I have long pointed out the close connection between the CIA’s OIG report on torture and the tapes of Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation. The key dates are:

January 2003: CIA IG begins investigation into detainee interrogation.

February 10, 2003: Jane Harman writes a letter recording CIA Counsel Scott Muller drawing a connection between the torture tapes and the CIA IG investigation.

You discussed the fact that there is videotape of Abu Zubaydah following his capture that will be destroyed after the Inspector General finishes his inquiry

May 2003: CIA IG reviews the torture tapes at black site.

May 2004: CIA IG completes investigation, finding that CIA interrogation techniques are "cruel and inhumane."

May 2004: CIA and White House discuss destroying the tapes of Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation.

November 9, 2005: Most complete report of IG investigation appears, revealing the "cruel and inhumane" conclusion.

Mid-November 2005: Torture tapes destroyed.

While there are surely other reasons why the CIA destroyed the torture tape, one thing the destruction of the tapes did was to eliminate one key piece of evidence that led the CIA’s own IG to conclude that the CIA’s interrogation methods were cruel and inhumane.

Well, over the course of the DOJ’s IG investigation into interrogation techniques, the CIA once again prevented investigators from accessing information–this time in the form of an interview of Abu Zubaydah–that would contribute to a conclusion that interrogation treatment was cruel and inhumane. In a footnote, DOJ’s IG report reveals that it interviewed High-Value Detainees at Gitmo, but that CIA refused to let DOJ’s IG to interview Abu Zubaydah.

When the OIG investigative team was preparing for its trip to GTMO in early 2007, we asked the DOD for permission to interview several detainees, including Zubaydah. The DOD agreed, stating that our interviews would not interfere with their attempts to obtain any intelligence from the detainees, including Zubaydah. However, the CIA Acting General Counsel [John Rizzo] objected to our interviewing Zubaydah. [three lines redacted]

In addition, the CIA Acting General Counsel asserted that the OIG had not persuaded him that the OIG had a "demonstrable and immediate need to interview Zubaydah at that time" given what the Acting General Counsel understood to be OIG’s "investigative mandate." In addition, the CIA Acting General Counsel asserted that Zubaydah could make false allegations against CIA employees. We believe that none of these reasons were persuasive or warranted denying us access to Zubaydah. First, neither the FBI nor the DOD objected to our access to Zubaydah at that time. In addition, neither the FBI nor the DOD stated that an OIG interview would interfere with their interviews of him. Second at GTMO we were given access to other high value detainees. Third, we did have a demonstrable and immediate need to interview Zubaydah at that time, as well as the other detainees who we were given access to, notwithstanding the CIA Acting General Counsel’s position that we had not persuaded him. Finally, the fact that Zubaydah could make false allegations against CIA employees–as could other detainees–was not in our view a legitimate reason to object to our access to him. In sum, we believe that the CIA’s reasons for objecting to OIG access to Zubaydah were unwarranted, and its lack of cooperation hampered our investigation.

For some reason–no doubt, because of what the CIA did to Abu Zubaydah–they remain intent on burying all evidence of the methods used in his interrogation.

The CIA has already admitted they waterboarded Abu Zubaydah. We have many reports that, since Zubaydah was already mentally disabled, those torture sessions netted nothing. So why are they still hiding the details of his torture so intently?

In their Questions for the Record submitted after he testified, HJC managed to ask Patrick Fitzgerald one obvious question they didn’t manage to ask when he testified at their hearing on Special Counsels (h/t MadDog). What would have happened–or would happen to John Durham, investigating the torture tapes destruction–if a Special Counsel got fired during the course of the investigation? Actually, in the QFRs Fitzgerald got asked about 5 different versions of the question, only one of which elicited a really useful answer (at least as it might reflect on John Durham’s investigation):

13. If you had been fired as a U.S. Attorney, what impact would that have had on the CIA leak investigation? What impact would that have had on your appointment as Special Counsel?

During my tenure, this question did not present itself. It is not clear to me what the legal implications would have been had I been relieved of command as United States Attorney while serving as Special Counsel. (This might be an issue that should be specifically addressed if there is a delegation of power to a sitting United States Attorney in the future as it is entirely possible that a United States Attorney could be asked to resign after a change in administration.) It would appear that unless the United States Attorney were specifically retained in some other capacit (such as a Special Assistant United States Attorney), he or she could no longer serve as a Special Counsel who was employed by the Department of Justice and whose authority had been delegated by the Attorney General. It would be possible that a new appointment could be made for such a former United States Attorney which would provide that he or she would serve as a Special Counsel from outside the Department of Justice pursuant to the appropriate regulations.

Had I been relieved of command as United States Attorney while conducting the CIA leak investigation, even if a legal basis were established for me to continue as Special Counsel or in some other proper capacity, I would nevertheless have had to determine whether it would be appropriate for me to continue representing the government under all of the circumstances. I would have had to consider whether my ability to be effective had been undercut and whether any decision I made to prosecute or not prosecute a case (or whether to further investigate any matter) might reasonably subject the investigative team to the criticism that I (or others on the team) might harbor a bias against the administration which had relieved the prosecutor of his Presidential appointment. This would be a determination heavily dependent on the particular factual circumstances which led to the termination of my appointment as United States Attorney.

That is, since Rove never managed to get him fired, Fitzgerald never had to think these things all the way through. But if he had been fired as USA, he would have had to be reappointed to some other position to continue the investigation in a constitutional manner. In any case, though, the threat of firing would present the difficulty that, even if he were appointed to some other position, his investigation might be tainted by the appearance that his prosecutorial decisions might be biased because he had been fired.

In other words, the threat of firing a prosecutor investigating top Administration officials does present a possible problem.

But that’s not the version of the "what if you got fired" question that I find most interesting. Rather, there’s a question that asks specifically if Fitzgerald became aware of efforts to fire him during the course of the CIA Leak investigation. Fizgerald refuses to answer … because of the ongoing Rezko case.

11. When one U.S. Attorney concurrently serves as a Special Counsel, is it appropriate for the Justice Department or the White House to consider firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys? Please explain.

National Public Radio has reported that, according to "someone who’s had conversations with White House officials, the plan to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys originated with political adviser Karl Rove. It was seen as a way to get political cover for firing the small number of US Attorneys the White House actually wanted to get rid of." Ari Shapiro, Documents Show Justice Ranking US Attorneys, NPR, April 13,2007. Many have speculated that Mr. Rove’s goal in proposing the U.S. Attorney firings was to pressure and intimidate you. When Mr. Rove made the suggestion to fire the U.S. Attorneys, he had already been before the grand jury several times in the Scooter Libby case. To your knowledge, is this account correct? Please explain why or why not.

