Rahm and the Torture Investigation
Thanks to Bruce Fealk for taping my torture panel from Saturday (and to RevDeb for making sure I got the links). Above is my bit. Here are:
Introductions and Congressman Nadler
Center for Constitutional Rights Executive Director Vince Warren (who I thought was the most interesting of all of us)
ACLU Attorney Melissa Goodman
DFH blogger "emptywheel"
I wanted to talk briefly about a point I made in my comments.
Rahm Emanuel has stood between us and accountability on torture. And if today or tomorrow or soon, DOJ announces a whitewash, Rahm owns that too.
Back when Obama picked Rahm, I grudgingly accepted it. If, as seemed to be the plan, Obama picked Rahm because of his perceived ability to get things done legislatively, it at least signaled an intent to avoid the legislative problems Clinton had. Turns out, though (and I guess this was predictable), Rahm brought a legislative strategy that might be appropriate for 2004, but is a disaster given the majorities we have in 2009. And then Rahm failed to even effectively implement that outdated legislative strategy (someone at the surreal midget bar experience–someone who has a lot of respect for Rahm–called it "political malpractice").
And in exchange for this political malpractice, a tight, professional campaign turned literally overnight into a leaky sieve.
Within short order after his selection, Rahm was working hard to jerry-rig his replacement to make it easy for him to swoop back into the House in two years to take away Pelosi’s gavel. As a result, Greg Craig was forced to jump through some ill-advised hoops to distract the press from Rahm’s conversations with Rod Blagojevich; you can be sure Rahm’s conversations with Blago will continue to be a liability as that case gets closer to trial.
But, we were promised, Rahm would get us health care. What that really meant though is that we had to clear the political landscape to give Rahm his opportunity to get us health care. And instead of doing the legislative work to get that done, Rahm and the loathsome Jim Messina have been trying to cut deals with big health care corporations to turn this into a welfare program for them. As even that effort is beginning to go south, Rahm has (predictably) already switched into scapegoat mode, trying to blame his utter failure on health care on someone else.
Against that background, consider again the parallel scapegoating directed at Greg Craig and Eric Holder for their efforts to come clean on torture. Not only is Rahm prepping to blame Max Baucus for his own health care failure, but he’s prepping to blame Greg Craig and Eric Holder, too (Rahm’s worried, you see, because he let Dick Cheney gain the upper hand in this debate, which is yet another thing he failed to anticipate). And, at the same time, he’s doing everything he can to limit the torture investigation into one targeting only the Lynndie England’s of the torture world, and not the Yoos, Cheneys, and Addingtons.
Rahm is standing between America and coming clean on her war crimes.
Now, I raise all this because I do think Rahm is at a vulnerable moment. One of the most interesting passages in the very significantly timed NYT beat sweetener the other day was this one:
But when a New York Times Magazine profile of Ms. Jarrett last month explored the old scratchiness, White House officials said the normally calm Mr. Obama erupted with anger. An informal edict went out: no more cooperating with staff profiles. As a result, Mr. Emanuel declined a formal interview for this article.
First the timing. Rahm’s worried enough about his looming failures to order up a big Times profile for himself, in addition to all the scapegoating stories he’s planting. He wants you to concentrate on the 9-0 legislative victory (or whatever he is claiming), and ignore that instead of the health care we were promised, we got corporate welfare (and hell–a lot of those "victories" were just corporate welfare, too!).
Next: Obama’s getting fed up with the collapse of "no drama Obama" brand, which (as I pointed out), started eroding the moment he picked Rahm.
But finally, check out that last line: as a result of Obama’s edict against these kinds of profiles, Rahm "declined a formal interview for this article." Not, "Rahm declined to cooperate with this article," but declined a formal interview. Which presumably is Rahm-speak for "insisted on meeting in an undisclosed location rather than his White House office." Insisted on anonymous quotes rather than on-the-record ones. Insisted on a thin disguise for his involvement in it.
Obama said, "stop this shit," and Rahm turned right around and got himself plastered in the NYT.
That’s the environment in which Holder is about to announce an investigation into torture, and Rahm is sure to be doing everything he can to turn it into a whitewash. That’s the environment in which Rahm is fixing to blame his own health care failures on any transparency on torture.
And we’ve got to make sure it doesn’t happen.
I was stunned when he picked Rahm, gotta get him replaced sooner, rather than tomorrow
I wasnt shocked he picked Rahm. Obama needed the Israelie vote. Rahm made it easier for him to get it. My question is what is this “big dispute” between Howard Dean and Rahm? Chris Matthews vaguely mentioned it when he had Howard Dean on. NO PUBLIC OPTION NOOOOO SUPPORT FOR ANY COOP PLAN,which was written by the insurance companies….says Firedoglake on Andrea Mitchell a few minutes ago. Single payer is the only way, so we progressives will have to wait for 2012 and elect a progressive or wait until the entire country goes bankrupt..then they will have to do it. sick of Obama already…and no pressure from the left whatsover.
Um, Rahm was announced as chief of staff selection after the election; it didn’t help pick up “the Israeli vote”.
You dont when Rahm was “selected”, we were only TOLD after the election who the chief of staff would be. Remember after the horrific invasion and destruction of the Gaza Strip, the Israelies were questioning Obama’s committment to Israel. If you dont think Rahm is there to hold that vote together, think again. You might ask why the Obama administation that has done nothing to reign in the right wing extremists in Israel who are continuing to kill and maim Paletinans, while stealing even more Palestinan lands to build their mansions on. AIPAC and the Jewish vote was instrumental in electing Obama. Rahm was working behind the scenes to bring in that vote.
As I wrote when Rahm was picked:
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Rahm has never been a friend to Obama.
However, Rahm is best friends with Axelrod.
I ask myself daily, what drives a former ballet dancer?
Yikes. Had the wrong vid in there for a second, but got it fixed.
If the fallout were only political, I could live with the political malpractice. But the result of this malpractice is that we will be incorporating into standard practice that high level government figures are immune from all laws and that only the elite will have adequate health care. There’s really not much left to fight for if we lose both of these battles, and they both will be Rahm’s fault, with an assist of negligence from Obama.
Rahm’s failure is also Obama’s however.
Who picked whom?
That said, the sooner he’s out as CoS the better for any hope of progress.
Or even just staving off disaster.
Democrats can not win elections if the sellouts and betrayals continue.
Not shouldn’t, though that’s also true.
Can’t.
ABsolutely true.
But we are constitutionally committed to Obama for 3.5 more years, at least. Rahm, not so much.
At some point, Obama is going to try a reset. And if he’s pissed at Rahm for turning No Drama into the leaky sieve, and if he realizes Rahm’s turning him into someone he doesn’t want to be in history, blaming this on Rahm gives Obama a way to save himself.
“rahm not so much” was in shock that Rahm was selected for that spot.
Kept thinking that they wanted to keep a close watch on his activities
Great post EW — how likely do you think it is that Obama will dump Rahm? And how soon do you imagine it will be… before or after the Great Health Care Robbery concludes?
If he were dumped this would leave him open to run for that senate seat in Illinois with Jan’s alleged problems (if what Sibel stated during her testimony is true)
EW you were great. Tried to get up to introduce myself. Tough to get through the crowd trying to talk with you.
How did you say it “let’s have fun with Rahm” Something like that
Had a wonderful time…learned a great deal
ot
the Diane Rehm show is focused on the “public option” right now.
Just sent in a question
Anyone else? You have 21 minutes.
[email protected]
800- 433-8850
Leen,
So glad you made it. We had a switch in Mr. Klynn’s on call schedule and an out-of-town guest which made it impossible for me to go.
EW,
Insightful background you spell out:
Can we generate a list of the “whys” for Rahm wanting to limit the debate on torture?
could it be the protection of the torture “contractors” and their supporters?
Because he’s actually not that good at what he does, contrary to what his own self-promotion claims.
As stupid as Rove’s national security shit in 2004 was, it worked. He anticipated a glaring rhetorical weakness and headed it off with a louder and more compelling narrative. There are ways to do that for torture and ways to do that for healthcare, but Rahm has chosen not to pursue any of them. So instead he chooses not to fight these fights.
I agree with you on this. I just do not understand who Rahm is protecting or what political gain there is for Rahm in limiting the debate on torture? Although, I have my ideas. So, I still ask myself, “Why has Rahm chosen not to fight these fights? What is his motive or rationale? Where is his gain in his choice?”
He’s picking the most effective method of advancing Obama’s agenda. I don’t think he’s protecting anybody in particular.
Boxturtle (Though I’m sure he’s keeping an eye on Burris’s seat)
I do not think he is being effective in advancing Obama’s agenda. I think he is hurting Obama’s agenda.
EW,
Watched your panel discussion. I enjoy your “to do” list.
Let’s have some fun with Rahm!
With us, perhaps. But not in the senate. Obama has gotten pretty close to everything he wants from congress so far. Obama is much closer to a centrist than a progressive, and it’s the progressive agenda that ain’t moving so well.
Boxturtle (We’ll see how Rahm does when the honeymoon is over)
I suspect that, as a political strategist, Obama is a centrist; but his personal views are more progressive. If this is correct, at the moment, his personal views are obviously taking a back seat to his political strategy.
Bob in HI
Well, first, Rahm doesn’t believe he can win them. Rahm’s entire outlook on politics dates from the 90s and early 00s–so he’s got a real limited outlook on how things work.
Next, Rahm has always been in bed with big corporate. Look on it as the lesson Bill Clinton gave to him: in an era of big TV in which there is no grassroots (which of course is gone), you need ot partner with big industry to get enough money to play politics and wield power in DC.
And finally, Rahm is about Rahm. And he thinks his future will be brighter if he crafts a corporate-friendly solution here.
(snip)
Marcy,
I agree with you on these points. But with polls indicating that even moderate voters want a torture investigation; then, I still do not understand the politics of Rahm (and Axelrod). Aside from the corporate motivations (which are hugh motivations), in terms of a “winning route” with voters, in addition to progressives, Obama’s agenda and Rahm’s personal agenda, actually need torture investigations politically. Not going there is a dangerous bypass.
By working to by-pass torture, he’ll (Rahm and Obama) write a political epitaph from a voter’s perspective. He can be taken down with all kinds rhetoric regarding human rights. The spin and the irony of where such spin would come from (the very ‘no torture investigation folks”) would be tragic historically.
Yes, yes, and yes.
I think Rahm is playing his own game here, not Obama’s. He’s trying to pass it off as Obama’s game, or at least a game favorable to Obama’s agenda. But what is foremost in his mind is Rahm’s agenda.
Rahm as Speaker, however, would be at least as bad as Rahm, Obama’s right hand man. Thanks, EW, for taking him on. He is not our friend.
Bob in HI
I was not at all shocked that Obama picked Rahm.
Look, folks, like I’ve said from the beginning: At the end of the day, Obama is STILL a Chicago politician. He didn’t get to be a Senator without owing favors, collecting favors, and understanding political horsetrading.
Torture isn’t important to Obama, except that he doesn’t want it interrupting all his other plans. He’s perfectly willing to walk away from torture as the price for getting his agenda through.
Don’t blame Rahm for fouling any torture prosecutions. Don’t blame Holder for limiting his investigation to the lower ranks, should that happen. Be assured that BOTH are doing exactly what Obama wants them to do.
Boxturtle (Direct your anger to 1600 Pennsylvania Av, Washington DC)
Well, to be accurate, we went from Holder/Craig winning the battle on accountability to Rahm winning it. The release of the torture memos was huge. Then Rahm started winning the war of persuasion with Obama.
If we are relying on Holder/Gregcraig to win the accountability battle on torture, the effort was at a sever disadvantage to start with; toss in Rahm and and the political wind vane Obama and you have the recipe for where we are. My point is that the torture accountability champions we have are not exactly proven studs in that department to start with. This is a very difficult road to hoe.
Oh, absolutely.
But one of the things that means is that Axe is making the decisions on this–which is as bad as Rove having the ability to dial up selective prosecutions from DOJ, to have Obama’s political guy dial up lack of prosecutions as well.
Exactly.
Iago constantly sells himself as “honest” — yet each act of the play sets one of his evil plots as a test for the protagonist; & the play itself documents the progress of his grand scheme of deconstruction at least as much as it illustrates the protagonists dissembly. Most Shakespearean antagonists are able to rationalize their actions & the risks they present; Iago doesn’t bother. Othello–character no less than play–manufactures irony from conflict, of which Iago provides the fuel. But it’s naive to suggest that absent Iago Othello would be Francesco d’Assisi; Iago’s power, after all, flows from Othello.
Did Rahm win or did Obama decide?
Obama thinks that if he went after the torturer’s, the entire rest of the government would shut down. The GOP would frame the debate as “You’re standing up for scary brown Islamic terrorists and trying to jail the patriots who kept America safe because you’re a (scary brown) democrat”. And people would choose sides.
The implicated Dems would be even more trouble. DiFi, Harmon, Jello Jay could tie the senate in a knot and keep it there.
Obama made a knowing decision to kill torture probes to avoid the above and just like Gonzo did for BushCo, he’s got Rahm set to take the fall.
Boxturtle (Remember how Chicago politics works)
Rahm won.
You’re ignoring both the way Obama works here and the way this story has been told.
That doesn’t mean Obama’s not responsible. But it DOES mean there are competing sides in this debate within the Admin, sides that the release of the torture memos makes clear. And if we can discredit one side of that, we can help the weak people we have as champions within the Administration.
Agreed. The problem is that Rahm won based on political calculus that isn’t likely to change before the midterm elections at the earliest. If then. All we have is the constitution, the law and our own darn ethics. There are ethical people in ObamaCo, but they’ll get nowhere as long as Rahm’s calculus is thought accurate.
But we disagree on how Obama works. I think I’m seeing exactly the way Obama works, typical Chicago politician. Keeps his own hands clean, keeps a lightening rod (Rahm) close, and his options open. If a prosecution SHOULD occur, you can bet Obama will talk of Holders independence. If it doesn’t, and there’s backlash he can blame Rahm.
Boxturtle (I’m arguing with Marcy, I must WANT to be abused)
You are not arguing, you are saying the same thing from slightly different viewpoints looking in to the core of the issue.
Typically the lighting rods either ignite the base in politically incorrect ways or they are lighting rods/fall guys for the feds. Normally Chicago Pols keeps both groups as far from themselves politically as possible to avoid the taint.
Why Obama keeps someone an obvious leaker ( nothing in Chicago politics says you can’t move up the ladder like being obvious or a leaker) a guy who tries to take credit for getting Dems elected in the house (Jane has written about that allot) and whose advice to people running for the House was to run against immigration when immigration rights marches were an issue and Obama’s later election was helped by increased Hispanic turnout (its so lucky Rahm did not kill Hispanic turnout) so close is beyond me.
Rahm has a record of failure ,being wrong and taking credit for other people’s success to that list we might be adding war criminal now.
I don’t disagree with your description of who Obama is. But even your scenario (”keep options open”) suggests obama could go either way. One of the reasons he is proceeding the way he is is because he believes–based on what he sees, which is largely influenced by his advisors’ arguments, which is largely influenced by COS–it is the winning route right now. But that is still all about which advisor has won his ear and for the last several months that was Rahm (and to be fair, Rahm’s in a better position from which to win than Holder, at least).
Yeah, Rahm’s the voice in Obama’s right ear.
But Rahm’s political calculus is right on and I think that anybody in that position would advise the same given the same directions.
Obama: I want to get my agenda enacted as quickly as possible.
Generic CoS: Then stay the hell away from torture prosecutions. Tell Holder.
We need to change the conversation:
Obama: I want the people who flouted our most basic laws brought to justice.
Generic CoS: Start with Gonzo. Then call Addington and tell him he’ll get a better deal if he rolls first.
Boxturtle (Not sure Rahm is as much of the problem as the desired goal is)
Well, that’s where we disagree. First, because Rahm is, at the same time, NOT demanding that we use the progressives to push the Baucuses and Nelsons on board. Rahms’ strategy has IN FACT required losing the August recess, so it on its face was not the quickest route.
And on both these fights, Rahm’s strategy has been, “let’s avoid a fight.” In precisely analgous situations, Rove would have said, “let’s escalate the fight,” a strategy which tended to cow hte unruly members of his own party, dominate the air waves, and get things done.
Granted, Obama/Rahm could not have done it alone, given the slant of the media. They would have needed to reach out to the progessives. But that woudl be okay if their policies were there, which they haven’t been.
So I think you’re dead wrong. Rahm’s strategy has failed, and was–given our numbers and the nature of Obama’s victory–pretty much likely to fail from the start. And he has to own that for two reasons. First, because it IS his strategy (it is NOT the strategy Obama won with, for example). And, because by us blaming HIM, and not Obama, we present ditching Rahm, and that strategy, as one option.
I think it is good to remember that we’re in an off-year, and Obama is trying to get a lot of stuff through Congress. Next year is an election year, and by then Republican perfidy and obstructionism will make for good campaign issues. Next year, a bunch of prosecutions of Bush-Republicans will further damage the Republican brand, and I think we’ll see that.
Look for a shift in tone starting with the State of the Union speech in January.
Bob in HI
I have to disagree on this point. It is Holder’s responsibility to pursue criminal investigations. This is NOT the President’s role nor should it be. If in fact crimes are simply determined on Presidential whim, then we have lost the rule of law and have returned to the tyranny of men.
You’re correct, of course. The AG is supposed to be independent from the executive branch to an extent. But in this case, Holder is following orders, possibly against his conscience. And for that, Holder must shoulder the blame.
The last AG with any trace of independence was Reno. I think you have to go WAY back to find the next one.
Boxturtle (If Holder and his ethics walk away, Obama will pick someone else who will follow orders)
I agree with you 100%.
Great observations.
somebody shoulda splained it to Rahm
torture investigations don’t go away
they just encompass ANYBODY who tries to cover them up
so now Rahm OWNS the crimes of george w bush
when we try george, we try Rahm
has anybody splained that to Rahm ???
I am sold on your vision. However, I am interested in the response to your words. What kind of response did you get and were there people in opposition to the ideas you laid out? (that were shared with you?)
I hope Marcy made it to the Strip and ate at Deluca’s.
