez destroy the tapes.

57 replies
  1. emptywheel says:

    I’m going to bed. You’ve got about eight hours to catch up.

    No, seriously, there;s still about 4 things I wanted to get to today. Damn terror tape propaganda taking up all my time. And if I don’t do a Borat story, bmaz might just wilt.

    • emptywheel says:

      More importantly, both Crazy Pete and Reyes have an incentive to not be too harsh on Rodriguez. And Hoekstra, in particular, will probably go a long way to protect Goss.

      • Jeff says:

        Although from that article it sure sounds like Hoekstra is prepared to go harsh on Rodriguez, as representative of the part of the CIA he doesn’t like, especially since Rodriguez’ interests and Goss’ don’t line up, and as you suggest Hoekstra seems interested in protecting Goss.

        So if it is true that Reyes is a fan of Rodriguez, as appears to be the case, and Hoekstra is after him, that could actually make things interesting. But I am not crossing my fingers, especially since in this story as in so many others, Hoekstra comes off sounding like he is still chair of the committee. And he couldn’t get away with that if Reyes didn’t let him.

        • bmaz says:

          Exactly. So what does that tension between Hoeksra/Goss and Reyes/Rodriquez yield? A battle that lets the blood and information flow or collusion between the loon and the dunce that screws us out of any information flow? Sad to say, the one I want sure isn’t the one I would bet on.

          • Jeff says:

            With the caveat that there is a good chance that I and we really have little idea of the actual lines of force involved, it sure seems possible that it could put some genuine pressure on Rodriguez to testify, though like you I am disinclined to bet on it.

            • emptywheel says:

              Though, if Bennett thinks he’s going to win this in the public sphere, he’s wrong. Both Pincus and Mazzetti seem to be playing for the home team, and Rodriguez is no longer on it. Unless Rodriguez can start throwing Goss under the bus, I suspect he’s going to have to start countering the evidence in some forum, and Congress may be one of the more friendly ones to do so, with the added benefit that he’d be guaranteed leaks.

              • Jeff says:

                This is interesting, and potentially encouraging. In that sense, Hoekstra and Reyes almost seem like a bad cop-good cop pair, though perhaps not intentionally or cooperatively.

                So when you say NYT and WaPo reporters are playing for the home team, you’re talking CIA, right? And so the implication is that at this point CIA’s interests and Rodriguez’ have diverged categorically, yes?

                • bmaz says:

                  don’t know about EW, but I would take the “home team” to be the Administration, whose interests are, shockingly (not) diverging from the Company.

          • Jeff says:

            My Iran-Contra knowledge is not where it should be, but my strong impression is that Hamilton was far more formidable, competent, skilled and independent-minded than Reyes.

  2. bobschacht says:

    “I just think they’re working the press than Rodriguez, even with Bob Bennett’s expert assistance. “

    Is a word like “better” missing from this sentence?

    Bob in HI

  3. bmaz says:

    However you shape it up, it is clear that the White House is positing that this was, as loyal shill Mike Hayden puts it “It was an agency decision — you can take it to the bank” and, there fore, had zip to do with the WH. Bullshit. The following is EPUd from a few threads back (What EW? You stumble into a case of Red Bull or something?):

    This part of the Pincus soft sell really pisses me off (in fairness, it is a line emerging from the WH since the start):

    “Congressional investigators have turned up no evidence that anyone in the Bush administration openly advocated the tapes’ destruction, according to officials familiar with a set of classified documents forwarded to Capitol Hill.”

    Well, isn’t that nice? I highly doubt it is true (there have already been reports that one or more WH officials were fairly enthusiastic on the destruction; the locals here have placed smart money on Addington); but even if it was true, that is not the freaking standard of care. The Administration was under a direct legal, ethical and moral duty to affirmatively see to it that the tapes were preserved. Wantonly and willfully standing around while they were destroyed, without taking steps to prevent it, is the dead nuts equivalent to authorizing their destruction.

    I am not buying one bit of any of this. I think a knowing and conscious decision was made, up the chain at least to Cheney, if not Bush himself as well, to destroy the tapes and this is just the ruse they picked to spin. This is abu Ghraib, Part Deux. They all knew and agreed.

  4. radiofreewill says:

    I’m still reeling from the revelation that a 95% Buddhist Country, with a Buddhist King, Tortured for Bush.

  5. BlueStateRedHead says:

    EW, there are 5 million missing emails vs. 1 torture tape, the possibility of an outcome not favorable to the capo president or even deleterious to him and your need to get some well deserved sleep to be balanced. I hope to you find a way to do it all. If there is anyway your sleuthy BlueBayState readers could help beef up your efforts let us know by the usual means.

