General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhite House withholds thousands of documents from Senate CIA probe, despite vows of help
BY JONATHAN S. LANDAY, ALI WATKINS AND MARISA TAYLOR
McClatchy Washington BureauMarch 12, 2014
WASHINGTON The White House has been withholding for five years more than 9,000 top-secret documents sought by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for its investigation into the now-defunct CIA detention and interrogation program, even though President Barack Obama hasnt exercised a claim of executive privilege.
In contrast to public assertions that it supports the committees work, the White House has ignored or rejected offers in multiple meetings and in letters to find ways for the committee to review the records, a McClatchy investigation has found.
The significance of the materials couldnt be learned. But the administrations refusal to turn them over or to agree to any compromise raises questions about what they would reveal about the CIAs use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists in secret overseas prisons.
The dispute indicates that the White House is more involved than it has acknowledged in the unprecedented power struggle between the committee and the CIA, which has triggered charges that the agency searched the panels computers without authorization and has led to requests to the Justice Department for criminal investigations of CIA personnel and Senate aides.
CONTINUED...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/12/221033/despite-vows-of-help-white-house.html
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)All these references to "the White House" as if it is a sentient object make no sense.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Seems theses documents are going to hold someone coughBushandCheney to account.
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)Cheney Watch.org
http://cheneywatch.org/
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)I've discovered he's been involved in all sorts of things: like overseeing Patrick Fitzgerald in Plamegate; softening the report against Yoo/Bybee/Bradbury and the torture memos; keeping Don Siegelman in prison; and the US Attorney scandal with Carol Lam and David Iglesias.
Margolis is the lynchpin to this entire criminal organization.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Did he have a wife that was involved in the Plame/Gate scandal in some way? Could you briefly remind us of the scandal regarding U.S. Atty with Carol Lam and David Iglesias? Just a good one or two liner or a handy link as a lead to research would be great. Thanks!
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)for a poli-sci class in 2007.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8807073&mesg_id=8809373
2banon
(7,321 posts)Brilliant piece OnyxCollie, and incredibly informative.
I hope you don't mind that I took the liberty to re-post a huge segment of your piece titled US Attorneys and Game Theory.
The game theory was interesting, but the resulting outcome is the nut of it, imo.
(all text in bold is my emphasis)
Love this summation:
While he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one. Improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused, when they should carry none.
The insertion of this new clause into the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act went unnoticed. Senators were at a loss to explain how the clause made its way into the bill. It was later determined that the Justice Department had requested Brett Tolman to insert the clause into the bill (Kiel, 2007). At the time the clause was inserted Mr. Tolman was a counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which is Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is a member. Sen. Specter responded to inquiries about his involvement with the clause by saying, I do not slip things in (Kiel, 2007, p. 1). According to Sen. Specter, the principal reason for the change was to resolve separation of power issues (Kiel, 2007, p. 2). The Senate voted to repeal the clause in February 2007 (P.L. 110-34, 2007). Mr. Tolman is now a U.S. Attorney for the state of Utah.
The revelations in following is just stunning:
The reason the government provided for Ms. Lams departure was that she refused to prosecute immigration cases (Steinhauer and Lipton, 2007). However, a review of court records spanning five years had shown Ms. Lam to be ranked among the top 10 of the 93 U.S. Attorneys for prosecutions and convictions, with immigration cases providing the bulk of her prosecutions (McCoy and Johnson, 2007).
U.S. Attorney Margaret Chiara was asked to resign in November 2006. Ms. Chiara claims to have been notified by the Justice Department to resign from her post in order to make way for an individual they wanted to advance (Lipton, 2007, p. 1). The Justice Department cited poor performance and low office moral as the reasons for her dismissal, yet Ms. Chiara said her office had increased felony convictions by 15 percent (Lipton, 2007). Recounting an email exchange with Michael Elston, the deputy attorney generals chief of staff, Ms. Chiara said Mr. Elston had told her that she erroneously assumed that good service guaranteed longevity and that she and other U.S. Attorneys were being asked for their resignations without good cause (Lipton, 2007, p. 1).