EW
Thinking it through, i think the answer is graphic education of the public, to turn the unknowing acquiescence into vile revulsion of what has been done to our fellow humans ,in our name and why it’s unacceptable.
To bad we live in a one trick pony country that can’t walk and crew gum at the same time.
Thank you for your attention to this abomination which has made me physically ill just reading and commenting on it.
Then on to Nuremburg 2.0 for the Torture/ Treason/ Murder Tribunals for the principals,yoo too.
Yay! She’s back!! And riding herd on Rahm, right out the gate. Good!
Well, now that the unruly midgets have been corralled, what is left but to ride herd on Rahm?
O/T (Old Topic), and unfortunately he’s back, too:
Notorious Afghan warlord returns to help Karzai
By Jonathan S. Landay and Tom Lasseter | McClatchy Newspapers
KABUL —” A notorious Afghan warlord accused of allowing the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of prisoners and then destroying the evidence returned to Afghanistan Sunday night as part of what appears to be a political deal brokered with President Hamid Karzai.”
More.
Who is Rahm’s boss?
Blame Andy Card.
I blame Obama for what looks like the failure of meaningful healthcare reform. His first mistake was appointing Rahm as his Chief of Staff. If this goes down as another giveaway then lets make sure Obama is sent back to Chicago.
O/T, So, if I’m reading this right, this fellow has the power to get taxpayers’ money back from corporate execs who think it’s there to support them in lavish life-styles. What is he waiting for? Maybe he needs a little nudging along to get and get these ultra-welfare queens.
U.S. pay czar says he can ‘claw back’ exec comp
Steve Eder Reuters US Online Report Politics News
Aug 16, 2009 21:33 EST
MARTHA’S VINEYARD, MASSACHUSETTS, Aug 16 – “Kenneth Feinberg, the Obama administration’s pay czar, said on Sunday he has broad and “binding” authority over executive compensation, including the ability to “claw back” money already paid, and he is weighing how and whether to use that power.”
More.
That’s so good….that guy is such je n’est ce qua, but smart and apparenty a stickler and ethical….let him call in the dogs. I think he is in a position for no reprisals….talk about a geek. He gave up caring about that along time ago. Let’s cheer him on…(he won’t care about that either but gives him cover.)
“je n’est ce qua”
I’m no expert on French, but I think you mean “Je ne sais quoi.”
Your friendly pedant,
Bob in HI
Great job, Marcy. Do you know if the decks of torture cards will be for sale soon? Still nothing on them at ccrjustice.org.
Obama is shaping up to be America’s quisling, betraying the American people with the false hope of change we could believe in.
EW “But, we were promised, Rahm would get us health care. What that really meant though is that we had to clear the political landscape to give Rahm his opportunity to get us health care.”
I thought Rahm was the reason Howard Dean was not admitted into the Obama administration? That sure did not help us with health care reform
Prince Eugene of Savoy said something about the Turks ( which I can’t find a link for sorry) They have forgotten nothing in 100 years and they have learned nothing in 100 years.
Your comment about Rahm suggest the same inflexible attitude that does lead to disaster.
The WH telephone number: 202-456-1111
If it is any consolation to all of us who feel like Obama (and Rahm) are letting us down, the WH switchboard is giving me a busy signal.
There must be a lot of irate folks out there who didn’t like seeing NYT headline saying Public Option was being compromised away.
Link not working I wonder why the press and Obama never say anything about Rahm’s leaks the Obama team never leaked before he got there the Bushies bragged about how they never leaked but we now know Rove was planting stories McCain’s Bastard Kid comes to mind, Scooter Libby and Judy Miller comes to mind and Rahm wants to join their company?
Well, we’ve all had fun laughing at the implosion of the Republican Party, but it looks like Dems might be trying to out-implode them.
Scary thing is, a Dem implosion leaves the Sarah Palins in a suddenly tenable position.
I have a pyschosocial explanation for the way Obama and Emmanuel operate. I am of their generation (Emmanuel was born the year before me, Obama the year after).
We came of age during the Reagan years. The mood of the country was conservative and seemed to become more so as we became adults. The ‘center’ of American politics seemed to be located among moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats. There were two ways for a social liberal to get things done. You could take the conciliatory bipartisan compromising approach or the arm-twisting, horse-trading, win-at-all costs approach. Or you could take the “I’d rather be right and lose” approach and risk achieving nothing. Depending on the issue, arguably any one might be better than the other two.
Well, we’re all hitting 50 and the world has changed. The ‘center’ of American politics is squarely within the Democratic party. The Republican party is intent on reducing itself to ridiculous parody (via Rove’s Permanent
MajorityMinority and the internecine war against ideological deviance carried out by the Club for Growth of the Democratic party). The demographic challenge that the Republicans face is overwhelming.The biggest favor that the Obama administration could do the country is to let the law run its course and ruin the current and immediate past leadership of the Republican party. Steamroll those old white guys on healthcare and everything else. They really need to wipe out the Republican party so that the Democratic party can split. The
nutjobsRepublican base can go back to the John Birch Society, Ben Nelson et. al. can have their sane, but misguided corporate sponsored, libertarian sounding party (maybe they’ll call it the Democratic Republicans) and we can have a Democratic Socialist (but we won’t call it that) party.Interesting. You know the “letting the law really run its course” would take out some Dems too, and that might not be a bad thing at all. Might just clear a lot of deadwood of both stripes out. Ergo it will never happen.
On most issues, I would totally agree with you that there’s no chance. I still hold out for the possibility that an independent inquiry could slip the bonds of political gravity and bring down the worst offenders.
I’d like to see (and I think this is politically feasible) an independent prosecutor to look into violations of the U.S. War Crimes Statute and violations of the UMCJ. That would sound like it’s just going after the low level folks, but would really be quite expansive. I’m thinking David Iglesias as possible lead prosecutor. Marquee name, straight arrow, apparently believes in the rule of law, military background, Republican but not Cheneyite, religious conservative but not Religious Right. He’s already endured the vicious onslaught that the Republicans reserve for their own insufficiently partisan members. Sure, there are a lot of other people I’d rather see, but I don’t think Philippe Sand is going to get offered the job, if you know what I mean.