    Maybe my priorities out of place, but the 5 million seem to be the more egregious and the more potentially fruitful. The country could understand 18 minutes, most backup their files or work for folks who force them to, and surely can comprehend the bamboozlement involving in not backing up 5 million messages in the most important office in the world.

    • bmaz says:

      Yes, but BSRH the root crime is so much more egregious in regards to the one tape. To be honest, the administration has (quite frankly, they long ago did on this one) point blankedly admitted the commission of Federal crimes in the form of violation of the PRA in relation to the emails. Not only do few seem to realize that, or care, there are not even specific penalties for said crimes. Torture, waterboarding, intentional destruction of material evidence etc.; ah, now that be a different matter, now you’re talking national and international war crimes.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Odds are that there are more tapes and more taped tortures not subject to discovery in this litigation. Torture Enhanced interrogation (verschaefte vernehmung in the original German) remains a high priority for this administration. The campaign to avoid liability for it subsumes the right to continue doing it.

      These tapes may be the short string that, when pulled, unravels the cloth. The story surrounding them is likely to be part and parcel of the pattern of behavior that resulted in widespread and possibly continuing violations of the Presidential Records Act, which may also include obstructions of justice, perjury and contempt {which carry greater penalties than violations of the PRA}.

      • BlueStateRedHead says:

        point well made and taken. yet I fear the the torture tapes are more likely to get the 9/11 pixie dust pardons treatment–iirc he can pardon in anticipation of charges–than one that smacks of two-bit ineptitude cover up.

  6. JodiDog says:

    The Clandestine Chief was doing his job.

    Keeping the Secrets!

    The end result of all this carrying on will be as usual “nothing!”

      • JodiDog says:

        Give the Chief credit. He did his job. He protected the Agency, his men, and the USA. Those tapes would have been nothing but trouble.

        I don’t wear a uniform, but I salute him.

        • CTuttle says:

          Jodi, I wore the uniform for twenty years, I find it extremely reprehensible that we tortured, period! Think about it, a recipient of torture, McCain is appalled, and you find condolence in the fact they covered it up…?

          • JodiDog says:

            I appreciate your service. My father and oldest brother are serving now. My younger brother served as did my mother who only quit to raise us. Only I and my little sister have not served.

            I don’t want to argue with you about torture or death, but as with anything there are conflicting opinions that vary dependent on the people and the circumstances.

            Still I won’t avoid the question all together.
            I hate the fact that there are wars.
            I hate the fact that people are killed in wars.
            I hate the fact that people are tortured in wars.

            Does that mean that I go hide in a hole when war comes?

  7. earlofhuntingdon says:

    All this CYA about senior politicians distancing themselves from the tapes’ destruction, and even discussions about it, suggests Murder in the Cathedral: “Who will rid me of this priest?” The king can do no wrong, but he must be relieved of the thorn that pricks him. Who will pull it? In the modern vernacular, who will do it while giving me plausible deniability?

    Torture is the defining practice of the Bush administration. It displays their their power to act above the law. It is the ultimate degradation of the enemy. And for a political leader who need only watch it or use its fruits, it is the ultimate conflation of eroticism and power. Which makes it almost certain that Cheney and Bush, or their direct reports, watched, but without getting wet or traveling to Thailand. The bureaucracy would have responded quickly with tapes, also necessary to train others and replicate behavior thought to produce “good results”.

    No one seems to have considered the end of their thousand year administration, or that the opposition party might take both houses of Congress beforehand, or that a lonely prosecutor might ask too many questions even earlier. Would that we have the persistence to withstand the stonewalling, and commitment to pursue these criminal acts in the next administration.

  8. AZ Matt says:

    From the WaPo:

    Account of C.I.A. Tapes Is Challenged
    Published: January 17, 2008

    WASHINGTON — The former Central Intelligence Agency official who authorized the destruction in 2005 of videotapes documenting harsh interrogation of detainees from Al Qaeda gave the order despite apparently being directed to preserve the tapes, the senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee said Wednesday.

    Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, said Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., head of the C.I.A.’s clandestine service at the time, had not “gotten authority from anyone” to destroy the tapes.

    “Matter of fact, it appears that he got direction to make sure the tapes were not destroyed,” he said.

    Mr. Hoekstra spoke after hearing testimony from John A. Rizzo, the C.I.A.’s top lawyer, who addressed the committee on Wednesday during a closed session lasting nearly four hours.

