The Dead-Enders Do Dallas

/71 Comments/in /by

There are two notable details about this article on the reunion of the Bush dead-enders in Dallas to plan W’s legacy.

Dick Doesn’t Do Dallas

The first is the absence Peter Baker does note; apparently, Dick’s not doing Dallas.

Not coming to next week’s session is former Vice President Dick Cheney, who in the final days of the administration argued with Mr. Bush about his failure to pardon Mr. Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., who was convicted of perjury and other counts for his role in the leak of Valerie Wilson’s employment with the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Cheney later went on television to air his grievances with Mr. Bush, while also accusing Mr. Obama of endangering the country.

That is an approach Mr. Bush has rejected, telling aides that for now he is intent on giving his successor room to govern without criticism from him. Besides, he says, he is too busy in his own new life.

While I’m all in favor of flogging the "Cheney in a huff over Scooter" story (maybe it’ll spark some interest in why Cheney feels so strongly?), Cheney’s absence is more interesting, IMO, given his apparently recent decision to keep his records–and the loot he received as gifts while serving as the Fourth Branch–in the National Archives in DC rather than in the Bush Library.

Last fall, an architect for Bush’s library indicated that Cheney’s records and artifacts would be coming soon, but that apparently was a mix-up. Cheney wants them to remain in Washington as he writes his memoirs.

[snip]

During talks last year, the National Archives suggested that Cheney’s artifacts – like a set of gold Murano glass candlesticks and bowls from Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi – be sent to the Bush library. That way they could be displayed with Bush’s items, including the 9 mm pistol that Saddam Hussein held when captured by American soldiers in Iraq.

"The VP preferred to have the VP artifacts remain with the records," said Sharon Fawcett, assistant archivist for presidential libraries.

Plans for the Bush library at SMU include space for new collections, including Cheney’s archives. His official and personal records would need an estimated 6,000 cubic feet, according to the National Archives.

Last fall, e-mails between Bush architects and the archives, which ensures that the library meets federal standards, signaled that Cheney’s records would be coming to Dallas.

Read more →

Share this entry

Cheney Lies, Obstruction Of Justice & Torture Tape Destruction

/130 Comments/in , , , , /by
graphic by PirateCat

graphic by PirateCat

Marcy earlier noted the article in today’s Washington Post by Peter Finn and Joby Warrick detailing the story surrounding abu-Zubaydah’s capture and torture. I want to pick up with Marcy’s last line:

Yet more reason they destroyed the torture tapes showing Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation.

Well, yes, because it was crystal clear at the outset the explanation initially given by the Bush/Cheney Administration – that they had researched the matter completely and the tapes had no evidentiary value in any possible proceeding whatsoever and they were concerned about privacy of hard working investigators – was totally bogus.

It has been my belief from the outset that the reason the "torture tapes" were destroyed was not simply because they depicted the brutal torture of detainee subjects but, just as importantly, if not more so, they demonstrated there was no credible/usable information produced as a result of that torture. Warrick and Finn confirm this. Even worse, they confirm what little good information the Bushies did extract from abu-Zubaydah was obtained through traditional interrogation prior to the onset of the torture program:

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida’s tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida — chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates — was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda’s chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.

Abu Zubaida was not even an official member of al-Qaeda, according to a portrait of the man that emerges from court documents and interviews with current and former intelligence, law enforcement and military sources.

And there you have it. The Bushies made the conscious and criminal decision to go full tilt torture having direct reason to Read more →

Share this entry

Declining Justice: DOJ Lets Statute Run On Bush Criminality

/30 Comments/in , , , , /by
graphic by politicalbase

graphic by politicalbase

On March 10, 2009 Emptywheel noted that the five year statute of limitation on the initial criminal wiretapping acts by the Bush/Cheney Administration were expiring.

…the statute of limitations on the potentially criminal March 11 wiretaps of Belew expire today. By all appearances, that means the statute will expire without George Bush being punished for illegally wiretapping an American citizen, even though clear evidence of that criminal wiretapping almost certainly exists.

This is because the one period of time that it is crystal clear that the Bush/Cheney surveillance program was operating without legal sanction was subsequent to the hospital incident:

On March 11, 2004, remember, the warrantless wiretap program was operating without the approval of the Acting Attorney General. After Jim Comey refused to recertify the program on March 9, after Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales tried to get John Ashcroft to overrule Comey from his ICU bed on March 10, Bush reauthorized the program using only the legal sanction of then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales on March 11.

Thus, even if the rest of the program were somehow deemed legal (which it wouldn’t be, because it violated FISA, which is the question at hand), it would be not be deemed legal on March 11, 2004, because the program didn’t have sanction from the Attorney General.

There are, or were at least, three critical dates on which the lawyers for the al-Haramain organization knew themselves to be wiretapped that occurred during the period in which criminality would undoubtedly attach, March 10, 11 and 25 of 2004. It is believed that the program was reinstated under formal footing (as opposed to being run on Alberto Gonzales’ worthless signature as was the case in the days after the hospital incident) in early April, 2004. So, while Emptywheel gave the obituary on the expiration of the first two dates of known criminal culpability, I am here to give the post mortem on the last. It died at 12 pm Eastern time last night.

Now the one entity that has, and has had all along, the proof of the Bush/Cheney criminality in its hot little hands is the United States Department of Justice. You would think that the national press would be swimming with articles about the DOJ declining to pursue Executive Branch crimes in the biggest conspiracy against American citizens in the history of the country. But nary a peep. Read more →

Share this entry

Dana Jill Simpson and Greg Craig

/115 Comments/in , , /by

I’m not entirely sure what to make of this (written by Dana Jill Simpson’s lawyer to White House Counsel Greg Craig)–besides that this is what you get when you hire an uber-insider like Greg Craig to be your White House Counsel. And that if we can tie Richard Shelby to the Siegelman mess (remember, Jeff Sessions is already in deep), then I’d be okay with that.

I represent Dana Jill Simpson, an attorney in Rainsville, Alabama, who testified before Congress in September 2007, regarding Karl Rove’s involvement in the U.S. Justice Department prosecution of Gov. Don Siegelman.

She is very concerned that you have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 , 1.7 and 1.10, while citing 1.9 to decline representation. She is equally concerned about the person or persons to whom you have divulged her confidential information. Your recent efforts on the part of negotiating a settlement between Congress and Karl Rove have been noted, as well as your efforts to delay matters before the D.C. Court of Appeals, regarding Rove and other Bush administration officers claiming executive privilege.

For this reason, she is asking that you step down from your position as White House Counsel, at least in all matters dealing with the Bush administration. Further, she is asking that you furnish her with a list of each and every person with whom you have communicated regarding this matter; that is, Miss Simpson’s affidavit, testimony, knowledge, research and any other matters touching or information furnished by Miss Simpson. In recapping the events linking you and
Miss Simpson:

1.) Upon information and belief, Gov. Don Siegelman or his agent made the direct call to you at your law firm, Williams & Connolly, soliciting your pro bono representation of Ms. Simpson, with regard to her affidavit about Karl Rove’s involvement in Siegelman’s prosecution.

2.) According to Ms. Simpson, you called her up to four times on or about March 16-17, 2007, and you faxed her your resume.

3.) She initially asked, “Before we really start this, do you have any contacts with George Bush, Karl Rove, Don Siegelman or Bob Riley?”

4.) You indicated you did not and said, “Tell me who this is about.”

5.) Your initial conversation with Ms. Simpson lasted about 10 to 15 minutes.