I agree with every ounce of that – if you can get the “independent prosecutor” appointed. What I have a lot of trouble doing is envisioning the mechanism by which that occurs. As you know, there is no independent counsel statute any more. The sole provision is a “special prosecutor” appointed by DOJ. However, even Holder has been adamant that he envisions nothing more than an assigned line prosecutor from within the DOJ structure; this is not even the power and independence of a “special prosecutor” such as Fitz. What it does militate in favor of is a line prosecutor who is assigned individual cases to prosecute, but not the authority to move up and down chain at will as would be required for any such situation as you envision. Mary has suggested an inquiry could be generated by courts ala the special prosecutor appointed by Emmet Sullivan in the Ted Stevens case. There is a limit to the jurisdiction such a prosecutor appointed by the court could have in the areas we are talking about here, but they would at least have the free range within that jurisdiction. Bottom line is I agree with what you are saying if a prosecutor could be put into a situation to do it; it is that ability I seriously question.
Was Ken Starr given the room to move where ever he needed to go in the lies about the blow jobs investigation?
Yes. Under an independent counsel statute that no longer exists; it lapsed in 1999. That is the point, there is nothing to jurisdictionally enable a true independent counsel.
get it. just wanted to point out how absurd that Ken Starr had this ability
Wasn’t Ken Starr the last of the old-style “Special Prosecutors,” and wasn’t his misfeasance one of the primary reasons the old statute was allowed to expire?
Bob in HI–>AZ
Independent prosecutor will never happen.
What about someone here at FDL putting together a *roadmap* (or given that this is Emptywheel, a forward looking timeline) for all the potential grand-jurors out there who feel that a Grand Jury should be looking into these violations. Occasionally you hear about how a Grand Jury can theoretically pursue crimes in directions not laid out directly for them by the ADA.
Is this even remotely true? …and if it is technically feasible, what would need to happen in terms of specific steps? If it is indeed true that a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich, why shouldn’t a Grand Jury indict a ham sandwich named Dick Cheney?
Not particularly true at all, you might as well consider it a myth. In practice it just does not happen, and certainly wouldn’t for something like this. And if there was an active grand jury that you were aware of to try to so influence them might be considered tampering.
And my point is not that an independent prosecutor will never happen, it CANNOT happen, there is no longer such a capability encoded in the law. It is impossible.
“Not particularly true at all, you might as well consider it a myth. ”
I had always considered it a myth, *that’s why I was asking*. What I’d like to know is whether it is even technically true much less feasibly.
Without a roadmap, it would only continue in that mythical role.
How would a roadmap that explains the operations of a grand jury be tampering? Seems pretty Catch-22 to me.
Having served on a Grand Jury that heard felony cases, I am quite certain that it is the Grand Jury that issues the indictments. One thing I remember from the civics lesson video they showed us.
Especially on this issue? Where I live in NYC, you’d be hard pressed to find 1 in 10 who feel that Bush/Cheney didn’t violate pretty basic elements of the law, like abiding (not even saying abetting) Torture; basic enough for non-lawyers to be able to say that there is sufficient evidence for an indictment.
Well maybe, but said vote certainly was not obtained because it was known he would be chief of staff; I would suggest you are the one who is interjecting things you “don’t know”.
It just does not happen that way in modern GJ practice. As to GJs being the ones to issue indictments, yes that is true. But the process is the prosecutor offers up a “draft indictment”, and the GJ votes on whether to issue it or not (they agree with the prosecutor and issue the indictment literally well over 95% of the time).
Thanks for your reply. I understand that the GJ typically votes on the prosecutor’s proposed charges.
(As I noted, I’ve served on a grand jury. It was about 2 months worth of cases…
And we declined to indict only twice, once primarily because the prosecutor was an a**hole. It was very idiosyncratic, and a couple of people definitely led the discussions.)
You don’t need every GJ to be activist, you just need one on which you have a vocal juror or two who has good information. Think about how much here at FDL has been of exactly this sort of approach, the Whip Tool and Town Hall guide are good current examples.
I have not heard of it often, but when GJs start taking things into their own hands they are termed “runaways”. This usually results in the presiding judge slapping them down or disbanding them.
Very good analysis your reasons why Rahm is a perfect is the the enemy of getting things done is spot on. Rahm has not adjusted to the times.
The GOP though will I feel go Bircher and / Fundamentalist/militia/ racist the 20%ers are a diverse group only fear of Russia, 9/11, hate of Clinton and Obama and the love of power kept them unified with the corporate wing of the GOP.
If we win on Healthcare the love of power s gone. The Bircher and / Fundamentalist/militia/ racists very well might split.
Brilliant comment. I’m from the tail end of the Reagan generation, and from where I look, Rahm looks so outdated and wrong. But I do think you’ve accurately described the “why” here.
“The ‘center’ of American politics is squarely within the Democratic party.”
The political pendulum swung so far right during the last eight years that I think the “center” of American politics has moved to a point where Pat Buchanan looks like he is in the middle.
Lots of people dead, injured and displaced while the our nations political pendulum swung that far right (wrong)
I’m really using ‘center’ more in the sense of a fulcrum rather than a pendulum. Washington moved very radically to the right, but the country as a whole never did and it’s getting more liberal every year. The turning point is the generation that starts with those born in 1978. Every racist attack on Sotomayor, every crazy white person at a Tea bag rally, and every expression of white-hot racist rage at a healthcare townhall serves to cement the alienation that most of that generation feels from today’s Republican party. Even if they stop healthcare reform, it will be a Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans.
“of white-hot racist rage at a healthcare townhall serves to cement the alienation that most of that generation feels from today’s Republican party”
so how do you explain the Dems not taking a stronger stance on single payer and using the “public option” as the line in the cement?
the area (along 7 that runs along the Ohio River) I drove through coming back from Netroots nation. This is an area filled with closed down steel mills, still operating coal burning energy plants etc. Many of these people out of jobs, losing insurance, and have relatives serving in Iraq or Afghanistan (these were not the mostly thirty/forty somethings at NetRoots.
These folks are showing up at Town Hall meetings voicing opinions against their own self interest. The center has moved. And it looks like they moved the “public option” right off the table
See my earlier comment. Obama and Emmanuel are blind to the possibilities.