    Mr. Hoekstra did not provide details, including who may have told Mr. Rodriguez not to destroy the tapes. The lawmaker said it was important to have Mr. Rodriguez testify before the committee to get his version of events.

    A lawyer for Mr. Rodriguez, Robert S. Bennett, challenged Mr. Hoekstra’s comments about what agency officials told his client.

    “Nobody, to our knowledge, ever instructed him not to destroy the tapes,” Mr. Bennett said. “Had the director or deputy director or general counsel told him not to destroy the tapes, they would not have been destroyed.”

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      In a multi-billion dollar clandestine bureaucracy built secretly to spy on others, which hides its actions and budgets from Congress and the American people, and often the president, stated and true objectives might diverge.

      Take a more open example. St. Ronnie promised to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law, which included not trading with Iran or funding guerillas in Nicaragua. He said he didn’t and told his people, including Ollie North, not to do it. What his aides whispered in private to Ollie we can only conjecture.

      • AZ Matt says:

        If someone doesn’t specifically tell you not to run over that cute little black lab puppy does that mean it is no big deal to runover the cute little black lab puppy?

        Personally I think someone(the 4th Branch) told him to stomp on the gas and squash the cute little black lab puppy.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          I agree, and expect Cheney doesn’t like black labs anyway, or kittens, or children not his own, and certainly not DFH’s. I don’t think he’d hesitate a nano second.

          What we’re going to see for the rest of this administration and as long as Congress or the new administration has a stomach for it, is a kabuki dance to obscure the difference between formal, documented commands and expected but implied – or secretly ordered – actions by the CIA, and also by the DOJ and others.

          This is about unaccountable power, both now and in the next GOP administration. For Cheney, this is a fight to end all others. He’s tenacious and we’ll see one legal rationale after another foisted on us until he or we are exhausted. Time for a little Red Bull.

          • AZ Matt says:

            Cheney should have made a career as a sideshow shellgame hucksteer. He does know how to keep you frustrated. But eventually his sins will find him out.

            For EW, a Little Black Lab Puppy is cute.

            For Darth, it is roadkill or a practice target .

              • AZ Matt says:


                A Lot of Orge-b-gon is what is needed!

                Oh from the Genuis of David Broder – It was fascinating to watch the three top contenders for the Democratic nomination discuss their concept of the presidency during Tuesday night’s MSNBC debate in Las Vegas. But it was also stunning to realize that the three current and former senators who have survived the shakeout process — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards — have not a day of chief executive experience among them.

                Bush had executive experience so what is Broder’s point? Silly Twit.

        • emptywheel says:

          Oh, now you’re getting me mad, what with talking about cute lab puppies…

          Actually, Fourth Branch has a Lab himself (maybe two, I forget what his second is). mr. emptywheel has been intending to dress McCaffrey the MilleniaLab up as Darth Vader for Halloween for some time. But now that Fourth Branch did it this year for Halloween, I’ve nixed the entire idea.

    • emptywheel says:

      Now why would someone use the fricking passive construction in a HEADLINE? C’Mon, basic journalism. Active verbs. “Rizzo challenges Rodriguez’ claim.”

  9. BlueStateRedHead says:

    I quite understand. I stand accused of trying to go to sleep with some hope of punishment raining down on this reign. Somehow the 5 million seem to be so incontrovertibly willfully criminally stupid and so comprehensible and so here-we-go-again shades of watergate that I am betting on that one.

    and on that note, good night to the younger time zones and good morning to my later, older ones.

  10. Hugh says:

    “Nobody, to our knowledge, ever instructed him not to destroy the tapes,” Mr. Bennett said.

    Don’t you love the double negative? The point is that nobody should have to have told him that. You don’t destroy government files because you feel like it. You don’t destroy what you know well is or could be evidence in a criminal investigation or a court proceeding. As a career man and higher up in the CIA, Rodriguez knew this.

    I bet his superiors never told him not to shoot random people on the way to work either. Under Bennett’s logic, his superiors not telling him this would be tantamount to a license to do it. Bennett is just blowing smoke trying to obfuscate and confuse the issue.

  11. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Bennett’s job is to keep his client out of the pokey. His principal leverage is whether and how and how much his client discloses what he knows. Bennett is negotiating, via public discourse, over his client’s future with both the administration and Congress. Since this administration patently does not want the truth to come out, lest its leaders be criminally liable here or abroad, it is up to Congress to find the facts and truth. Will it even try?

    • AZ Matt says:

      Will it even try? Ah! the $64,000 question. If Congress can out the administration in their lies I think they will.

  12. radiofreewill says:

    “Here it comes!” *click* “Okay, you can answer the phone.”

    “Rodriguez here.”

    “Jose, it’s David.”

    “Oh, hey Boss!”

    “Jose, you know, have I told you that I just love Mexican food?”

    “Why, no, Boss, you haven’t. In fact, I think you told me you hated…”

    “Jose! Jose! Nevermind! Anyway, I was thinking about having two leftover burritos and an enchilada tonight for dinner, but guess what?”

    “What’s that, Boss?”

    “I burned them, Jose! I know it’s no big deal, I mean I had every right to burn those things, but it just happened, you know what I mean, Jose?”

    “Why no, Boss! If my wife burns the dinner, it’s no big deal either, and sometimes it happens.”

    “Jose, listen to me – Two Burritos and an Enchilada got burned. You see what I mean?”

    “Why no, Boss! I’m sure my Mamacita would have plenty more stored away. Do you want to come over and borrow some?”

    “Jose, you Fucking Idiot! I want you to Get Rid of the Two Videos and the Audio in Thailand! Capiche?! Godammit, do I have to spell it out for you!”

    “Oh! Oh, those Burritos and that Enchilada! I see, Boss! Not to worry! I will take care of it!”

    “Damn, Jose, for a minute there I thought you fell off the bandwagon!”

    “Not me, Boss. I’ll get right on it!”

    “Good, now let’s forget we ever had this conversation. Goodbye, Jose.”

    *click*…”All clear.”

    “Well John and Porter, that Addington sure can enunciate crisply when he’s angry, huh?!”


  13. Jeff says:

    Here’s the WaPo (not NYT) piece on the story.

    This may be the direction things are going:

    “It smells like a coverup, but the question is whether it was illegal or not,” said one of the sources

    Likewise, this may be what it amounts to with the WH:

    One of the two sources present said that White House officials did not seem as involved “as they might have or should have been” in 2005 decision-making about the tapes.

    • bmaz says:

      “It smells like a coverup, but the question is whether it was illegal or not,” said one of the sources

      Well that is a freaking stupid question on the part of whoever the “source” is. the is a whole plethora of substantial crimes that clearly include obstruction of justice, obstruction of Congress, false statements to Congress, false statements to federal courts, conspiracy and, of course, torture. Furthermore, and I can’t seem to find it right now, but there is a statute or provision directly prohibiting the destruction of evidence of a governmental crime. As to whether they “weren’t as involved as they might have been”, I am sticking with my statement @9 above, “The Administration was under a direct legal, ethical and moral duty to affirmatively see to it that the tapes were preserved. Wantonly and willfully standing around while they were destroyed, without taking steps to prevent it, is the dead nuts equivalent to authorizing their destruction.” Even if one were to believe the Administration was not paying attention (which I don’t) it is still a culpable mental state under the law commonly described as “reckless disregard” or “willful blindness”.

    • BayStateLibrul says:

      //It smells like a coverup, but the question is whether it was illegal or not,” said one of the sources//

      You mean we could have a smelly legal coverup? Give me my oxymoronic

      “I must be cruel only to be kind.”
      Shakespeare, Hamlet

  14. Sedgequill says:

    The George W. Bush administration may be relatively pleased with the way things are going. Attention is focused on a tiny fraction of interrogation recordings, and to a large extent on the physical media used for those recordings. (Granted, it’s hard to focus attention on activities that have successfully been kept secret.) There’s a convenient potential scapegoat at hand who, for expediency’s sake, can be portrayed as a highly conscientious, patriotic public servant who took it upon himself to do what needed to be done, or as a maverick who decided he needed to lawyer up bigtime. Congress may expend a lot of time and effort considering immunity for Rodriguez and others; meanwhile, the election horserace has picked up speed, there are surveillance and telecom immunity issues and several other issues to consider, and there’s about a year left in the presidential term of office. If only everything else were going so well, the White House may be thinking.

    In history’s light, Congress won’t be able to hid behind any DoJ investigation.

  15. Mary says:

    What a lot of stories to sort.

    So Muller tells members of Congress early on that the Agency is going to destroy the tapes, and yet during that period of time and for a couple years thereafter, supposedly “everyone” other than Muller is “advising” against the destruction. And yet, CIA lawyers manage to issue an opinion that it is legal to destroy the tapes. Of course, an in-house CIA legal dept determination wasn’t good enough to start the torture – for that they needed an OLC cover. But despite Yoo being around there at the beginning of the destruction conversations, no one goes to OLC and no on gets a DOJ opinion.