During the CIA leak investigation, were you aware of any conversations that you might be asked to resign? If so please describe all such conversations, including the substance of the conversations, when they occurred, and the names of those who participated.

I do not know if the referenced account of events is correct or not.

As to whether I was aware during the relevant time period of the investigation that I might be asked to resign, I will respectfully decline to discuss matters currently at issue in a trial ongoing in the Northern District of Illinois.

Fitzgerald is referring, of course, to the multiple times during the Rezko trial when a witness has testified that Rezko and Bob Kjellander talked about having Rove fire Fitzgerald to scuttle the investigation into Chicago corruption. But that’s not, of course, what HJC asked him–they asked him about the CIA Leak case, and they made a reference specifically to coverage of the USA Purge.

To understand why this is interesting, consider the timing. These QFRs almost certainly went out within a week of February 26, when Fitzgerald testified before HJC. While there had been speculation that Rezko and Kjellander might have tried to get Fitzgerald fired, that speculation wasn’t confirmed during the Rezko trial until April 23. Now, the date on Fitzgerald’s repsonse (which went through DOJ’s minder) is May 2–after, but not long after, the revelations in the Rezko trial. And here HJC has it, conveniently before the closing arguments finish in the Rezko trial, so Fitzgerald can’t legitimately answer when he learned–over the course of the Rezko investigation–that Kjellander was working with Rove to get him fired.

But unless Fitzgerald learned that fact "during the CIA leak investigation," the answer wouldn’t be on point at all. That is, as Fitzgerald suggests with his other answers, he didn’t learn he was on the USA Purge list until the media started asking DOJ about it last year:

I first learned about an evaluation of me by Mr. Sampson at the time of an inquiry by the media to the Department of Justice indicating that the media was aware of such evaluation. A colleague from the Department of Justice told me about the media inquiry and the substance of the document inquired about.

But, by his answer to this question, Fitzgerald suggests he did learn of efforts by Kjellander and Rove "during the CIA Leak investigation." Now, I’m not convinced that means Fitzgerald learned of Kjellander’s efforts before he gave Rove the all-clear in June 2006–but it sure suggests that’s a possibility.

Update: fixed basic grammar per watercarrier. 

Are you ready for some football? Hot damn, I am. And guess what, there really is football to talk about. And lots of other things too, but let’s start off with the gridiron. Hey, did you notice that the asterisk is still in the title? Of course it is, because Spygate is the gift that keeps on giving for the New England Patriots. Thank god that FISA stuff seems to be wrapping up, because the ole Scottish Haggis is gonna be needing the legislative time and resources to question Matt Walsh and get to the bottom of Belichick’s torture tapes.

Alright, lets get down to business. The 2008 NFL Entry Draft is beginning as this post is going up. Michigan offensive lineman Jake Long has already been signed by the Fish, and Howie Long’s spawn is reportedly set to be taken at number two by the Rams. Then the crapshoot begins. What needs does your team have, who do you like to fill them, and what else is up on the pigskin front? I understand the Patriots are torn between this guy and this guy.

Don’t tell Marcy, but there are actually sports other than football. In fact, I understand that, up in Canada, they play something called hockey; and not just any hockey understand you, they are currently in Playoff Hockey for the cherished Stanley Cup. The Cup has to be the coolest trophy in all of sports, every winning player gets his name etched onto it for eternity. And it goes fun places during the year as each player on the winning team gets to cart it around wherever he wants. I hear tell it goes to a lot of pubs, and a few cathouses too. I don’t know diddly squat about hockey, but in honor of our fine feathered friends in the Great White North, Ishmael, Skdadl, and all the others, I thought we ought to give a shout out to Stanley Cup Playoffs, thus the "What The Puck" part of the title to this post.

Due to the surprising response I got the last time, I will also trot out F1 for your consideration. This weekend is Round four of the circus, the Spanish GP from Circuit de Catalunya in Barcelona, Spain. Kimi Raikkonen is on pole, having beaten out Fernando Alonso in literally the last second of qualifying. Catalunya is a nice circuit, should make for an excellent race. Heh, you know America is one screwed up place when Max Mosely’s Nazi torture fantasy with hookers gets more press than, you know, the President of the United States actually torturing people. Go figure.

Last, but most certainly not least, I want to note yesterday’s announcement that there was a putative appearance of the Wackiest Ships in the Iranian Navy and Filipino Monkey. Of course, the US government already has twenty different takes on the incident. Pretty much the only time our bozos can keep a story straight is when they are ginning up propaganda for their Rent-A-Generals. The video attached to this post is in honor of my two favorite monkeys, The Filipino and The Boosh (technically a chimpanzee I guess). Do check out the video, it is pretty cool. Monkey Man by the one and only Rolling Stones.

Lastly, EW is going to be up with an important post on the Michigan Clusterfuck and her rational solution thereto. I think it is going to be double posted both here and at FDL. At any rate, there is going to be a full court press to get some publicity and national press on the post, so chip in, sign the petition and spread the word. However, because it is important to the cause, use this thread for any "Off Topic" discussions etc. so that she can keep that thread clean and on point.

rincewind made an important point in my post on the torture briefings. At least one of the sources for the story must be one of the briefees, not a briefer. rincewind points to these two quotes that come from someone within the committee.

“It kept coming up. CIA wanted us to sign off on each one every time,” said one high-ranking official who asked not to be identified. “They’d say, ‘We’ve got so and so. This is the plan.’”

[snip]

“These discussions weren’t adding value,” a source said. “Once you make a policy decision to go beyond what you used to do and conclude it’s legal, (you should) just tell them to implement it.”

This source obviously considers himself as one of the people receiving the briefing, which further suggests this source is not in the CIA.

As luck would have it, via Troutfishing’s diary and this McGovern piece, I checked out this February 7, 2002 memo in which Bush declares that Al Qaeda will not be entitled to Geneva Convention protections. The memo seems to indicate that it is addressed to all the people who have participated–at least thus far–in discussions on torture; it refers to "our recent extensive discussions regarding the status of Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees." Now check out the list of addressees:

Dick Cheney
Colin Powell
Rummy
John Ashcroft
Andy Card
George Tenet
Condi Rice
Richard Myers

In other words, two of the people whom Bush noted as being involved in "extensive discussions regarding the status of Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees" are not included in the list ABC News gave of the attendees of the meetings that took place slightly later in 2002: Andy Card and Richard Myers. Either is a possibility to be the "high-ranking official" who objected to the repeated discussions of what techniques to use. Certainly, Myers is on the record as having opposed the decision not to extend Geneva Convention protections to Al Qaeda (most recently in reports from Feith’s book). And he would count as "high-ranking" in more than one sense (though neither he, nor Card, is still an official, after all).