To expand upon and underscore your point WmO: in my childhood, the GOP was the ‘good government’ group. Those ‘old timers’ from Main Street would have called in extra FBI agents and investigators the first time they got a whiff of all that mortgage fraud. The newer, Bushier, Enronized GOP was all about financial shenanigans, offshoring, outsourcing, and mo’, bettah tax havens.
Google UBS + ‘Phil Gramm’ + ‘tax havens’.
When Phil Gramm (Sen, R-Tx) announced, just after the implosion of Enron in 2002, that he would not be running for Senate again, followed by a UBS announcement that Gramm of
EnronOilMajorsTexas would be joining them UBS-Warburg, they may as well have stated that he was their New Ambassador From American Money to Global Tax Havens.It’s taken about 25 years for the GOP to become unbelievably corrupt; its financial objective was to release any and all restrictions on global capital, on the grounds that ‘interfering with markets and the movement of capital’ was economically imprudent. That enabled black money, black ops, and criminal enterprises to capture control of vast economic resources.
Dems who helped build that structure are probably going to find themselves politically expendible by voters who are currently in their 20s and 30s. Rahm would be wise to note the shifts in attitude about the role and purpose of politics.
In the 1950s and 1960s, what are now called ‘environmental studies’ did not exist.
By the late 1990s, one or another form of ‘environmental studies’ (including ‘Environmental Engineering’) was among the academic specialties with the greatest number of college majors in the U.S.
The Phil Gramms have nothing to offer the 20-and-30 somethings (unless they’re in ‘finance’) other than debt, high interest rates, predatory lending, and an outdated infrastructure.
I think your are right about the political alignment the country needs. That alignment must be expressed in the organizational forms of the political parties. I, too, have called for a Democratic Party split, so the party can have a platform and a leadership to really getting change done, if such is possible in this country.
As for Rahm, whitewashing is soooooo 2003. The same 20-somethings who worked their asses off for Obama aren’t likely to be cuddly or cute once they catch on to Rahm’s whitewashy ways.
And BTW: Awesome Jane Hamsher campaignsilo linky in this post.
OT, interesting things may be afoot regarding cleaning up tax cheats and tax havens.
Even CNBC (which, on principle, I generally avoid like plague), seems to have stumbled on the issue today.
And given Sen Carl Levin’s heroic efforts on the tax havens issue, might I just nominate Sen Levin as “hero of the day”? At least, for me.
A bit of promising news in the offing, I hope.
Just how much cash can we get from the tax cheats assuming Rahm doesn’t offer them amnesty? Cripes I’m talking about Rahm like I used to talk about Darth except Darth could get his wrong ideas passed into law a lot more.
Listened again
EW
“tension within the administration”
“Rahm and David Axelrod against Eric Holder and Greg Craig” “Craig and Holder do want an investigation”
“flip Bybee” (the least complicit of all these creeps)
“Bring George Tenet in”
“documents key to defense” for detainees
“high stature prosecutor” like Fitz who Marcy points out would have a million conflicts
“if we do not get that kind of prosecutor you can be sure that it is not going to go beyond the Lyndie Englands”
————————————————————–
What is up with Axelrod?
What can the peasants do about the selection of the “stature” of the prosecutor that Holder will select?
Hey, Marcie, what makes Jim Messina “loathsome?”
This perhaps?
Perfect guy to have inside the White House to insure that Baucus has inordinate influence over health care reform…
WOckham “the center of American politics is squarely within the Democratic party”
And it looks like the “screamers, me firsters, death panel, birthers” may have been successful at taking the “public option” off the health care reform table.
the public option was the compromise . Not looking like health care reform “is squarely within the Democratic party”
Obama’s Pre-emptive Health Care Surrender
“This is some shameless shit right here.”
http://trueslant.com/matttaibb…..npost-com/
I’ll say this for George Bush: you’d never have caught him frantically negotiating against himself to take the meat out of a signature legislative initiative just because his approval ratings had a bad summer.
Can you imagine Bush and Karl Rove allowing themselves to be paraded through Washington on a leash by some dimwit Republican Senator of a state with six people in it the way the Obama White House this summer is allowing Max Baucus ( favorite son of the mighty state of Montana ) to frog-march them to a one-term presidency?
Right on WTFOver@61. I read Taibblog, too. He nailed it. The fault is not in the people chosen to be in the cabinet. The fault in in the chooser–Obama. Everyone agrees, Obama is very smart. He’s very shrewd and a really good politician. So, now we are to accept that he is being blindsided or crossed by the likes of Rahm? If he chose, Obama could crush Rahm in a NY Minute! But he hasn’t and he won’t because Rahm is doing BO’s dirty work and BO is acting like he really angry about things that are going on. Please, EW, spare me. I, personally, feel as though I have been dumped on big time by Mr. HOPEless and CHANGEless. Enough. Obama is no progressive, no liberal. He’s a Wall Street Bear in Sheep’s clothing.
Um. Learn a little bit about how White Houses work. Explain how we got the torture memos. Explain about what happens when people in White Houses disagree.
But until then, please spare me your ignorant claptrap. I’m making a procedural point. You’re making an obstinent defeatist one.
I’m not saying Obama is a progressive–far from it. I’m saying decisions HAVE ALREADY shown to be influenceable in this White House. And because of that beating up Rahm has a value.
Right. Obama is a political creature, and pretty much that controls his motivation. Get people around him that think long term and enduring political gain, that see the picture we are describing, and he will start to see it and do it. But we have the opposite of that currently, like Rahm.
Oooh, you had me at “Tactical possibilities”!
“We could have some fun …” ?!?!?! LOL!
Good Catch EW you are smelling the fear, you see the weakness of Rahm where the MSM sees strength and I admit I did not smell the fear but when you explain it its so obvious I’m kicking myself for not smelling it.