    Not only that, but the CIA lawyers opinion is one where Rizzo is trying to parse a “political/policy” disagreement, but not a disagreement on the legal issue. IOW, he isn’t saying that he disagreed with the legal conclusion – bc if he had, as acting Gen Counsel, he’d have had it withdrawn or reissued. But he didn’t.

    Fold in that they are saying that Rodriguez pretty much had direct orders not to destroy the tapes, and yet —- why would they have let Muller go tell Congress the tapes were going to be destroyed if all the decision makers were advising against it and more importantly, why wasn’t Rodriguez fired and reprimanded if he overrode the decision of Goss, Tenet, Rizzo, etc.?

    Whatever the paper trail, it’s hard to disbelieve Rodriguez contention that the Agency was fine with what he did when you look at the fact that there was no retaliatory action. But bmaz is right – there were all kinds of duties not to destroy the evidence, not only on the evidence of the waterboarding front, but from the evidentiary aspects of whatever the interogee was saying on the tape relating to possible crimes or war crimes. Info important enough to torture for, but not important enough to preserve?

    To paraphrase, apparently when it comes to Bush Admin lawyers, there are lies, damn lies and Congressional testimony.

  16. al75 says:

    Finally somebody is talking about Porter Goss, the man who came to “clean up” the CIA, and suddenly and mysteriously left office.

    All of my information comes from Talking Points Memo, about 2 years back.

    Goss was a right wing hit-man, reputedly Cheney’s man in Cheney’s war on the CIA in the lead up to the Iraq war. Goss came into the CIA replacing top leadership with his own fiercely partisan aides from Congress.

    One of them was Dusty Foggo, of course, who ran “Poker Games” for US congressmen in “Hospitality Suites” at the Watergate hotel, with prostitutes in attendence. This was financed by Brent Wilkes, the man who bribed Duke Cunningham — and Cunningam, we are supposed to believe, is the ONLY congressman who patronized the prostitutes.

    Foggo had been a mid-level CIA logistics operative with a reputation for stupidity in Honduras and Vienna. He was reported to be the go-to guy for whores for visiting right-wing politicos in Honduras during the Contra days of the 80’s.

    Was Foggo’s ties to Brent Wilkes the reason Goss suddenly quit?

    In any event, Goss was a powerful ruthless political player in Cheney’s camp. The notion that he wasn’t involved with the tape destruction is absurd.

    It’s striking how his name is almost never mentioned in any context in the MSM. I suspect this is because of political deals with the Dems, and quite possibly blackmail.

    • melior says:

      In any event, Goss was a powerful ruthless political player in Cheney’s camp. The notion that he wasn’t involved with the tape destruction is absurd.

      Goss’ own version of his involvement as told to the MSM by “former officials” is that he was “stunned” to hear of the tapes’ destruction, and that he was not to blame because he was powerless to do anything.

      Goss was a Cheney catspaw brought in to roll heads. It seems extremely unlikely that he would be out of the loop, and I expect he’ll be asked to testify before this is over.

  17. JimWhite says:

    So, is Rodriguez being set up as the next Scooter Libby? Someone sort of high up to throw under the bus in the hope that nobody higher up gets hurt?

    • emptywheel says:

      It doesn’t sound like he’s willing to be that person. He’s trying to find a way out for himself, and that may lead him, eventually, into offering up someone higher to save himself.

      • bmaz says:

        Exactly. And Bennett has been around long enough to know where leverage really is. It is a long season and, like Tom Brady and Bill Bell, Bob is just playing it “one game at a time”. I am considering picking up one of my patented “airport vending machine life insurance policies” on good old Jose though….

        • JohnForde says:

          I’ve been wondering about this too. It’s pretty rare you see murder in politics.

          But if Jose has
          1. the evidence the WH ordered torture,
          2. the evidence making the torture vivid (copies of he destroyed tapes) and
          3. evidence of the WH ordering the tapes to be destroyed (an audio recording of Addington)

          He might actually be in mortal jeopardy.

  18. rumi says:

    I’m sure nobody will like what I have to say in offering possibilities for consideration. This is not any wild conspiracy theory and the connections aren’t intended to imply that. The thing is, all of these people/events have a common factor of involvement with witness/evidence/information concerning 9/11. We’re all focused on the debate of torture and CIA legal liability instead of taking a broad look at the network of coverup. This isn’t about a 9/11 conspiracy but a broad conspiracy to cover or conceal, in some manner.

Comments are closed.