So it is possible that, in addition to the CIA briefers trying to protect the CIA in the torture tape investigation, Richard Myers (or Andy Card, but I suspect Myers is more likely, particularly given the way this puts Condi in a bad light) is one of the people making sure that Bush and Cheney and Condi don’t escape blame for turning our country into a country of torture.

Update: bmaz sent me this, which confirms that one of the people blabbing about this is a "former senior intelligence official." 

Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.

The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the meetings described them Thursday to the AP to confirm details first reported by ABC News on Wednesday. The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue.

Between 2002 and 2003, the Justice Department issued several memos from its Office of Legal Counsel that justified using the interrogation tactics, including ones that critics call torture.

”If you looked at the timing of the meetings and the memos you’d see a correlation,” the former intelligence official said. Those who attended the dozens of meetings agreed that ”there’d need to be a legal opinion on the legality of these tactics” before using them on al-Qaida detainees, the former official said.

[snip] 

The White House, Justice and State departments and the CIA refused comment Thursday, as did a spokesman for Tenet.

So a former senior US intelligence official who is presumably not Tenet who was involved in 2002 and 2003. Could well be Muller, or McLaughlin (though I still think Muller is likely). Who would want to insulate Bush more, Muller or McLaughlin?

Also note, this article also does not mention Myers and Card. It’s possible they were excluded, but by the time Bush signed the February 7 memo, there had already been the first OLC memo (stating Al Qaeda did not qualify for Geneva).

Jane Harman explained her response to the warrantless wiretap program over at TPMCafe. I’m interested in it not so much to determine whether Eric Licthblau or she is right about whether she "switched her view" on the program (I think Harman is actually too sensitive to the charge; as she tells it, she did drastically change her view, but not because of the publicity of Lichtblau’s reporting, but because of the new information she learned from it; though after writing this post, I’m a little sympathetic to Lichtblau’s claim). Rather, I’m interested in the contrast Harman’s narrative presents with what we know of Jello Jay’s evolving views toward the illgeal wiretapping program. After all, Harman and Jello Jay apparently learned of the program in the same briefing (Harman had just replaced Pelosi as Ranking Member on HPSCI; Jello Jay had replaced Graham as the top Democrat on SSCI). But the two have apparently taken dramatically different trajectories in their positions on the program, and the comparison offers an instructive view on oversight.

The First Harman/Jello Jay Briefing: January 29, 2003

Harman provides this description of the January 29, 2003 she and Jello Jay received (along with Pat Roberts, then SSCI Chair, and Porter Goss, then HPSCI Chair):

When I became Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee in 2003, I was included for the first time in highly classified briefings on the operational details of an NSA effort to track al Qaeda communications using unique access points inside the US telecommunications infrastructure. The so-called “Gang of Eight” (selected on the basis of our committee or leadership positions) was told that if the terrorists found out about our capability, they would stop using those communications channels and valuable intelligence would dry up (which had happened before).

This program was so highly classified that I could discuss it with no one, not even my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee or the committee’s professional staff. (See p. 169 of the Lichtblau book.) And I was assured that it complied with the law and that the senior-most officials in the Justice Department conducted a full legal review every 45-60 days.

At that point, then, she and Jello Jay appear to have learned that:

• The US was tracking Al Qaeda communication via US-based access points
• The program was legal and was reviewed regularly by top Justice Department officials

If Harman’s description is accurate, it suggests the Administration gave a very distorted view of the program. Yes, they were accessing Al Qaeda communication via US access points. But to do so, they gained access to all of US telecom traffic. And, yes, they were accessing Al Qaeda communications. But the means by which they determined that these were Al Qaeda communications–and not just a bunch of people ordering falafels from the same place–was grossly inadequate.

Similarly, yes, the senior-most official at DOJ (John Ashcroft) signed off on the program every 45-60 days. And Robert Mueller was telling people that Bush–not Ashcroft–had signed off on the program. But the only real review of the program by that point had been a typically shoddy John Yoo rubber stamp. Ashcroft hadn’t even been able to share details of the program with his aides to obtain their legal opinion with which to conduct a meaningful legal review. As Lichtblau reports,

Mr. Ashcroft complained to associates at the time that the White House, in getting his signature for the surveillance program, “just shoved it in front of me and told me to sign it.”

And the Administration wouldn’t even read Larry Thompson, then Deputy Attorney General, into the program. So the claim that senior-most officials (plural) had reviewed the program was an out-and-out lie.

One more note about this initial briefing (and all others up until the March 10, 2004 briefing). Harman claims the "Gang of Eight" was informed. At least according to the record provided by then-DNI John Negroponte, this is incorrect. Nancy Pelosi, while still Ranking Member of HPSCI, got briefed on the program. But the Administration did not brief the full Gang of Eight. And besides, as Mary points out, the Administration should have been briefing the full intelligence committees, not just the Gang of Eight.

So even though the Administration was deliberately misleading the Intelligence Committee leadership, there were still warning signs that the Administration was not complying with the law (though they pretty consistently briefed only Intelligence Committee leadership on their law-breaking).

The Second Harman/Jello Jay Briefing: July 17, 2003

We don’t, yet, have Jello Jay’s account of that first briefing, but we do know what he thought after receiving the second one he and Harman received, on July 17, 2003. The timing of that second briefing was rather important. As I’ve shown, the Senate was in the middle of a successful effort (save for Bush’s signing statement) to strip all funding from data mining programs targeting American citizens; the day after the briefing, the Senate voted unanimously to block TIA funding. So in addition to being troubled by some of the same things Harman expressed difficulty with–particularly the inability to consult with any aides on the program–Jello Jay noted that the program seemed to violate the intent of the law the Senate was in the process of passing. Here’s the letter Jello Jay wrote, after this second briefing, to memorialize his concerns.

July 17, 2003
Dear Mr. Vice President,

I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter’s TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance.

Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication. [my emphasis]

While the wording is a little–shall we say–wobbly, the intent is still clear. Jello Jay was withholding his approval of the program, not just because he could not, fairly, approve it, but because it seemed disturbingly similar to the data mining program that Congress was in the process of making illegal.

Now, Harman records none of these concerns in her account–not even the concern, or the awareness, that the Administration was engaging in data mining. Which leads me to add one thing to the sound list of suggestions Marty Lederman offered to make Congressional intelligence oversight more meaningful–given the severe restrictions on information sharing the Administration imposed, don’t you think leaders of the Committees could at least talk to each other?!?!?! Jello Jay had some pretty clear concerns about the program at the time–concerns that rise to the level of defying the will of Congress. But Harman appears to have had (or at least claims to have had) none of that awareness.