Read more →

Share this entry

Obama’s Two “Ifs” on FISA: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

/30 Comments/in , , /by

Briefs on FISA are coming out in Northern California so fast and furious it’s hard to keep them straight. Just as a reminder there are two main cases:

  • al-Haramain, in which the Bush (and now Obama) Administration has invoked State Secrets to prevent lawyers for the defunct charity al-Haramain from using clear evidence that Bush wiretapped them illegally to prove that Bush wiretapped them illegally
  • Retroactive immunity (Jewel/EFF), in which the Electronic Frontier Foundation is challenging the retroactive immunity statute Congress passed last year on Constitutional grounds

The Obama stance on these two cases is worth looking at in conjunction because the Obama position toward congressionally-passed law is perfectly crafted to gut civil liberties (and Article III authority), all based on Obama’s interpretation of "if."

Astoundingly, both al-Haramain and retroactive immunity are almost certainly headed for the Appeals Court to rule on the meaning of two "if’s" (and one "shall") appearing in FISA-related law.

"If" the Attorney General Wants the President to Avoid Penalty for Illegal Wiretapping

Here’s the language Judge Walker just reviewed in FISA 1806(f) in the al-Haramain case:

Whenever a court or other authority is notified pursuant to subsection (c) or (d) of this section, or whenever a motion is made pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, or whenever any motion or request is made by an aggrieved person pursuant to any other statute or rule of the United States or any State before any court or other authority of the United States or any State to discover or obtain applications or orders or other materials relating to electronic surveillance or to discover, obtain, or suppress evidence or information obtained or derived from electronic surveillance under this chapter, the United States district court or, where the motion is made before another authority, the United States district court in the same district as the authority, shall, notwithstanding any other law, if the Attorney General files an affidavit under oath that disclosure or an adversary hearing would harm the national security of the United States, review in camera and ex parte the application, order, and such other materials relating to the surveillance as may be necessary to determine whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and conducted. In making this determination, the court may disclose to the aggrieved person, under appropriate security procedures and protective orders, portions of the application, order, or other materials relating to the surveillance only where such disclosure is necessary to make an accurate determination of the legality of the surveillance. [my emphasis]

The government (under both Bush and Obama) has argued that the "shall" in 1806(f)–requiring the District Court Judge to review in camera and ex parte the materials relating to the surveillance to see if was legal–only kicks in after the "if" tied to the Attorney General in it. That is, the District Court Judge only reviews the underlying materials if the Attorney General files an affidavit saying that an adversary hearing would harm national security.

Judge Walker thinks that’s bullshit. Read more →

Share this entry

Darrell Issa’s Burning Concern about White House Emails? Not So Hot…

/28 Comments/in , /by

Last Thursday, Darrell Issa wrote an urgent letter to Greg Craig, expressing concern about reports that White House staffers, in the days after Bush left the White House IT system in perma-crash mode, were temporarily resorting to Gmail.

Dear Mr. Craig:

Last month, several media outlets reported the existence of Gmail accounts issued to incoming members of the White House staff.[1] According to Politico, Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton was "rocking three BlackBerrys . . . one for his Gmail, one for the transition and one for the White House."[2]

As you know, any e-mail sent or received by White House officials may be subject to retention under the Presidential Records Act (PRA).[3]

[snip]

The challenges posed by retaining e-mail as required under the PRA have proved vexing for the last two White Houses. You may recall the extraordinary problems the Clinton White House had with its e-mail archiving system.[6] Such problems have led to costly expenditures of taxpayer dollars. For example, earlier this month it was disclosed that the Bush White House reportedly spent "more than $10 million to locate 14 million e-mails reported missing."[7] These e-mails were restored after a costly search of approximately 60,000 back-up server tapes.[8]

In order to prevent similar taxpayer-funded e-mail restoration projects, it is incumbent that the new White House implement policies and processes to minimize the risk of losing e-mail subject to the Presidential Records Act. 

I ask that you answer the following questions for the Committee by March 4, 2009. 

One day after Issa sent that urgent letter calling for strict adherence to the Presidential Records Act, the National Security Archive and CREW announced that the Obama Administration would not deviate from Bush’s legal strategy on lost White House emails, which was basically to argue that the Federal Records Act requires only that an agency found to have allowed destruction of Federal Records must initiate efforts to restore those records. Neither a court nor an NGO can force an agency to completely restore records, Bush (and now Obama) argued, they can only order an agency to initiate attempts to restore them.

This administrative scheme is exclusive; a court cannot itself order the recovery or retrieval of records that may have been removed or destroyed, but must instead rely on the detailed processes set forth in the FRA and initiated by the agency heads, Archivist and Attorney General. See Armstrong, 924 F.2d at 294 Read more →

Share this entry

The AIPAC Prosecution Suffers A Crippling Blow

/136 Comments/in , , , , /by

images5.thumbnail.jpegMost of you know about the AIPAC criminal case that has been simmering below the main media radar since it was filed in May, 2005. In a nutshell, the indictment alleges that Lawrence Franklin, a DOD/Pentagon official working in Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s office (with everyone’s favorite public servants Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz), passed top-secret information relating to Iran and Iraq to Steve Rosen, AIPAC’s then-policy director, and Keith Weissman, a senior Iran analyst with AIPAC. Franklin pled guilty and was sentenced in January, 2006.

In the three, count em three, years since Franklin’s plea, the government has pressed on with the prosecution of Franklin’s co-defendants Rosen and Weissman. That may be nearing an end though with a critical decision issued by the trial judge in the case, Judge Thomas Ellis of the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) on February 17. The opinion is not only important for the AIPAC case, but for many, if not all, of the secrecy cases that are currently in play in Federal courts across the country.

A little background is in order. The defendants, Rosen and Weissman, sought to introduce the expert testimony of Bill Leonard, a retired United States government official with substantial experience and expertise in the field of information classification, as part of their defense at trial. Leonard, who retired last year, was formerly the director of the government’s Information Security Office responsible for oversight of the entire U.S. classification system.

Leonard, from all appearances, was willing to testify, however, fearing prosecution himself, he insisted on a subpoena and then personally moved to quash the subpoena on the ground that his testimony might be barred by 18 USC 207, which restricts the activities of former executive branch officers and employees. The government, not wanting to be crucified by their own former guy, through the Department of Justice joined in Leonard’s motion to quash. Defendants Rosen and Weissman’s attorneys, obviously, opposed the motion to quash and argued that section 207 did not preclude Leonard’s testimony, and asserted that the court should enter an order directing Leonard to give said testimony at trial. Effectively, Leonard was seeking cover from the court so he could not get jerked around by the government for being wiling to testify. Very smart move by a very smart man, especially since the Bush/Cheney DOJ prosecutors were threatening that he might be liable for up to a year in jail if he testified.

Read more →

Share this entry

Condi’s Whole Life, in Three Volumes, Worth Slightly More than David Plouffe’s Two-Year Campaign

/10 Comments/in , , /by

As Lisa is reporting, Condi just signed herself a $2.5 million deal for three books on her life and her tenure as Bush’s foreign policy flunky. She will write one book on her time in the Bush Administration, a memoir of her life, and a kids version of the memoir.

That’s great news for Condi, as others in the Bush Administration are having less success getting book deals. Consider Alberto Gonzales, who doesn’t yet have a publisher for his book, which purportedly sets the record straight on his role in the crimes of the Bush Administration. Laura Bush got a book deal–at a quarter of the price that Hillary got for her First Lady story. Karl Rove, who smartly got an early start on the bidding, had to settle for $1.5 million for his book deal; experts had thought he’d get $3 million. And Bush himself has been advised to wait, as the market for anything he has to say looks like the rest of the economy: non-existent and getting worse.

But the market for books is not all bad. Just by way of perspective, consider David Plouffe’s book deal for the story of managing Obama’s historic campaign. Plouffe got $1.5 to $2 million for his advance.

So in case you were wondering, the market now values Plouffe’s role in Obama’s two-year campaign to have the same value as Karl Rove’s entire life work, Laura Bush’s tenure as First Lady, (for the moment at least) George Bush’s two term Administration, and two out of Condi’s three-volume life.