U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins was forced to resign on December 20, 2006. Mr. Cummins replacement, Tim Griffin, was appointed to the position five days earlier (Arkansas Times, 2006). Mr. Griffin had previously worked for the Republican National Committee and had been an opposition researcher for presidential advisor Karl Rove (Satter, 2006).
U.S. Attorney John McKay was forced to resign on December 7, 2006. In a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, McKay recounted a phone call he had received shortly after the November 2004 election from Ed Cassidy, then chief of staff to Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Washington) (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2007). Mr. McKay had said that the call was to inquire about an investigation into allegations of voter fraud in the close election win of Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire. Mr. McKay withheld any comments about the investigation and told Cassidy he was sure the call was not intended to suggest that Hastings was calling for a federal investigation, because that would be improper (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2007, p. 1). The Republican National Committee and Gov. Gregoires opponent, Republican Dino Rossi, had brought a lawsuit forward to challenge the results of the election. Lacking evidence to support the claims of fraud, Judge John Bridges ruled against the plaintiffs (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2007).
Similar to Mr. McKay was the firing of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. Mr. Iglesias received calls at his home by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM). Mr. Iglesias testified before the Senate that the calls were to question the progress of an investigation of voter fraud in the upcoming election of Rep. Wilson. Mr. Iglesias said he was pressured to bring an indictment before the election. According to Mr. Iglesias:
I was at home. This was the only time Id ever received a call from any member of Congress while at home during my tenure as United States Attorney for New Mexico. I recognized the voice as being Senator Pete Domenici. And he wanted ask me about the matters of the corruption cases that had been widely reported in the local media. I said, All right. And he said, Are these going to be filed before November? And I said I didnt think so, to which he replied, Im very sorry to hear that. And then the line went dead (Iglesias, 2007, as cited in McKay, 2008, p. 282, 283).
Conversely, of the U.S. Attorneys who were not fired, there were the 80-85 percent, I would guess, who are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc. (Sampson, 2005, p. 1), who have been the subject of allegations of political prosecutions. A report from Professors Emeritus Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan of the University of Missouri and Illinois State University respectively, shows that of 375 elected officials investigated and/or indicted, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops (Shields & Cragan, 2007, p. 1).
A July 2008 Justice Department report indicated illegal hiring practices based on political or ideological affiliations for career positions. The report stated that more qualified candidates were passed over in favor of political cronies. From the report:
Elston said that Goodling made it clear to him that she did not want Democrats detailed to the ODAG because she had a farm system approach to filling vacancies in the Department, and she wanted to credential Republicans so that they could move on to higher positions. Elston also stated that there were some Republicans that Goodling did not want to hire as detailees because they were not Republican enough (U.S. Department of Justice, 2008, pp. 47, 48).
Emails released by the Justice Department and interviews conducted by congressional investigations revealed involvement by White House officials Karl Rove and Harriet Miers in the firing of the U.S. Attorneys (Jordan, 2007; Eggen and Solomon, 2007). The White House refused to cooperate, citing blanket executive privilege claims (Leahy, 2007). The claims of executive privilege were made despite any communication with the President regarding the U.S. Attorney firings (Holman, 2007).
Sen. Patrick Leahy had asked the White House to provide documents and testimony regarding the U.S. Attorney firings. In response, Sen. Leahy was repeatedly offered an unacceptable take it or leave it offer of limited document availability and off-the-record, backroom interviews with no transcript, no oath, and no ability to follow up (Leahy, 2007, p. 3). Further attempts to accommodate the White House by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee were refused (Leahy, 2007).
Mr. Rove, Ms. Miers, and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolton were subpoenaed to appear before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees (Kane, 2007). In a letter to George Manning, legal counselor for Harriet Miers, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers threatened to use inherent contempt (Conyers & Sanchez, 2007). Inherent contempt is a procedure where:
The individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. (Kaiser, Oleszek, Halstead, Rosenberg & Tatelman, 2007, p. 37).
None of the subpoenaed officials appeared and were later found to be in contempt of Congress (Kane, 2008; Washington in Brief, 2008). No further criminal action was brought against Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolton. Citing a 1984 legal opinion, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that the refusal to appear before Congress did not constitute a crime (Eggen, 2008, p. A02).
In conclusion, it is apparent that the White House (and the Republican National Committee by extension) had changed the rules to obtaining power. U.S. Attorneys who prosecute high-ranking government officials could be removed from office. U.S. Attorneys could be removed from office and replaced by partisan operatives. U.S. Attorneys who refuse to prosecute voter fraud cases in swing states due to flimsy evidence could be removed from office. Political prosecutions were conducted to influence elections. Illegal hiring practices ensured solidarity.
The Administration, having changed the rules (and abandoned others), was able to predict the moves of its opponent. The Democratically-controlled Congress adhered to its moral principles and was submissive in the face of a greater power. The Administration offered little to Congressional investigators, and later when it became apparent there would be no retaliation or consequences, gave nothing.
The Bush Administration has subjugated the Constitution in its quest for power and none dare call it treason.
The obvious question is why hasn't our new Constitutional Lawyer/Senator/President of the United States made no requests for Congress to repeal the Patriot Act, and restore Constitutional compliance to our "democratic" governance system.
Curious as to whether or not your paper was published beyond your political science class?
Excellent piece, again, thank you for this.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)progressoid
(49,988 posts)Let's focus on the positive like,
um,
well,
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Autumn
(45,072 posts)by congress.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Do we still have such things?
I agree: Democracy sure needs them.
Autumn
(45,072 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)
I intend to discuss this with my Senator.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024662090
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Why, from McClatchey OP:
These documents certainly raise the specter that the White House has been involved in stonewalling the investigation, said Elizabeth Goitein, the co-director of the Brennan Center for Justices Liberty and National Security Program at the New York University Law School.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)its pretty easy for the president to say this much....
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Supports that too? Then do it because you surely can. Or if not then stop spinning and re framing to make noise like you do when as a practical application matter you do not.
The reality assembles into a picture that says he wants the Senate to release a report that paints a certain picture drawn by omission of data to look like something other than actual events.
Your defense is an indictment. You are conflating distinct issues to paper over one and embellish the other.
cali
(114,904 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)The Intelligence Committee's report...not the documents that are withheld.
And the report without the documents they request will not matter.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions.
A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Personally, I don't believe Secret Government be Democratic government when the People can't hold someone with power accountable.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)LuvNewcastle
(16,844 posts)If the documents are of any interest, they're withheld.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)"Major Major had been born too late and too mediocre. Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three. Even among men lacking all distinction he inevitably stood out as a man lacking more distinction than all the rest, and people who met him were always impressed by how unimpressive he was." ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
After the restoration of justice, what I had hoped to see change most was the "money trumps peace" thing.
Like any good catch, justice and peace are inter-related; and like any good catch in the money-trumps-peace world, mutually exclusive.
G_j
(40,367 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)What actually happened. Essentially, to create a false report via suppression and omission. AKA report what we told you to.
Nothing to see here, move along consumer. This is a security matter for your safety and protection in compliance with the constitution and not your concern. All is well. Move along!
G_j
(40,367 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Transparency ...is just another word to use on the campaign trail. Oh ...but we can't be prosecuting war criminals ...when they are or were on our side.
2banon
(7,321 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)how could we ever take back control? It appears that the intelligence agencies have unchecked power, which makes sense. They had 8 years of Cheney and an unlimited budget and a Congress that didnt want to look like they were soft on terrorism. Why wouldnt they form a secret government. I dont for a minute think that George W. Bush was any more that a figurehead. I use to believe that Cheney was a driving force, but now I am thinking the power was/is bigger than Cheney. I think Cheney thought he had more power than he did. He was a outspoken belligerent man until Jan 2009 when he was wheeled out of Washington DC a broken man. Looks to me like someone told him to stand down.
LuvNewcastle
(16,844 posts)power of the intelligence agencies began long before Bush. Eisenhower warned everyone about it when he was leaving office, but his warning was not heeded. I think JFK was on a mission to end their dominance, and that was one reason why he was eliminated. Now, with all the surveillance tools they have at their disposal, they can easily control the people who we elect. It doesn't matter who is elected anymore. We won't see any significant change in this country until the intelligence community is removed from power, and that is close to impossible. They have all the tools they need to fight a war against the American people and win it handily.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)you can bet millions of documents were destroyed.. of course it was done deliberately but hey Cheney busted for arson, and destroying government (read public) property? LOL!
You maybe correct in your assessment wrt to Cheney's limited power, but I think it's safe to say, that what seemed to be diminished when he was wheeled out, has been restored to some degree. Knowledge is power, and he's got a great deal more in his bag of tricks, imo.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Thanks for reminding me.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)all sorts of skeletons would come out of the closet including those involved in 9/11
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)LIHOP. Clear treason.
Heck, the theft of the 2000 election was clear treason. Just look what happened to the country since then. The country is in the hands of the Fascists.
2banon
(7,321 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)probable doesnt have the backing of enough in power to oust those intrenched there now
GoCubsGo
(32,083 posts)Nine thousand documents is an awful lot of documents. And, as others have pointed out, this CIA shit goes back a long, long way. It's probably a big, fucking, tangled shitpile of a mess. Just like everything else the republicans leave whenever they've held power for any amount of time. Who the hell knows what else it might be tied to?
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)there has been a long history of corruption and abuse
GoCubsGo
(32,083 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)dgauss
(882 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)They're going down, and they know it.
We really thought - no scratch that - we really EXPECTED that justice would prevail on the OBVIOUS crimes of treason ever perpetrated on U.S. citizens by any administration in our history.
Will we ever learn from Dorgan and Waxman why this didn't take place? Anyone ever pursue these questions with Dorgan after he left the Senate? And now that Waxman is leaving, will he reveal to the public what the hell happened, or will he keep this matter buried? Maybe they both think no one cares. hmm.
dgauss
(882 posts)Apparently even Cheney thought it was a possibility.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)the results of pulling the curtain back if there is one.
I figure the risk is overstated because if there is a curtain then what is behind it won't be shy in their own time.
2banon
(7,321 posts)policies on Russia, (by that I mean no direct military intervention) Cheney et al, sputtering war chants all over the place seems rather reckless. Criticizing Obama's stance with great abandon as if they are reassured there will never be any judicial consequences for what they have wreaked on this nation for eight long nightmarish years.
They shouldn't have been enjoying the freedom to engage publicly in any way, if they were rotting in some cell like in g'tmo for instance, this nation would be well on the path to constitutional restoration and healing, now in this 6 year of a different administration.
sad, just pathetically sad.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Down to the location and the weight given by the media.
2banon
(7,321 posts)during confirmation process of Stephen Preston for CIA General Counsel appointment.
During the CIAs document production of more than six million pages of records, the CIA removed several thousand CIA documents that the CIA believed could be subject to executive privilege claims by the president, Udall wrote. While the documents represent an admittedly small percentage of the total number of records produced, the documents deemed responsive have nonetheless not been provided to the committee.
Preston responded that a small percentage of the total number of documents was set aside for further review. The agency (CIA) has deferred to the White House and has not been substantially involved in subsequent discussions about the disposition of those documents.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/12/221033/despite-vows-of-help-white-house.html#storylink=cpy
LuvNewcastle
(16,844 posts)so they took it back. Good luck making any sense of the rest of that shit.
2banon
(7,321 posts)On the other hand, that may just be a false flag decoy for some other undisclosed report/analysis even more onerous and damaging than the Panetta Review.
Given Panetta's close alliances and kindred spirits with the Neo-Cons world view on "American Exceptionalism", it's hard for me to buy into the notion that his piece is actually the core issue of concern.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)the day after that article:
Votes for New Leadership at CIA, Calls for Recusal of Acting-General Counsel Citing Lack of Trust, Clear Conflict of Interest
Mark Udall, a strong advocate for holding the CIA accountable for its misguided detention and interrogation program, called today for new leadership in the agency's general counsel's office. He also called for the CIA's acting-general counsel to recuse himself from further deliberations about that program and issues related to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Udall said the acting-general counsel's role in the controversial program itself and his efforts to intimidate Senate Intelligence Committee staff underscores his inability to be involved in reviewing the study and related issues.
Udall, a member of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, released his procedural hold today on the nomination of Caroline Krass to be the CIA's general counsel, citing the conflict of interest of the acting-general counsel, as well as a firm and clear commitment by the president to declassify the committee's landmark report on the CIA's detention and interrogation program.
"We need to correct the record on the CIA's coercive detention and interrogation program and declassify the Senate Intelligence Committee's exhaustive study of it. I released my hold on Caroline Krass's nomination today and voted for her to help change the direction of the agency," Udall said. "The president has stated an unequivocal commitment to supporting the declassification of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report. Coloradans expect me to hold him to his word."
Udall has been the leading voice in Congress for the White House and CIA to come clean about the agency's deeply flawed detention and interrogation program. Last week, he pressed the White House to publically commit to declassifying the Senate Intelligence Committee's landmark study on the CIA's misguided program.
During a confirmation hearing for the CIA's general counsel in December, Udall pressed nominee Caroline Krass on discrepancies between a CIA internal review of its detention and interrogation program and the official agency response to the committee's study. He said the contents of the internal review raise "fundamental questions about why a review the CIA conducted internally years ago ... is so different from the CIA's formal written response to the committee study."
http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4103
Of course, this isn't going to stop people from trying to portray the document mentioned in the OP, which is a matter that WH and Senater are cooperating to resolve, as more important than the missing CIA documents.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Isn't that how the rationale for spying goes?
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)Not a Fan
(98 posts)I have not formed an opinion on this matter yet, and actually find this troubling. But it is worth pointing out that from the White House's point of view the Senate is filled with grandstanding yahoos who never hesitate to pick apart an issue for political gain. Cruz and Paul being two of the worst examples, but certainly there are more. The documents have to be filled with very sensitive materials. The WH has no guarantee that no SSCI member would leak any of it to other senate members.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Couldn't that be done with the Panetta papers? Some say so.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)and the subsequent investigations have painted them in a corner. I can understand how they think if they just keep it covered up, the credibility of the country can be maintained, but that mentality is delusional at best. The cover up and lack of accountability for the war crimes committed, have only damaged our reputation further.
We hold our children accountable for their wrongdoings as a way to teach them why integrity and character are important in life. Why are we accepting less from our politicians?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Or, more importantly, so that "we the people" could find out what our government does.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The filter slows things down.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)President Obama sheilding the worst human rights abuses, from a republican administratio, from public scrutiny is one of the most shameful failures of his administration.
We hear over and over how we need to stand with and for our ideals and party. The democratic leadership meanwhile spends time rehabilitating the image of murderous thieving bastards like Cheney and Bush. These are criminals who should be in front of the international tribunal not on the weekend television shows.
Fuck Cheney, fuck Kissinger and all the neocon bitches given a get out of jail free card from the Obama administration.
It's sad that the so called South American "banana republics" have done a better job holding their criminal leadership to account for their crimes than we have.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)
but, you'd never get to first base with the comparison.
Kicked it.
johnnyreb
(915 posts)We need to know.
9/11 Report refer to CIA interrogations of al-Qaida operatives who were
subjected to the now-controversial interrogation techniques. In fact,
information derived from the interrogations is central to the Reports most
critical chapters, those on the planning and execution of the attacks. The
analysis also shows - and agency and commission staffers concur - there was a
separate, second round of interrogations in early 2004, done specifically to
answer new questions from the Commission.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080407223205/http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/30/624314.aspx
Children tortured before parents, raped, all covered up by Bush/Cheney and our media
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/07/20/755345/-Children-tortured-before-parents-raped-all-covered-up-by-Bush-Cheney-and-our-media
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)You're a breath of fresh air!!!