The Third Harman/Jello Jay Briefing: March 10, 2004

As I’ve described before, the Administration then skipped a briefing that should have occurred given its regular pattern of brieing–even according to its own limited briefing approach, it should have briefed the Congressional leaders in January 2004, after the Administration had ignored Congress’ demands not to continue data mining. Instead, the next briefing did not occur until March 10, 2004, on the day of the famous hospital confrontation. The was the first time full Gang of Eight received a briefing, and they got one specifically because the Administration wanted legislative approval to continue the wiretap program in the absence of approval from John Ashcroft or Jim Comey; barring legislative approval, they wanted permission to go forward without it.

Mr. Gonzales, in an acrimonious hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that hours before the hospital confrontation, the White House had summoned Congressional leaders to an emergency meeting to discuss ways to head off a revolt at the Justice Department against the security agency program.

Mr. Gonzales said that he and Andrew H. Card Jr., then White House chief of staff, had tried to obtain Mr. Ashcroft’s approval as a last resort, after the lawmakers rejected emergency legislation but recommended that the program should continue despite the Justice Department’s opposition.

Now, the record on how Harman and Jello Jay responded to these requests is not entirely clear. Jello Jay accused Gonzales of lying about what happened in the meeting.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, who attended the 2004 meeting as the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, called Mr. Gonzales’s account “untruthful.” Mr. Rockefeller said he believed Mr. Gonzales was deliberately misleading Congress about the showdown over the N.S.A. program inside the Bush administration.

And Pelosi made it clear that she did not support the program going forward over Comey’s objections.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, who attended the 2004 White House meeting as House Democratic minority leader, said through a spokesman that she did not dispute that the majority of those present supported continuing the intelligence activity. But Ms. Pelosi said she dissented and supported Mr. Comey’s objections at the meeting, said the spokesman, Brendan Daly.

If Pelosi agrees "a majority" of the eight people who attended the briefing approved its going forward, and Jello Jay claims he made his objections clear, it suggests that Harman approved of continuing the program, even though, by all appearances, she had learned of Comey’s objections. Now, I don’t know that for a fact–and unlike her colleagues, Harman has neither confirmed nor denied whether she approved that the program go ahead. But I am puzzled by her insistence that no one in the Gang of Eight was informed that the Administration was bypassing FISA.

The Gang of Eight was not told – nor did it occur to me – that the Administration was violating FISA, despite Congress’ clear legislative intent when FISA was passed that it was the “exclusive means” for monitoring the communications of Americans connected to foreign intelligence.

If, as Pelosi suggests, the March 10 briefing included some reference to Comey’s objections, wouldn’t you at least begin to wonder about whether the Administration was breaking the law?

The Fourth and Fifth Harman/Jello Jay Briefings: February 3, 2005 and September 14, 2005

There is no record of either of the fourth or fifth briefings Harman and Jello Jay attended, both of them in 2005. Though once again, I wonder whether they noticed that there was a break in the normal briefing pattern–there should have been a briefing in September or October 2004. This, of course, is right during the time when the Administration likely first learned that Risen and Lichtblau might write a story on the illegal wiretap program.

The Sixth Harman/Jello Jay Briefings: January 11 and January 20, 2006

Up until the program became public in December 2005, it appears that Jello Jay took a more active oversight role than Harman, objecting in writing on at least one occasion, and recognizing that the program probably violated the intent of Congress.

But all that appears to have changed after Risen and Lichtblau published their story on December 16, 2005. As Harman describes, she immediately started calling for more oversight–only to be stymied by Dick Cheney.

The New York Times story ran on December 16, 2005. The next day, President Bush publicly confirmed the program’s existence in his weekend radio address. That day, a Saturday, I did two things: I tried to get our full Committee briefed and I consulted experts on the law.

I tracked down NSA Director Michael Hayden, who was shopping for holiday presents in Annapolis, and asked him to brief the full Intelligence Committee later that day. He said yes, provided the White House signed off. Bush Chief of Staff Andy Card at first agreed, but called me back an hour later saying the briefing was off. (It was months before the White House briefed additional Members of the Intelligence Committees. I even spoke with Vice-President Cheney about the need for a full Committee briefing, but he turned me down flat. Finally, on the eve of Gen. Hayden’s confirmation hearing to be Deputy Director of National Intelligence, the Administration agreed to brief all committee Members.)

Additionally, as the President had disclosed the program, I was finally free to consult constitutional experts on the legal issues it raised. My call to a former CIA general counsel that Saturday provided the first inkling that the program was in not compliance with FISA but was conducted pursuant to claims of “inherent” executive power. To this day, I have not been shown the memoranda produced by the Office of Legal Counsel to support the basis for the program! [my emphasis; incidentally, I wonder if that "former CIA general counsel" was Scott Muller, who would have known of the program, and who also opposed destroying the torture tapes]

Jello Jay has given no public account of his response to the revelation of the program. But where he once opposed the program as potentially violating Congressional intent, he has become a champion of the Administration’s cause, going so far recently as to publicly boast of "victory" in the Senate.

"I think we will prevail," Rockefeller said on Wednesday, adding that he hoped the Senate will finish the bill by next week. The FISA legislation expires in February, and both President Bush and GOP congressional leaders have demanded that new legislation be in place by that time.

"It’s a pretty bad idea to appear cocky," Rockefeller noted. "I am not pessimistic."

Which makes me all the more curious about the two briefings the Administration gave in January 2006, after the program (and the real urgency of the hospital confrontation) became public. The Administration held two sets of briefings after the program became public. One, including the Republican members of the Gang of Eight (then Denny Hastert, Bill Frist, Crazy Pete Hoekstra, and Pat Roberts) plus Jello Jay on January 11, 2006. And one, with the remaining three members of the Gang of Eight (then Pelosi, Reid, and Harman), along with Roberts again. Why have Roberts attend both briefings if the content of the two was the same? Is it possible that the Administration held two different briefings, one with those it found reliable (the Republicans and Jello Jay) and one with those it found unreliable (the Democrats, babysat by Pat Roberts)? Did Dick Cheney, miffed that the up to then reliably-complacent Harman was demanding committee-wide briefings, insist that she get the same briefing as those who had already objected to the program? Did the Administration continue to keep secrets from the Democrats who opposed the program?

Obviously, I don’t know, though Harman’s account of her 180 degree turn, once she realized the program was illegal, certainly raises interesting questions about those two briefings.

And curiously, at least through May 2006 (Harman would continue as Ranking Member of HPSCI for another seven months after Negroponte’s briefing list ends), Jane Harman and Jello Jay never received a briefing on the illegal wiretap program together again.