How do we make sure this doesn’t happen? I have contributed money to numerous progressive causes, including FDL; made phone calls to congresspeople, senators, the white house; and, written emails ad nauseum. I am disgusted. I give you oh, so much credit for doing the work you do. Obama has been the greatest political disappointment of all my 66 years on this planet. I thought I was well informed, intelligent, and wary enough not to be bamboozled by a modern Elmer Gantry, but I was wrong. As Matt Taibbi said in his blog earlier today:
“I’ll say this for George Bush: you’d never have caught him frantically negotiating against himself to take the meat out of a signature legislative initiative just because his approval ratings had a bad summer. Can you imagine Bush and Karl Rove allowing themselves to be paraded through Washington on a leash by some dimwit Republican Senator of a state with six people in it the way the Obama White House this summer is allowing Max Baucus (favorite son of the mighty state of Montana) to frog-march them to a one-term presidency?”
Obama began his about-face when he picked Rahm, Geithner, Summers, and all the other “Pols and Wall Street First” weasels. Whatever I think of Obama today, he is NOT STUPID. HE CHOSE Rahm knowing full well what his fellow Chicago weasel would do as Chief of Staff. So, please tell me what I can do NOW to stop Rahm AND Obama. They’re two sides of the same coin.
Whenever possible please keep bringing up these facts about Mr Emmanuel.
With regards to health care – the Democrats have exhibited no passion for real change. The Republicans have demonstrated passion and no matter how irrational their arguments are – they still gain traction.
This absence of strength is causing the Obama administration to lose the grass roots support – which got him elected – will not be there to support candidates 2010.
Health care reform is stillborn.
Torture accountability is dead and the next disaster is the financial markets.
There have been no changes to the laws that regulate the markets and more importantly there have been no arrests and convictions regarding this fraud.
This action would give the administration the much needed boost in support and popularity to get real change in whatever program they are trumpeting.
Because the banks still are holding a great deal of bad debt and refuses to admit to it – in the hopes that when the next disaster comes and it will – they then can dump it on the American taxpayer.
What does this all mean – there is a pattern of behavior that shows the concern of this administration is still to serve big business. Health care, drug manufactures and Wall Street.
All of which can be laid at the feet of Mr. Emanuel who in fact after serving in the Clinton administration worked on Wall Street and made millions.
The more heat that can be brought down on him the better.
This is not just about health care reform – it’s about the big picture.
If there is no real health care reform and no one is held accountable for the recent financial disaster and there is no torture investigation – the stage is then set.
All that needs to happen is another disaster like the recent financial one to occurs. Especially after spending all this money – then this administration will look impotent and over the next several elections the fringe of our society will again end up running running the show.
People will not back a party who appears weak and impotent but they will support a party that exhibits strength – no matter how fringe it’s beliefs are. People gravitate to strength.
After all is said and done the reality is Obama will not do anything to Emmanuel until something big occurs that he can then hang it on Emmanuel.
HIS TRUE MASTERS SPEAK
isrealis sour on Rahm Emanuel
http://www.politico.com/news/s…..z0ORu6owUV
Who could have predicted that the DLC would turn out to be the DLC?
OMG!
*G*
Bob in HI–>AZ
So far I’ve only watched EW’s and the intro/Nadler sections, but that is a great panel — well done, Marcy (the applause you got during the intro brought a tear to mine eye), and wow but it is inspiring to listen to a politician talk sense and principle with every sentence as Nadler does. Thanks to Rayne, yes?, for the videos.
Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO gave quite the attention to Marcy’s auto industry work. He mentioned her several times during his moving address at Netroots
Looking for his exact words about Marcy. It was moving
http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/08…..the-truth/
I am surprised at how naive some here at FDL seem to be. Chicago style politics is ALL about protecting, expanding, and consolidating power. Pay to play was invented in Chicago.
Rahm’s not going anywhere.
WE know that the AFL CIO, and other labor movements, the National Council of Churches, Physicians for National Health care (pnhp.org) and 70% of americans polled wanted single payer. Why did these corporatists democrats (many are republicans in democrat sheep clothing) not support real reform. Our wages have not increased since 1970, but our insurance prems are going higher every day. Senator Rockefeller stated when he tried to find a “co-op”, he could only find two. Neither were regulated, registered or tested. So why are these turncoat dems’ giving up real solutions for coops that were written by and for contintuin for the profit system, already bankrupting this country.
In large part because we have a mostly idiotic, corrupt media.
There are **thousands** of medical doctors in this nation.
Who are the 3 people that come to mind discussing ‘health care reform’? Who has been on teevee?
1. A guy yelling at Specter, who can’t separate TARP from health care issues.
2. A father of a kid with CP, screaming at Dingle.
3. A guy with a gun in N.H.
Have you seen even three medical care providers on teevee?
Not ’spokesmen’.
Not ‘health care providers.
Real, actual doctors.
I’ve seen two: Howard Dean and the head of the AMA.
2 doctors.
3+ irrational citizens.
That’s our health care debate on teevee, in a nutshell.
The media has, in the astute words of someone at TPM, **mostly** done the he-said, she-said. They show Grassley giving outrageously false information about ‘death panels’.
Then he ‘apologizes’ AFTER he has poisoned the well.
Does the media fact-check Grassley?
No.
They collect a ‘panel’ of pundits to talk about what Grassley said.
And then they have a second panel talking about what the first pundits said he said.
They interview ‘OpEd’ writers, instead of actual medical doctors.
So we hear about the politics, not the problem.
Meanwhile, my local hospital is out over $7,000 as a result of a bill that United Health Care did not pay for a visiting relative of mine.
That’s ONE bill I am aware of that United Health Care did not pay.
Where did that money go? To their exec, their shareholders.
I had to call India to track down fraudulent billing for that same relative.
I could have lost my house over fraudulent claims.
How is that ‘health care’?
That’s f-r-a-u-d.
We have a lot of fraud in the current system.
Why didn’t Grassley mention that fact?
Why didn’t the ‘pundits’ discuss it?
The media (except for Rachel Maddow and Bill Moyers) are not holding electeds accountable for saying irresponsible things.
I’m waiting for the first Congresscritter to ask their constituents to send in their medical co-pays and bills for 2009, and then total those costs. And then wave them in the faces of Chuck Grassley, and James Inhofe, and the rest of the irresponsibly intransigent members of Congress — including Sen Lincoln.
But if some heroic Congresscritter tried that experiment, would the media report it?
Obama couldn’t have picked a worse person for the position of CoS if he tried. He brought in a little man who thinks profanity and belittling makes him a big man. He and his brother add absolutely nothing to the administration!
Progressives better wrap their brains around one fact. Obama is no socialist or progressive. He is a dyed in the wool arch capitalist. Bailout for banksters (no regulations to prevent them from theivery in the future), a continuation of the horrific war on drugs, continuation of Bush wars, Iraq and Afganistan. Continuation of torture in Gitmo and overseas. No one goes to jail over TORTURE! What the hell is the difference between this president and bush and cheney? I am serious about that statement. We need to know and do something. HR 676 single payer is still on the table, we must support it, and get it scored. When americans find out how much we can save, everyone in, noboby out, covers not only medical, but dental, vision, long term care…everything, and we don’t need to spend another red cent….majority will support it….
I had been thinking regarding the congressional seat that Emanuel was at least as likely to try to work around Blagojevich, or run over him, as work with or through him to control it, Blago having been suspected of being a spent force long before his arrest last December.
But boy-o does the sketch of Rahm as the biggest obstacle in dealing with urgent but sticky matters like torture investigations ever ring true. Sad thing is, there’s never been any hint in the man of broader or deeper thoughts about what politics is that could be harnessed to argue for the occasional need for moral actions —any more than I can recall seeing evidence that he had the kind of nuts-and-bolts capacity to focus on something as broad as a legislative program and do or direct the gruntwork of getting it passed. To me he’s always been all about forestalling anything that would get in the way of the side deal, which can be a useful skill for advancement in Chicago, even more so these days than in the past.
Whereupon some belated thread music: Rock Creek Park (youtube) by Donald Byrd and the Blackbyrds.
I am back to where I was when Flightsuit Boy was president. Wake me up when it’s over.
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/
Find-Freedom.htm?At=0056590&From=News
Holder says he approved Clinton-era renditions
I just came across this tid-bit;
By Stephen C. Webster Published: May 7, 2009
Under fire from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder revealed that he had approved of rendition — essentially, legalized kidnapping — apparently more than once during his tenure as President Bill Clinton’s deputy attorney general.
Cautioning Holder that any potential investigation into the Bush administration’s torture program could result in Democrats being roped in, “Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Richard Shelby of Alabama pressed Holder on the CIA’s ‘rendition’ program that moved terrorism suspects from one country to another,” reported Domenico Montanaro with MSNBC.
I never knew. So a possible war criminal is trying to decide weather to investigate war crimes? Is this the very best system of justice we could come up with? So I’m clear I want every one who knew, did, covered up, cleaned up or ordered up TREASONOUS TORTURE to be removed from society yesterday, it’s a cancer I’ll tell ya
Marcy, do you really think Rahm is the only one standing in between Holder and prosecution? My take is that Obama has wanted nothing to do with prosecution since day one of his campaign. Do we really think that will change if Rahm is removed, or that it will lessen pressure on Holder to keep an investigation from going too far?
speaking as an independent .. if y’all don’t get the damn blue dogs to start actually voting and acting like democrats .. in support of the agenda they came to the dance with .. then there’s not much sense in me supporting “democrats” in general .. if all that’s going to happen is a continuation of gub’mint by the corporations ..
and since i have no intention of ever supporting any republican ..ever again [not even my moderate republican rep John J. Duncan] ..i’ll just sit at the house on votin’ day ..
i worked hard during the last cycle to help get out the vote .. volunteered my time .. my gas and my vehicles .. my wifes’ time .. etc.. and i’m not weeing anything near what i expected come out of it ..
as a dedicated reader of both glenzilla and marcy .. my main thrust was the re-establishment of the rule of law .. and as an ex-marine .. my main thrust was the elimination of torture and cleaving back to the hague and geneva conventions as to our treatment of prisoners in our care and charge ..
needless to say .. i am .. to this point .. throughly disillusioned and disappointed by the direction we have taken since Jan 20th .. i expected more .. silly me ..eh ??
quoting my beloved molly ivins: “ya dance with those what brung ya” ..
Join the club; we have an ever increasing membership.
well bmaz .. if you’re in there ..at least i’ll be keeping good company ..
so yeah .. i’m in ..and if i’m not here m’friend .. you have my proxy ..
Last week I wrote a diary on DK calling for Rahm to be fired. It got shot down, of course.
I wonder what the reaction would be today? Or even a month from now when it is apparent that the administration is sliding into oblivion.
Too bad, if the administration had entered office like FDR major things could have happened. But Obama is not FDR, that’s for sure.
As for those who say Obama is a “Chicago” politician . . . I would say this: in Chicago there are the Daleys and the Madigans and the Emanuels. Then there are the others who get to hold office and get to enjoy the spoils. Sadly, Obama is the later. If were the former he would have busted heads to make sure health care reform got passed.
IMHO, it is not just Rahm that stands in the way of prosecutions, though everything said about that aspect it true. Nor is it Obama’s centrist realpolitik, though there is that as well. Same goes with whatever Holder’s past is. I’d like to add in the influence of the generals and Pentagon, which is a lot more powerful in the WH than whatever Rahm or the Axe may think. That’s who says what goes on matters like this. Or Afghanistan. Or Iraq. The rest is an illusion.
The U.S. government has become so corrupted by subservience to military and intelligence aims over the last sixty years, so enmeshed in the cover-ups for a thousand different crimes (see tjbs at #104 above for just one example) that to do anything more than prosecute the Lyndie Englands is dangerous. Even Mitchell and Jessen present dangers, as Marcy has pointed out, because the connections aren’t too many between them and Cheney’s office. And in between, an entire portion of the U.S. government that operates with practically no oversight: the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command. They spend billions, they assassinate, they torture, they “keep America safe for democracy.”
Who is going to take them on? Obama? Holder? Feinstein? You? Me? Cheney is gone now. They are still there. I’m all for getting Cheney, but if we don’t address the fundamental, structural problems in this country, then the game is up.
Marcy, I took the time to watch your video. I want to offer that between you and I and everyone reading this, our prayers are being answered. There is something you don’t know that will make you happy. It happens to be linked with what you talked about but I’m not allowed to talk about it.
Smile and be happy Marcy,
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL