The key question surrounding torture tape gate is not who authorized the destruction of the tapes in 2005. Nope. The real priority is who in the Bush Administration knowingly lied to a Federal Judge in the spring of 2003. Either the CIA told DOJ the truth and DOJ lied or the CIA lied to DOJ or the White House directed DOJ to lie. It is that simple.
The fun started on 7 May 2003 during a CIPA (i.e., Classified Information Procedures Act) hearing presided over by Judge Leonie Brinkema. She ordered the government to determine if interrogations of suspected terrorists were recorded. Two days later,
9 May 2003, Judge Leonie Brinkema asked, “whether the interrogations are being recorded in any format”? The Department of Justice, based on info from the CIA, said “NO”. (
see p. 4 of letter to Federal Judges by U.S. attorneys Novak and Raskin).
There are at least two felonies here–obstruction of justice and lying to a federal law enforcement official. Someone who worked for John Ashcroft, the Attorney General at the time, certainly was in touch with the U.S. Attorneys who fielded this question from Judge Brinkema. And the Department of Justice asked the C.I.A. I will bet you dollars to donuts that the White House also was in the loop on this. At least Harriet Miers, Gonzo, and Addington. Who would they talk to at the CIA?
George Tenet, Director? Yes. CIA General Counsel? Certainly. The guy in charge of spies in the field–the DDO Jim Pavitt? Probably. This was not some obscure legal point. This was a high priority matter. Someone (or several someones, i.e. a conspiracy) at the CIA or the Department of Justice lied. And Federal Judges like Brinkema don’t like being lied to. Gives them a case of the cherry ass.
When the CIA affirms to the court in November of 2005 that there are no tapes, that may have been a true statement at the time. If the tapes were destroyed in June or July then it was a factual statement. The real crime starts in 2003. Funny, but then Deputy Director of the CIA, John McLaughlin, has been quiet as a church mouse of late. Ditto for Tenet and Pavitt. With reason. Someone lied.
Comments (18)
Well, Democrats on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees certainly do not want to know about any of this. Then, they might have to do something.
Corrupt, cowardly, winps.
::JRBehrman
December 21, 2007 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen!
December 21, 2007 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I don't mean to bother you, or to cause any problems or anything, but I kinda thought that DOING SOMETHING about these crimes was off the table. (I never really understood how Nancy could say that before the facts were in, but she IS a Democratic Leader, right?) I mean people might say bad things about us, like "we're just getting back for the Clinton Impeachment." That should certainly make us forfeit all of our responsibilities. Maybe we should ask Harry Reid why HE caves in on absolutely everything, because I'd sure like to know why he does it.
Democrats don't get it! Rove never cared what people said -- he just ignored the truth and people bought it. I don't advocate that, but Democrats fear lies, and feel they have tp answer for all of them, and come off looking like assholes.
Bush says, "I'll veto this bill and make the Congress look like a bunch of do-nothings."
Instead of calling him on it, and making headlines about Bush vetoing SCHIP. etc, they just roll over because they don't want to SEEM this way or that way. They fall under the bus for the "Support the Troops" farce.
Support the Troops? Like the administration that kills them for lies? The (coward awol) president who has not attended one single funeral for all the thousands he has killed? The administration that pays Blackwater murderers (who are Cheney/Bush cronies) 10 times what a soldier gets, and then exhonerates their crimes? By the administration that gives them shitty health care?
Heaven forbid the democrats would ever bring up these INCONVENIENT TRUTHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jan
December 21, 2007 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the fight is fixed, it makes no sense for the fighter planning to take a fall to look completely helpless. In fact the better the fight before the k.o., the more believable. Besides, a rematch is possible.
The dems aren't trying to win, they're trying to take a credible dive.
Incontravertible evidence of a fixed fight go as far back as December of 2000. For this bout, anyway.
Who knows how to unfix it?
MW
December 21, 2007 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who ever did the lying back in 2005, that person reported to the Executive Branch of the government, which means to GWBush. It isn't at all believable that GWBush was unaware of the lie, or unaware of the torture that was being videotaped. So, in keeping with his oath to protect the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws, he was required to order that the liar be fired and charged with perjury.
This is a smoking gun. Bush ordered the lying - a felony. Or, Bush knew who lied and didn't act - a violation of his oath of office, or both. Bush therefore committed a "high crime" and should be impeached.
If only we had a democratic majority in Congress we would be well underway with impeachment proceedings.
Hoppy in Sacramento
December 21, 2007 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as they're sufficiently sorry for doing it, and promise not to do it again, I'm sure their "good faith and intent" arguments will be accepted at face value.
December 21, 2007 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, since George W. Bush's entire life is a lie, I pick him.
December 21, 2007 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Federal Judges like Brinkema
Old joke:
"What's the difference between God and a Federal Judge?"
"God only thinks he's a Federal Judge"
December 21, 2007 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The current President of the United States.
~OGD~
December 21, 2007 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about the current occupant of theWhite house whose minnions, Katherine Harris and Kenneth Blackwel, fraudulently stole the 2000 election in Florida and the 2004 election in Ohio?
December 22, 2007 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, here we have a non ambiguous criminal case, lying and obstruction, and a Federal Judge is involved, not some wimp Democratic Leader or Committee Chair bloviating about subpoenas.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Does the Bush gang tell the Judiciary Branch to Go F**k themselves and get away with it?
December 22, 2007 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, since there are so many right-wing morons in the courts the answer may be "Yes".
December 22, 2007 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, I think you're right. I have little faith in right wing judges dispensing justice to people as high up in Government as the Bush gang.
I think Patrick Fitzgerald purposely chose to go no higher than Scooter Libby in the Plame case. As new evidence came out, he allowed Rove to return to the Grand Jury about 5 times to adjust his prior testimony.
One can only guess the case he might have had against Bush and Cheney.
Stacking the courts with ideologues is a side benefit of winning the White House.
December 22, 2007 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
CIA says it cooperated with 9/11 panel
Oh, well OK!
December 22, 2007 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
snip
December 22, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Rodriguez is looking for immunity? Things may get interesting soon.
December 23, 2007 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope so. But, that's what we all thought just before the admiral finally took the dive for Ronnie during the Contragate thing.
Kevin Russell Cook
December 26, 2007 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
What bothers me is Judge Leonie Brinkema. First of all, why would she ask that question? The old adage about not asking a qwuestion that you don't know the answer to. It seems incredible to me that she would accept the answer of "no, we don't bother recording this stuff, because, you know, there would be nothing to gain by playing it over again anyway, and besides, this wasn't really momentous stuff these guys were giving us"
right
dc
December 28, 2007 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink