Posts

Leahy: Congress Will Do Truth Commission with or without POTUS

/65 Comments/in , /by

As you may have seen last night, one of the more challenging questions for Obama came from the HuffPo’s Sam Stein, who asked Obama if he supported a Truth Commission.

Sam’s still busy with this story, today reporting that Leahy says Congress will go forward even without the support of Obama.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy and White House Chief Counsel Greg Craig discussed on Tuesday the Senator’s proposal to set up a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate potential crimes of the Bush administration.

"I went over some of the parameters of it and they were well aware at the White House of what I’m talking about," Leahy told the Huffington Post. "And we just agreed to talk further."

[snip]

Leahy did add an important ripple to the story in the interview with the Huffington Post: Congress will likely proceed with investigations regardless of whether Obama is on board.

"Oh yeah," Leahy said when asked if he would go forward without Obama’s endorsement. "I think the Senate and the Congress as whole has an oversight responsibility that has to be carried out here anyway. Now it is much easier with the cooperation of the administration. A lot of things with the subpoenas I issued the past few years, we got a lot of information but a lot of it was held back."

[snip]

"What I would much rather see is to see us working together," said Leahy. "We have a common interest, both the Congress and the administration to get this thing worked out … In this instance, this is so important that our common interest is to get the truth out."

And in related news, Russ Feingold has joined the 22 other Members of Congress who have voiced their support for such a Commission.

I applaud Senator Leahy’s leadership in proposing the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission. Getting all the facts out about what happened over the last eight years is a crucial part of restoring the rule of law. As President Obama and Attorney General Holder have said, nobody is above the law. There needs to be accountability for wrongdoing by the Bush Administration, including the illegal warrantless wiretapping and interrogation programs. We cannot simply sweep these assaults on the rule of law under the rug. [my emphasis]

I’m guessing Russ will not only support this Commission, but he’ll be one of the first reminding AG Read more →

Pat Leahy Calls for Truth Commission

/111 Comments/in /by

I want prosecutions. But seeing as how it looks increasingly likely we won’t get that, I want some accounting for the crimes of the Bush Administration. Today, Pat Leahy joined his counter-part in the House, John Conyers, as well as the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, in calling for a committee to examine the wrong-doing of the Bush Administration. 

The President is right that we need to focus on fixing the problems that exist and improving the future for hardworking Americans. I wholeheartedly agree and expect the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to act accordingly. But that does not mean that we should abandon seeking ways to provide accountability for what has been a dangerous and disastrous diversion from American law and values. Many Americans feel we need to get to the bottom of what went wrong. We need to be able to read the page before we turn it.

We will work with the Obama administration to fix those parts of our government that went off course. The Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department is one of those institutions that was hijacked and must be restored. There must be review and revision of that office’s legal work of the last eight years, when so much of that work was kept secret.

We have succeeded over the last two years in revitalizing our Committee’s oversight capabilities. The periodic oversight hearings with the Attorney General, the FBI Director, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and others will continue. The past can be prologue unless we set things right.

As to the best course of action for bringing a reckoning for the actions of the past eight years, there has been heated disagreement. There are some who resist any effort to investigate the misdeeds of the recent past. Indeed, some Republican Senators tried to extract a devil’s bargain from the Attorney General nominee in exchange for their votes, a commitment that he would not prosecute for anything that happened on President Bush’s watch. That is a pledge no prosecutor should give, and Eric Holder did not, but because he did not, it accounts for many of the partisan votes against him.

There are others who say that, even if it takes all of the next eight years, divides this country, and distracts from the necessary priority Read more →

Powerline Blog Leads SJC’s Republicans Trolling through Parks, Public-Assistance Agencies, and Liquor Stores

/17 Comments/in /by

picture-57.png

William Ockham points to a new report on Rove and Bolten’s refusal to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify about the firing of nine US Attorneys. The report itself mostly repeats old arguments, integrated with the results of the DOJ Inspector General’s report on the firing.