The NYT has a fascinating profile of Jose Rodriguez–the guy who ordered the destruction of the CIA torture tapes. This anecdote conveys the kind of guy we’re dealing with:

Not long after the tapes were destroyed, Mr. Goss held a management retreat for top agency officials meant in part to soothe tensions among the agency’s dueling branches. There the deputy director for intelligence — the head of analysis — complained openly about the arrogance of the clandestine branch and said undercover officers thought they could get away with anything.

That was too much for Mr. Rodriguez. He stood up in the room, according to one participant in the meeting, and shouted in coarse language that the analysis chief should “wake up and smell the coffee,” because undercover officers were at the “pointy end of the spear.”

The clandestine branch, Mr. Rodriguez was making it clear, would do what it wanted.

While the profile doesn’t offer much new in the story of the torture tapes (though it does provide a more compelling case that Goss couldn’t control Rodriguez than I’ve previously seen), I’m most interested that Rodriguez apparently prevented any accountability for those who conducted the pathetically incompetent kidnapping of Abu Omar.

It would become known inside the Central Intelligence Agency as “the Italian job,” a snide movie reference to the bungling performance of an agency team that snatched a radical Muslim cleric from the streets of Milan in 2003 and flew him to Egypt — a case that led to criminal charges in Italy against 26 Americans.

Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director in 2005 when embarrassing news reports about the operation broke, asked the agency’s independent inspector general to start a review of amateurish tradecraft in the case, like operatives staying in five-star hotels and using traceable credit cards and cellphones.

But Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., now the central figure in a controversy over destroyed C.I.A. interrogation tapes, fought back. A blunt-spoken Puerto Rico native and former head of the agency’s Latin America division, he had been selected by Mr. Goss months earlier to head the agency’s troubled clandestine branch. Mr. Rodriguez told his boss that no inspector general review would be necessary — his service would investigate itself.

The incident is significant, first of all, because of the likelihood that the IG report finding the interrogation methods used by the CIA constituted cruel and inhuman treatment–possibly illegal. This incident suggests Rodriguez refused to allow the IG to do its job–oversee and correct problems in the CIA. Which, in turn, increases the already large chance that the IG report is central to the reasons for the destruction of the torture tapes.

But the incident is interesting for another reason. By preventing any real evaluation of the Italian job, Rodriguez may have ensured that those responsible remain in significant positions within the CIA. You might be interested in this news, particularly if you’re in NY:

Milan Spy Boss on Rebound: CIA officer Jeff Castelli, mastermind of the botched February 2003 “extreme rendition” of an al Qaeda operative in Milan that ended in the indictment of 26 Americans, all but one CIA employees, might be on the rebound. According to a reliable intelligence source who demanded anonymity, Castelli was reprimanded by the CIA’s Accountability Board last year for the much-ridiculed caper and dispatched to the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. But Castelli is now a candidate to be the CIA’s next station chief in New York — an astounding comeback, especially considering that Italy is planning a trial in absentia of the CIA employees implicated in the kidnapping, perhaps as early as this spring. “Well, they can’t send him overseas,” said the source, “because of the Milan thing.” Italian warrants have been issued for Castelli and the others, who would risk arrest if they tried to enter any European Union country, or many other states.

Am I the only one who thinks it’s a bad idea for someone who oversaw legendarily bad tradecraft to be chief of a US station?

It’s not clear to what degree Rodriguez is responsible for Castelli still having a job–and in the US! (It sounds like Castelli was not sent to Alabama until 2006, after Michael Hayden took over the CIA.) But it’s certainly the kind of coddling of incompetence and abuse Rodriguez seems to have fostered.

The AP reported on Steven Bradbury’s tortured logic about water-boarding.

”The set of interrogation methods authorized for current use is narrower than before, and it does not today include waterboarding,” Steven G. Bradbury, acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, says in remarks prepared for his appearance Thursday before the House Judiciary Constitution subcommittee.

”There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law,” he said.

That is, waterboarding is not legal today, but it could be tomorrow if Bradbury made it so at the bidding of David Addington.

That tortured logic is part of Bradbury’s prepared statements for an appearance before HJC’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties (click here to follow along).

Meanwhile, Chairman Conyers is appearing before the Rules Committee (on CSPAN1) supporting his contempt resolution, describing the importance of the contempt resolution to the balance of powers.

Some have said we risk more if we lose this fight. If we countenance a process where our subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness doesn’t even have to bother to show up or tell us that they’re not coming, then we’ve already lost. This is not a matter of vindicating the Judiciary Committee.

Republicans are playing nasty–interrupting the Lantos memorial for stupid parliamentary tricks. Lamar Smith thinks we shouldn’t pass this rule because we won’t also allow the government broad powers to wiretap us.

And Bradbury is assuring "the committee that every opinion I sign represents my best judgment regardless of political currents."

I’ll try to follow both hearings.

Nadler: Is waterboarding a violation of the Federal torture statute?

Bradbury: I think it was reasonable to say that it didn’t violate the Federal torture statute. Your description of the procedure is not accurate description of procedure used by CIA.

Nadler: My description is one given to us by former interrogators.

[Bradbury goes on to say we’re not doing what the Filipinos did.]

Nadler: AG said he is unable to share your OLC opinions on multiple techniques with us. You’re telling us the opinions we’re making about waterboarding are wrong because we don’t know what it is. So can you tell us precisely what the legal authority is for withholding the documents from the Committee other than the fact that they might be embarrassing.

Bradbury: I fully respect the oversight interest of this committee.

Nadler: We’ve seen no evidence of that.

[Bradbury keeps trying to filibuster]

Nadler: Will you give us the opinions?

Bradbury: We are giving that serious consideration. These are subject to extensive oversight of intelligence committees.

Nadler: Is there any legal basis for withholding those documents?

Bradbury: Protecting against disclosure.

Nadler: We all have top security clearance.

[Bradbury has almost as whiny a voice as Shorter Schlozman]

Nadler: What is the legal basis for your ability to have discretion to not turn over those opinions.

Bradbury: Not my place to make that decision.

Nadler: Are you head of OLC, isn’t it your job to give opinon on these issues? Have you advised AG that they have the legal right to withhold these opinions.

Bradbury: Executive Branch does have the right to withhold documents.

Nadler: You won’t commit to giving us those documents so your recognition of our interests is totally hollow. We’d like an explanation in writing for why we can’t see them (or the documents themselves).

Diaz-Boehlert is complaining that Democrats are using parliamentary tactics. Whaaa!

Artur Davis: Why did Mukasey say this was torture but you say it’s not?

Davis: McCain was subject to torture in Vietnam. In response to that torture, he signed a confession to a war crime. That was unaccurate–it was a response to the extreme distress he was undergoing, was it not? That’s the concern a number of us have. I strongly disagree with his point that we’re trying to pass laws that favor terrorists. You are absolutely correct that when people experiencing waterboarding are distressed which may lead them to lie. You state the enhanced interrogation has been used with about 1/3 of the detainees. How many is that, 30?

Bradbury: I’m not authorized.

Davis: Have any of those individuals lied in response to interrogation techniques? Is it conceivable that some of them may have lied?

Bradbury: I don’t know.

Davis: How many prosecutions have been brought based on what those individuals have said.

Bradbury: None.

Davis: That sounds like a completion rate that could be pretty low.

Bradbury: Purpose of program is not to obtain intelligence to be used in criminal prosecutions.

Davis: I assume you don’t mean to fashion a program or condone or sanction a program that doesn’t yield results. You cannot tell me whether all of these individuals have lied. I add that up and come to one simple conclusion. We can’t tell whether this program is working, you won’t tell us, we take that position not in the name of protecting terrorists. We take that position in order to get the real terrorists.

Bradbury: I can only rely on what Hayden has said. He has said it has produced thousands of reports that have been useful.

Davis: That’s an inherently subjective conclusion. Will he share that information with this committee? If Hayden has quantifiable information about the efficacy of this program, I ask that this be shared with us.

Chris Cannon and James Sensenbrenner are both opposed to contempt because what happens if it doesn’t work!?!?!?!?!

Cannon: We have no evidence that Miers and Bolten were involved, do we?

Conyers: We aren’t accusing them of anything, sir.

Cannon: We have no evidence.

John Yarmouth (D-KY) saying that the 2006 election was about giving Democrats control of Congress:

This is what I heard: "We want to return the government to the tenants of the Constitution. We want to return to the ideas that the founding fathers. We want to return to the premise that no one is above the rule of law."

This is about restoring the checks and balances.

If we don’t challenge the President on this issue, we will have

Ellison (torture hearing): If an OLC opinion, once written will prevent an investigation of an executive branch felony, the President can violate the law or his oath, and just point to OLC, and if victims try to suit, they will use State Secrets. Isn’t that a recipe for unchecked executive power.

Bradbury: No, I don’t believe it is. The opinions are reasonable and were appropriately relied upon.

Ellison: How do you know that they were relied upon as you set forth.

Bradbury: That’s my understanding.

Ellison: How do you know? Were you present for an instance of waterboarding? You indicated earlier that the waterboarding is nothing like what happened to American soldiers at the hand of the Japanese. Can you describe how this was applied? Have you seen videotapes? How do you know that the advice you’ve been giving have been relied upon properly.

Bradbury: I have reasons to believe.

Ellison: Are you basing this on statements? How do you know that the advice you’ve been giving haven’t been exceeded?

Bradbury: I believe that is the case.

Ellison: NO. I’m going to ask you to answer my questions that’s the way this hearing goes. [Now addressing the notion that torture used in training is torture or not.]

Bradbury: If something is torture in one circumstance, it is torture in another.

Ellison: So if a police officer sells drugs as part of a sting operation.

Bradbury: There are lines that address that.

Ellison: I’m sure you’ll provide the citations to the cases.

Bradbury: I’d be happy to.

Ellison: Go ahead. If I just said, Judge there’s a case, I’d expect you to cite the case.

Scott: Is there any precedent outside of this Administration that says waterboarding isn’t torture?

Bradbury: I’m not aware of any, that’s why this job is so hard.

Scott: Penalty for perjury a whole lot less than murder. Is the penalty for destroying the torture tapes a whole lot less than if the contents had been seen? Was your office involved in discussion of whether torture tapes should have been destroyed.

Bradbury: Our office wasn’t.

Scott: If we’re trying to find out who was involved in destruction of CIA torture tapes, who should we look to? Who would be involved in that discussion in your opinion.

Bradbury: I’d refer you to acting DAG’s office.

Scott: There has been no determination that waterboarding would be lawful under current law. Has there been a determination that it would be unlawful under current law?

Bradbury: No, bc there has been no time to do so under current law.

Scott: And we don’t have the tapes so we’d know what we’d be talking about. [Lists the prohibitions against torture.] Did the part of the EO forbidding violations of Convention against Torture, etc, did that change anything?

Bradbury [attempts to filibuster]: No, those statutes under their own terms do apply. One thing the EO does do … the program does have to comply with the law.

Scott: Should we be concerned by the term "grave"?

Bradbury: That’s used in the war crimes act [I may have the laws in question wrong].

Scott: So breaches of Convention that are not grave are not violations of the war crimes act?

Watt: You say that fewer than 100 have been detained. Those are the people at Gitmo.

Bradbury: The 14, maybe 15 detainees who were transferred there are among those. But the CIA has held others. That’s not the sum total of those who have been detained under this program. When the 14 were moved that emptied the overseas facilities.

[Is he implying we’re back to holding people overseas again?]

Watt: If I were trying to determine the disposition of one or more of those 350 who have been held. What is the maximum duration they have been held?

Bradbury: January February 2002.

Watt: Have they been formally charged.

Bradbury: Some of them. All of them have had Combatant Status Review.

Watt: If you said waterboarding was illegal, could the President ignore that under Article II. I’d like to know whether in your legal opinion whether the President has the authority to disregard your opinion.

Bradbury: I don’t think he’d do it.

Watt: I didn’t ask you that, would he have the authority under Article II.

Bradbury: Can I get to that in a second?

Watt: How about answering it now?

[Bradbury is filibustering] 

Bradbury: In all cases the President will look to OLC opinions. In theory, the President stands at the top of the executive branch, so every is under the authority of the President, including the AG. It is unsustainable to disregard an opinion of the AG.

Watt: Does the President have the authority to disregard the opinion under Article II.

Nadler: I believe your answer is yes.

Bradbury: You’re putting words in my mouth.

Nadler: Yes I am.

Watt: I would have loved to have gotten to my next question if you hadn’t rope-a-doped my next question.

Bradbury: General Hayden has said he will not allow his people to do anything that has not been approved by AG.

Watt: So if President has issued order, Hayden will listen to the AG?

Nadler: Will you commit to respond within 30 days.

Bradbury: I will do it as soon as possible and will try to do it within 30 days.

[HJC hearing over]

The AP reveals that prosecutors in the Alexandria US Attorney’s Office–including the lead prosecutor in the Moussaoui case–did know of the torture tapes in early 2006, before Moussaoui was sentenced.

The lead prosecutor in the terror case against Zacarias Moussaoui may have known the CIA destroyed tapes of its interrogations of an al-Qaida suspect more than a year before the government acknowledged it to the court, newly unsealed documents indicate.

The documents, which were declassified and released Wednesday by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, detail efforts by Moussaoui’s attorneys to send the case back to a lower federal court to find out whether the tapes should have been disclosed and whether they would have influenced his decision to plead guilty.

In a Dec. 18, 2007, letter to the appeals court’s chief judge, the Justice Department acknowledged that its lead prosecutor in the case had been informed about the CIA’s tapes of al-Qaida lieutenant Abu Zubaydah being interrogated.

The letter said the prosecutor, Robert A. Spencer, may have been told of the tapes’ destruction in late February or early March of 2006, just as the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., was beginning its trial on whether Moussaoui would be eligible to face the death penalty.

Spencer, who was one of three prosecutors on the government’s team, "does not recall being told this information," U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg wrote in the Dec. 18 letter to 4th U.S. Circuit Chief Judge Karen J. Williams.

Another prosecutor in Rosenberg’s office in Virginia’s eastern district who was not involved in the case "recalls telling (Spencer) on one occasion," the letter said.

That second, unnamed, prosecutor learned about the videotapes of Zubaydah "in connection with work he performed in a Department of Justice project unrelated to the Moussaoui case," the letter said.

It is unclear what that project was. [my emphasis]

Mind you, Spencer was informed about the tapes in early 2006, several months after he represented to Leonie Brinkema that there were no tapes of interrogations. But he would have you believe that he was told this fact just before the hearings on Moussoui’s sentencing, but forgot (I almost feel as if I should add, "as if it were new," from Libby’s dubious claims). When exactly does he suggest he forgot this information that would have been immediately pertinent to the Moussoui case? Immediately? Just before he started ‘fessing up that there were other interrogation tapes they hadn’t disclosed? And we’re to believe it never came up again during this period?

And what was this "special project" by which the other prosecutor learned of the tapes? Was it, perhaps, a response to the CIA IG report?

Spencer’s convenient forgetfulness and the involvement of his prosecutors in this "special project" may well be the reasons Chuck Rosenberg, the USA for ED VA, recused himself from this case. But it sure raises questions why the investigation is still being conducted out of that office.

Mukasey has an oversight hearing before the House Judiciary today. I imagine we’ll be hearing a lot more about this there.

Update: Via How Appealing, here are the documents: 

Moussaoui motion, limited remand

US opposition to motion

Supplemental US letter

Moussaoui response

Last month, just as CIA’s IG and Director learned of the DOJ investigation into the torture tape destruction, the CIA also announced that Helgerson and Hayden had agreed on some measures to make the IG process "more fair."

The CIA has completed a controversial in-house probe of its inspector general and plans to make a series of changes in the way the agency conducts internal investigations, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson has consented to more than a dozen procedural changes designed to address complaints that investigations carried out by his office were unfair to agency employees, the officials said.

Right on schedule, yesterday the CIA announced those "procedural changes." The IG’s office will have an ombudsman to act as a watchdog on the watchdog.

The CIA’s inspector general has agreed to tighter controls over its investigative procedures, agency officials revealed yesterday, in what appeared to be an attempt to soften resentments among agency officials over the watchdog’s aggressive probes into the legality and effectiveness of the CIA’s counterterrorism efforts and detention programs.

The revisions, which include the appointment of a special ombudsman to oversee the IG’s work, were disclosed by CIA Director Michael V. Hayden in an e-mail sent to employees, announcing the end of an unusual inquiry into the performance of Inspector General John L. Helgerson, a 36-year CIA veteran and the man chiefly responsible for the spy agency’s internal oversight.

Most interesting–or troubling, depending on how you look at it–is the requirement that the IG’s office keep senior CIA officers informed of the status of investigations.

The changes include measures intended to speed up investigations and require the watchdog to keep CIA employees and managers informed about both the process and results of investigations.

Call me crazy, but I would imagine that if you tell the CIA Director that you’re about to report that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" the CIA has been doing probably violate international law, then you’re never going to be able to write a report to that effect. And certainly never going to be able to circulate to anyone who can do something about the violations of international law.

Well, Championship Sunday was a bit of a letdown. No one claimed the much prized Hubcap, the Pack packed it in, LT was MIA, and nobody noticed that the asterisk was still in the title. There sure has been a lot that has happened since, most of it having to do with the most famous foot in the world. That foot would, of course, belong to Brady, Sir Tom. Uh oh, this just in, hot off the wire (Oh my, this is really rich, heh heh):

BREAKING NEWS: HAGGIS DEMANDS SENATE INQUIRY INTO PATRIOTS SPYGATE SCANDAL; COMPARES MATTER TO TORTURE TAPES DESTRUCTION!

The ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee wants N.F.L. Commissioner Roger Goodell to explain why the league destroyed evidence related to spying by the New England Patriots.
…
In a telephone interview Thursday morning, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and ranking member of the committee, said that Goodell would eventually be called before the committee to address two issues: the league’s antitrust exemption in relation to its television contract and the destruction of the tapes that revealed spying by the Patriots.

“That requires an explanation,” Specter said. “The N.F.L. has a very preferred status in our country with their antitrust exemption. The American people are entitled to be sure about the integrity of the game. It’s analogous to the C.I.A. destruction of tapes. Or any time you have records destroyed.”
…
Mr. Specter first wrote Mr. Goodell about the tapes on Nov. 15. … The league responded to Mr. Specter late Thursday afternoon.
…
“It’s premature to say whom we’re going to call or when. It starts with the commissioner. He had the tapes, and he made the decision as to what the punishment could be. He made the decision to destroy them.”

Mr. Specter said it had not been determined when Mr. Goodell would be called before the committee.

Jeebus, I don’t even know what to say. I kind of thought we had seen governmental actors functioning at the outer boundaries of surreality yesterday with Mukasey, but I should have known better than to count out the Scottish Haggis; and boy did he ever come through. I guess, before moving on, we should note that the Haggis is a rabid Philadelphia Iggles fan and penned his first letter right before said Iggles were to play the Asterisks Patriots.

Okay, back to your regular programming. Scottsdale/Phoenix is currently the happening party central place to be in the world right now. Hollywood and New York must be flat out empty; because every celebrity you can imagine is running around here. Every bar, restaurant, nightclub and, ahem, gentlemen’s club is standing room only with long lines outside. Unless I have lost my ability to spot them, we also apparently are having a top shelf hooker convention too (not that there is anything wrong with that). Its not just the Super Bowl either, the Phoenix Open started today. For those of you not familiar with the Phoenix Open, it is, without any question, and by a large margin, the wildest and craziest golf tournament on the PGA Tour. It is also the largest, drawing over 500,000 drunken, amorous attendees every year. Not to mention Obama was here Wednesday night and Big Dog Clinton here Thursday night at ASU. It is absolutely nuts out and about. Every other car on the freaking road is a limo or town car chock full of beautiful people.

We had the Super Bowl here before, and truth be told, the actual game is almost secondary to all the hoopla going on leading up to it. Super Bowl XXX. I went to that one, and here is what I remember: My friend and I had pretty good seats, but were right behind some child TeeVee star named Joey Lawrence; I had never heard of him, but he sure did attract a lot of attention from girls too young to be of any use to my friend and I. Very annoying. Oh yeah, I think Diana Ross landed on the field in a heeliocoptah to do the halftime show, and the ‘Boys beat the Stillers, but I didn’t actually see much of that. Here’s whats up this year.

THE PATRIOTS* – The first injury report of Super Bowl week came out Wednesday, and Tom Brady was on it — for his shoulder. No mention was made of the world famous ankle sprain that set off paparazzi pandemonium when Brady was spotted in the boot. Brady practiced fully both Wednesday and Thursday, and his ankle was not heavily taped, as it supposedly had been Monday. Brady has been listed with a shoulder injury since the opener of the 2003 season, which is Coach Bill Belichick’s tweak (Really? He would do such a thing? Shocking!) at the NFL injury reporting system he abhors. Receiver Jabar Gaffney was limited in practice Wednesday, though, with what is apparently a legitimate shoulder injury. Roidney Harrison has a slight thigh twitch, but reportedly is juiced and ready. Thats about it. The 18-0 killing machine that is the New England Patriots is healthy, rested and ready to rock and roll.

THE GIANTS – I can’t tell you how bad it burns to not be talking about the Packers here (Phred knows). There has been a little Plaxico Duress caused by his – gasp – trash talking; and Michael Strahan has been a walking talking sideshow, but a darned amiable and funny one. You gotta love the guy. Jeremy Shockey is out; and as far as I know, he isn’t even here. Plaxico now has a swollen left knee in addition to the ankle injury he had that kept him out of in the conference championship game where he caught 11 passes for a gazillion yards. He’ll be fine. Cornerback Aaron Ross had some kind of undisclosed bug, but will be fine for the game.

THE BATTLEGROUND – Super Bowl XLII is being played in University of Phoenix Stadium, located in a suburb known as Glendale, on the west side of Phoenix. From the outside, the thing looks like the Jupiter 2 spaceship from Lost In Space. Seriously. Inside, it is almost exclusively granite gray and cardinal red. I am told that some local football team, semi-pro I believe, plays there. I can’t personally attest to that, but it was a fine place to see the Rolling Stones on their last tour; that I can vouch for (Keith makes Dick Cheney look healthy, but he sure hasn’t lost much of his edge). In fairness, despite the garish color scheme, it is a pretty cool joint. The link above has a lot of neat links and information about the stadium, and is worth checking out. The weather forecast is for sunshine and partly cloudy Friday and Saturday, with clouds and possible rain by Sunday night. No worries mates, the Jupiter 2 University of Phoenix Stadium has a retractable roof and is extremely well climate controlled. There will be none of those turf issues like at Heinz Field or the frozen tundra of Lambeau. You see, they have the whole field on some kind of fancy dan plate on wheels and literally roll it, in one piece, into and out of the stadium to maximize the quality and maintenance of the turf. It will be immaculate and the logos are painted and ready to go.

Well, thats it. Oh yeah, I was at a gig with Paris Hilton and Pam Anderson earlier today. Neither seemed particularly impressed that I was bmaz from Emptywheel. My wife was disappointed; she was hoping they would take me off her hands. Look for further updates either here or in the comments. This is, sadly, our last dance for the season; so don’t be like Nancy Pelosi, put it all on the table, let it all hang out, enjoy and hoop it up. Beer thirty starts now and runs until the fat lady is done singing. Show Time Baby! Crack open a cool one and start trashing up the joint!

Update from emptywheel (and thanks to bmaz for all the great trash): ESPN has asked a bunch of famous people for their picks. Most of them, being pop culture icons, are completely obscure to me.  But my favorites are:

GEN. MIKE HAYDEN
Director of the CIA Giants, 28-24. The spread favors the Pats, but careful intelligence work looks beyond the obvious. The Giants are hot now. Three playoff wins on the road (like the Steelers before Super Bowl XL). Regular season finale shows they match up well against the Pats. Besides, nobody’s perfect!

SERENA WILLIAMS
Tennis player/Venus’ little sister Giants, because of Eli Manning being the younger brother.

BILL O’REILLY
FOX TV host Giants, 31-30. Destiny.
[In case there was any doubt about which was the Republican team] 

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER
D-NY I’ve been a Giants fan since I was five years old. I can remember watching Charlie Connerly, Sam Huff, and Alex Webster. Back then, the two most important Roosevelts to me were Brown and Grier.

Update II from bmaz Saturday morning: This live report is coming in from EW’s Senior Snarlgate Correspondent, bmaz, on location near the ESPN command center at the Southbridge Waterfront in Old Town Scottsdale Arizona. Reports are flying fast and furious about illegal signal stealing by the Patriots in previous Super Bowls; most notably Super Bowl XXXVI between the Pats and Rams, and Super Bowl XXXIX between the Pats and Eagles. There now appears to be corroboration, at least as to SB-XXXVI, where the Patriot’s former video coordinator, Matt Walsh, reportedly has evidence in the form of inculpatory tapes on the Rams and is willing to testify, but wants a subpoena because he is concerned about retaliation from the Patriots and rabid fans. This matter is getting serious, is not going away, and is really starting to affect and tarnish the credibility of the Patriots and what they have accomplished according to many fans, especially fans of the New York Giants and, of course, the Philadelphia Eagles’ fans like Snarlen Spectre.

There are two scandalously hot rumors that have surfaced just this morning and are burning through the whole scene here in Old Town Scottsdale as I type this report. The first involves the Patriots using secret Russian spy/surveillance technology acquired by the team in a surreptitious deal with Vladimir Putin that was negotiated by Rupert Murdoch. The second involves a collaboration between Senators Arlen Spectre and Kitty Bond to instigate a formal investigatory commission, similar to baseball’s Mitchell commission, to investigate the exploding SnarlSpyGate controversy and that will be headed up by respected former Senator Ricky Santorum. It is unclear, at the time of this posting, how strongly these shocking and destructive rumors will take hold and spread through the sports and traditional media that the scene here is absolutely saturated with.