I think the market’s invisible hand just slapped the Bush Administration upside their head.

Share this entry

Scott Shane’s Love Affair for Dick Cheney and Kit Bond

/31 Comments/in , , , /by

The NYT’s Scott Shane presents what pretends to be a comprehensive review of the options for some kind of investigation into Bush era crimes. He reviews four options–a criminal investigation akin to Lawrence Walsh’s Iran-Contra investigation, a congressional investigation akin to the Church Committee, a bipartisan investigation akin to the 9/11 Commission, and nothing aside from currently investigations like the OPR review of Yoo’s and Bradbury’s advocacy on torture.

But there are two very disturbing aspects to his story. 

First, in a review of options for holding what we all know to be Dick Cheney responsible for shredding the Constitution, why would you present such a selective picture of Dick’s own history with efforts to hold Presidents responsible for violating the law?

Many Republicans, however, say the lofty appeals to justice and history mask an unseemly and dangerous drive to pillory the Bush administration and hamstring the intelligence agencies.

That was precisely the view of an aide in Gerald Ford’s White House named Dick Cheney when a Senate committee led by Frank Church of Idaho looked into intelligence abuses in the mid-1970s. A quarter-century later, as vice president, Mr. Cheney would effectively wreak vengeance on that committee’s legacy, encouraging the National Security Agency to bypass the warrant requirement the committee had proposed and unleashing the Central Intelligence Agency he felt the committee had shackled.

[snip]

But some Republicans saw Mr. Church as a showboat and his committee as overreaching. To Mr. Cheney, the Church legacy was a regrettable pruning of the president’s powers to protect the country — powers he and Bush administration lawyers reasserted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Shane’s claims about Cheney’s views are odd. He bases his characterization on no quote from Cheney, though many are readily available. And his first description–the claim that Cheney’s "precise view" of the Church Committee was that it was really about an "unseemly and dangerous drive to pillory the [Nixon?] administration and hamstring the intelligence agencies"–seems to contradict his later more accurate claim that Cheney believed the Church committee improperly constrained Presidential powers. Which is it? A personalized attack against one administration and the targeting of intelligence professionals or an attack on Presidential power? Or is Shane suggesting that Cheney’s view of any investigation now would be an attempt to pillory the Bush/Cheney Administration, which is a different stance than his prior position regarding investigations of Presidents?

Read more →

Share this entry

Are Your Members of Congress Supporting an Investigation into Bush Crimes?

/59 Comments/in , , /by

As many of you have noted, at least 62% of Americans support some investigation into Bush Administration crimes (whether a criminal investigation or a truth commission). Do your members of Congress agree with the majority of Americans who refuse to ignore the past?

Here’s a list of those members of Congress who have voiced some support for an investigation. If your members of Congress aren’t on here, call them (1-877-851-6437, 1-800-828-0498, or 1-800-614-2803). Ask if they support one of the efforts to investigate the Bush Administration. If they’re not sure, urge them to do so. Please leave a comment so we can track what they say.

Senators

Barbara Boxer
Russ Feingold
Pat Leahy
Carl Levin
Jack Reed
Harry Reid (?)
Sheldon Whitehouse

Congressmen

(Unless otherwise noted, these are co-sponsors of John Conyers’ bill, HR.104, calling for an independent commission.)

Tammy Baldwin
Rick Boucher
Steve Cohen
John Conyers
Elijah Cummings
Peter DeFazio
William Delahunt
Keith Ellison
Bob Filner
Barney Frank
Raul Gijalva
Luis Gutierrez
Maruice Hinchey
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Hank Johnson
Walter Jones
Barbara Lee
Carolyn Maloney
Jerrold Nadler
Ed Pastor
Nancy Pelosi
Linda Sanchez
Jan Schakowsky
Bobby Scott
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
David Wu

Share this entry