Which means that the purpose of the report is more interesting–to me at least–than the content. The report basically advances the Senate case against Bolten and Rove, after the House’s attempts to get Bolten and Miers and, arguably, Rove to testify were thwarted by the Appeals Court’s stay on the House lawsuit. Since the House expires at the end of their term, their suit against the White House also expires. But the Senate doesn’t. In other words, I believe this report  lays the ground work for continuing the battle in January. Rove may not be out of the woods yet, for having to testify about his wrong-doing on the US Attorney purge.

That said, I’m just as interested in the Republican response to Leahy’s move, though.

Senators Arlen "Scottish Haggis" Specter and Chuck Grassley have decided that–though they originally voted to hold Bolten and Rove in contempt–they don’t want to be a part of this report moving forward.

Although we supported the Committee’s efforts in the U.S. Attorney removal investigation, including the contempt resolutions voted upon last year, we cannot join the Majority in this Report. We both voted in favor of the contempt resolutions regarding Messrs. Bolten and Rove after staff and Member consultation produced resolution text that: (1) had bipartisan support; (2) identified every fact and element necessary to charge contempt of Congress under 2 U.S.C. § 194; (3) was consistent with Committee precedent; (4) contained no surplussage that could arguably jeopardize or undermine the enforceability of the Committee’s action; and (5) was fair to the due process rights of the prospective contempt defendants. However, so much time has passed that the matter is now somewhere between moot and meaningless. Had there been any intention to pursue Senate action, these procedural steps would have been taken soon after the resolutions of contempt were approved. The filing of this report—fourteen months after Attorney General Gonzales resigned, eleven months after the contempt resolutions were approved and a mere two months before a new administration takes office—will likely prove superfluous.

Did they see enough in the DOJ Inspector General’s report to get worried about where this is leading? Read more →

FBI: Yes We Still Have Our Anthrax Shiny Object

/16 Comments/in /by

I agree with all the comments littering bmaz’ trash talk thread: the new anthrax story still does nothing to prove that Ivins was the lone gunman. First and foremost, that’s because the FBI is still doing what it has been doing from the start–boasting of their fancy new technology to prove that the anthax came from a flask in Ivins’ office, without making an affirmative case Ivins was the one who used the material in the flask, and certainly without providing any evidence that Ivins was the one who mailed it. Even if Ivins prepared the anthrax, after all, that’s a far cry from driving to Princeton to mail it. 

But even within their shiny object story about the flask, there are reasons to doubt. For example, when the story dismisses a second flask because of an erroneous lab notebook entry, we get no detail about what that entry is or who made it.

Initially, agents thought Ivins divided his spores into two flasks and kept one in a different building, which would have increased the number of people with potential access. That belief was based on a lab notebook entry that turned out to be erroneous, agents said.

After all, if the FBI’s own lab book has these errors, then why should we trust them? If it’s an error in Ivins’ own lab notebook, are they suggesting he was trying to confuse them? The error, by itself, certainly doesn’t dismiss the concerns.

Then there’s the question of the different qualities of the anthrax samples used in the attack.

Differences between the two grades of anthrax powders used in the attacks — the earlier batch sent to New York news outlets was coarser and darker than the powder mailed to the Senate — confirm that there were at least two production runs. Bureau officials knew they were looking for someone who had repeated access to Ivins’s flask as well as talent for sophisticated spore preparations. 

As freep points out, there’s no reason to believe someone accessed the flask in Ivins’ office twice, just that someone created samples specific to each attack. Furthermore, how can you make this argument without having some explanation for who sent Judy Miller fake anthrax? There’s every reason to believe that her non-attack was part of the larger scare; if so, then you’d need to acknowledge that some of the attack anthrax wasn’t anthrax at all.

Read more →

FBI Still Using Shiny Objects to Distract from Their Flimsy Anthrax Case

/in , /by

The WaPo’s big takeaway from the Robert Mueller/FBI oversight hearing today is something I reported last month: Pat Leahy believes Bruce Ivins did not act alone. As Leahy said today,

If Ivins is the one who sent the letter, I do not believe in any manner that he is the only person involved in this attack on Congress and the American people. I believe there are other people involved either as accessories before or after. I believe there are others out there who could [should?] be charged with murder.

Now that the WaPo has caught up, here’s where this story has been and continues to go. The FBI is attempting to use the shiny object of their fancy new science techniques to distract from how crappy the rest of the evidence in this case is.

Both yesterday and today, when Mueller was asked about an independent review of the case, he said the FBI would have the National Academy of Sciences appoint a board of scientists to review the genetic analysis that led the FBI to believe that the anthrax used in the attack came from a flask in Bruce Ivins’ lab. When Arlen Specter asked to name some people to serve on that review board, Mueller said–as he responded to most questions about the anthrax case–he would have to get back to Specter.

But, more importantly, it’s not just that Americans are wondering whether the fancy new genetic analysis the FBI did is sound.

We’re worried about Pat Leahy’s seeming certainty that only scientists at Dugway in UT and Batelle in OH have the technical competence to make the anthrax used in the attacks; when Leahy made Mueller call FBI to find out if that were true, Mueller eventually responded that the answer is classified. We’re worried that the FBI’s explanation for how and why Ivins would have driven several hours to Princeton to mail the anthrax letters keeps changing from dubious story to dubious story–meaning even if Ivins made this anthrax, they have no proof he mailed it. And we’re worried that the FBI seems to have attributed Ivins’ wife’s beliefs to him in order to explain the choice of targets–even though Leahy’s apparent suspicion (that the attack was related to recent efforts to develop an offenseive bioweapons program) provides a much more plausible explanation for the targets.

Read more →

Senator Leahy Is Not Satisfied with the Anthrax Investigation

/in /by

The biggest news from a blogger chat with Patrick Leahy at the DNC today came in response to a question I threw out as we adjourned–about whether or not he was convinced with the FBI’s case in the anthrax case. We had this exchange:

emptywheel: Do you think Ivins acted alone? Are you convinced Ivins sent the anthrax letters?

Leahy: No, I’m not satisfied. I think someone was involved either before or after. I’m not satisfied with the answers I’ve gotten.

I suggested that he had seen significantly more evidence than the public had seen–he gave me a funny look; I’m not sure what that meant.  

He said SJC will do a hearing with Mueller in mid-September. Leahy expects some hard questions from both Democrats and Republicans.

“For your convenience, I attach a copy of the court’s opinion”

/in /by

You think Patrick Leahy enjoyed his afternoon, sending letters to Robert Luskin, Fred Fielding, and Michael Mukasey, giving them a week (until August 7) to respond to Judge Bates’ ruling today? (h/t BayStateLibrul).

All the letters are worthy of the guy whom Dick Cheney told to go fuck himself. But my favorite is the letter to Mukasey:

Dear Attorney General Mukasey:

Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling rejecting the administration’s claims that White House advisors are immune from testifying in response to Congressional subpoenas. The court’s decision also reaffirmed the President’s obligation to provide the specific basis for any executive privilege assertions to provide Congress a means to evaluate those assertions. The administration has not provided that basis despite my requests to do so for more than a year. For your convenience, I attach a copy of the court’s opinion.

Karl Rove failed to appear and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee last August 2 in response to a subpoena I issued July 26, 2007, as part of the Committee’s investigation into the firing of U.S. Attorneys. It is my understanding that Mr. Rove’s failure to comply was based on an August 1, 2007, letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding informing the Committee that the President would invoke a blanket claim of executive privilege to direct Mr. Rove not to produce responsive documents or testify before the Committee. Mr. Fielding’s letter cited a memo from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to assert that Mr. Rove was "immune from compelled congressional testimony" as an "immediate presidential advisor."

Please advise me by no later than next Thursday, August 7, when you will withdraw the erroneous OLC opinion from Stephen Bradbury relied upon by the White House to justify its non-compliance with congressional subpoenas since that opinion has been repudiated by the court.

In addition, please inform me whether the court’s decision will cause you to revaluate your memos and those from OLC in support of overbroad and unsubstantiated executive privilege claims not only in the U.S. Attorneys investigation, but also in other matters, like the claims used to block Congress from investigating warrantless wiretapping, the leak of the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame for political retribution, and White House interference in the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision-making. Read more →

Comments on Mukasey’s Call for an Election-Season Showdown

/in /by

Just as a follow-up to this post, a couple of official comments.

From DC District Court Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, who has already set into motion an expedited process for the detainees:

I am pleased that Attorney General Mukasey said that our ‘court should be commended for the preliminary steps it has taken thus far to provide for the fair, efficient, and prompt adjudication of these cases.’ Guidance from Congress on these difficult subjects is, of course, always welcome. Because we are on a fast track, however, such guidance sooner, rather than later, would certainly be most helpful.

From Harry Reid:

As a result of its repeated efforts to circumvent the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution, the Bush administration has yet to bring to justice the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of September 11. If legislation is needed, it is important that Congress proceed in a deliberate and thoughtful way to write rules that will not be thrown out by the courts yet again. Congress must hold public hearings, consult with national security and legal experts, and take the time to get this right. It is hard to imagine that Congress can give this complex issue the attention it deserves in the closing weeks of this legislative session.

The courts are well equipped to handle this situation, and there is no danger that any detainee will be released in the meantime.

From Patrick Leahy:

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Boumediene v. Bush last month reaffirmed our core American values by concluding that detainees at Guantanamo have the right to bring habeas corpus claims in federal court. I applauded that decision because I have maintained from the beginning that the provisions of the Military Commission Act that purported to strip away those rights were unconstitutional and un-American.

The Judiciary Committee has held a wide range of hearings on issues of detainee rights and procedures. Attorney General Mukasey’s call today for Congress to create new rules for these habeas proceedings is the first I have heard from the Administration on this issue. Given the Judiciary Committee’s long interest in this subject, it is regrettable that the Attorney General neither consulted with nor informed the Committee about this request before his speech.

The Courts have a long history of considering habeas petitions and of handling national security matters, including classified information. Read more →

Yeah, What ABOUT that Anthrax Terrorist?

/in /by

Call me crazy. But after viewing this very creepy exchange between Patrick Leahy and Michael Mukasey regarding the anthrax killer, I got the feeling that both of them know exactly who sent those anthrax-laden letters almost seven years ago.

Leahy uses the recent settlement between Hatfill and DOJ to raise the issue. As he raises it, he notes that he is privy to classified information about the anthrax killer, and because of that he has refrained from even discussing the case.

Leahy: I almost hate to get into the case of Steven Hatfill. I’ve refrained from discussing this, I’ve refused to discuss it with the press. I’ve told them some aspects of it I was aware of were classified so of course I could not discuss it but also, considering the fact that my life was threatened by an anthrax letter, two people died who touched a letter addressed to me I was supposed to open, I’m somewhat concerned.

What happened?

Mukasey: That case …

Then Leahy makes s curious statement: we’re paying Hatfill, which means that the guy who committed the crime is going free.

Leahy: We’re paying Hatfill millions of dollars, the indication being the guy who committed the crime went free.

I’ll let you sort through the logic of that sentence. But know that Mukasey doesn’t like it–not at all.

Mukasey: Well, um, I don’t understand, quote, the guy who committed the crime, unquote, to have gone free. What I do understand is…

Leahy: Nobody’s been convicted.

Mukasey: Not yet.

Leahy: And five people are dead.

Mukasey: Yes, um…

Leahy: And hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent.

Eventually, it seems that Muaksey concedes that he, too, has very specific knowledge about the case.

Mukasey: That case is under active investigation and I need to be very careful about what I say.

Which Leahy seems to confirm. Read more →