« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Happy Katrina Anniversary! Chertoff's Sworn 2003 Testimony Contradicted By Subordinate's
Long before he was internationally infamous as the Homeland Security secretary who dithered while New Orleans drowned, Michael Chertoff helmed the Justice Department's Criminal Division, placing him at the top of all federal criminal prosecutions. He left the position in 2003 to take a federal judgeship -- but not before severely misconstruing, under oath, a chain of events in the 2001 interrogation of "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh. As it turns out, a sworn statement, made by an attorney in the division's Terrorism and Violent Crime Section, John De Pue, contradicts Chertoff's testimony to Congress, something that can't bode well for his rumored nomination for attorney general.
Chertoff, in 2003, testified that he was unaware of internal dissent over a decision by the FBI to interview Lindh without the presence of his family-retained lawyer. "I have to say, Senator," he told Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), "that the Professional Responsibility [Advisory] Office was not asked for advice in this matter. I'm familiar with the matter. I was involved in it."
An account given by De Pue in 2002 casts serious doubt on Chertoff's statement. You can read his statement here.
Lindh, famously, was apprehended by CIA operatives in November 2001 in the Taliban stronghold of Mazar-e-Sharif. The FBI, learning that an American citizen was in custody in Afghanistan, sought to interview him, but questions quickly arose as to what legal protections Lindh needed to be afforded. De Pue, uncertain about what information taken from Lindh could be admissible in court, asked DOJ's Professional Responsibility Advisory Office for its input. In early December a PRAO attorney named Jesselyn Radack advised De Pue that Lindh couldn't be interviewed by the FBI for the purposes of any prospective criminal prosecution unless the lawyer retained for him by his parents, James Brosnahan, was present.
When De Pue sent Radack's advice to his superiors, he learned within hours that the FBI had already interviewed Lindh without counsel, potentially jeopardizing any prosecution of him. According to a 2002 sworn statement De Pue made to the department's Inspector General, De Pue's boss, Jim Reynolds, told him in January 2002 "that the Criminal Division's leadership was disturbed that I had sought" Radack's advice. The division "leadership" -- that is, Chertoff -- wanted Lindh prosecuted, despite the flagrant inadmissibility of the FBI interview, which proved to be the cornerstone of the government's case. (Radack was fired soon thereafter, although she had received sterling performance evaluations in the past.)
De Pue's comments have been described before, but to our knowledge, this is the first time they've been published.
In a written response to questions for the record on the Lindh case, Chertoff in 2003 shifted his description of what he knew about Radack's advice. Sure, he had said initially that PRAO "was not asked for advice" about Lindh's case, which was false. For the record, however, he said that he knew in early 2002 that an "individual PRAO attorney" had indeed considered the FBI interview out of bounds for prosecution, but, nevertheless, Radack's perspective didn't represent PRAO's "official position" -- bizarre, since Radack was the only PRAO attorney De Pue consulted.
In light of De Pue's account, Chertoff's 2003 testimony appears misleading at best. If De Pue is to believed, Chertoff dissembled about both Radack's advice and De Pue's decision to seek PRAO's perspective in the first place, all to insulate himself from a botched investigation. It provides something of a prelude to Chertoff's tenure at DHS -- and doesn't exactly bode well for a return to the rule of law at DOJ if President Bush taps Chertoff to become attorney general.
Well, Gonzales could rescind his resignation, if you prefer?
August 29, 2007 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on the current experience I can see this trial balloon going down harder than the one in Roswell in 1947. Actually it might have unintended consequences as some enterprising souls might want to dig deeper and find the potential for other misleading statements to Congress by Chertoff where a resignation might be in order.
August 29, 2007 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's so suprising? These are all enemies of the Republic. All top members of the Bush Whitehouse are cut from the same fabric. All b.s. aside it makes me sad as hell
August 29, 2007 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides, this is old news. Senator Kennedy and other Dems knew about these allegations and STILL voted to confirm Chertoff to head up Homeland Security:
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/4714/1/235
August 29, 2007 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Radack posted about John Du Pue back in February 2005:
http://shunkwugga.blogspot.com/2005/02/whistle-blowers-inside-view-of.html
August 29, 2007 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's a fncking liar. About this and other things.
August 29, 2007 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to wikki: As a result of these events, Radack was fired and placed on the no-fly list.
The House and Senate might want to look at politicization of the DOJ's Professional Responsibility Advisory Office.
August 29, 2007 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spencer Ackerman needs to work on his reading comprehension, otherwise people will think that he wilfully mis-states facts in writing his blantant hit-pieces.
Go to Patterico.Com for a "Fisking" of his distortions here.
Sample -- Ackerman is absolutely WRONG when he says De Pue's affidavit shows DOJ knew the interrogation of Lindh without the presence of the lawyer hired by his parents jeopardized the prosectuion. In fact, De Pue's affidavit says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.
De Pue says there was issue raised by the PRAO attorney concerning whether the ethics rules of particular states might view this as a violation on the part of individual prosecutors involved.
Stories like this make this site a laughingstock to people who actually know something about the subject matter to which Ackerman is a poseur.
Security Code -- color
Like red, the color of Ackerman's face when confronted with his own distortions.
August 29, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spencer Ackerman needs to work on his reading comprehension, otherwise people will think that he wilfully mis-states facts in writing his blantant hit-pieces.
Go to Patterico.Com for a "Fisking" of his distortions here.
Sample -- Ackerman is absolutely WRONG when he says De Pue's affidavit shows DOJ knew the interrogation of Lindh without the presence of the lawyer hired by his parents jeopardized the prosectuion. In fact, De Pue's affidavit says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.
De Pue says there was issue raised by the PRAO attorney concerning whether the ethics rules of particular states might view this as a violation on the part of individual prosecutors involved.
Stories like this make this site a laughingstock to people who actually know something about the subject matter to which Ackerman is a poseur.
Security Code -- color
Like red, the color of Ackerman's face when confronted with his own distortions.
August 29, 2007 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
shipwreckedcrew - I am looking all over Patterico and do not see Lindh or De Pue. Do you have the link to that article?
August 29, 2007 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOW! Repbubli-trolls are working overtime now at TPM. Gonzo's resignation due to TPM's reporting has them scared shitless and expending all kinda resources!
Go, TPM.
August 29, 2007 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Flynn hadn't signed the review and told Radack that she wouldn't put it in her file if she found another job, which she now did, at Hawkins."
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_404.html
Knowing what we now know about the phone calls to various USAs telling them to resign and threatening bad publicity if they don't go away quietly - this perfectly fits the BushCo MO at the DOJ.
August 29, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
A potential nomination of Chertoff as AG seems highly problematic. Why would anyone—either the White House or congress. want to engage in two rounds of what would undoubtedly be grueling confirmation hearings—the second of course being Chertoff's successor at HS.
August 29, 2007 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is one fugly human. Actually, he doesn't really even look human either. All I can say for certain is that every time his visage is forced upon me, I cringe. He looks like the personification of evil.
August 29, 2007 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Chertoff nomination seems highly problematic. Why would anyone—White House, Congress, want to engage in two undoubtedly grueling confirmation battles—the 2nd of course, being Chertoff's replacement at HS.
August 29, 2007 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like some others who commented, every time I see the man's face it reminds me of death. Putrid, rotting, bloated flesh. And every time he is smiling.
I can't even eat now.
August 29, 2007 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to read the linked 2002 account by De Pue. First off, Chertoff's attempted legalistic Gonzalesization of what he said earlier fails b/c in De Pue's statement, he said, "Ms. Radack sent me an email stating that, IN HER OFFICE'S VIEW..." Thus, it was not the view of one PRAO attorney but of PRAO generally, contrary to what Chertoff later tried to claim.
I love how De Pue talks about the intimidating manner in which Michael Isikoff of Newsweek spoke to him. Yeah, right. How scary. Anyway, it sounds like this document is related to a leak investigation of the email exchange between De Pue and Radack at PRAO.
August 29, 2007 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey shipwrecked****"Stories like this make this site a laughingstock to people who actually know something about the subject matter to which Ackerman is a poseur."
What people would that be especially since the site you list has no mention of what you reference.
Laughing while you have your head up your ass could be detrimental.
Calling "this" site a laughingstock immediately reeks of stupidity and ignorance, setting off warning bells all over. Too much good, solid work has come from this site to stand those terms. You best go have another beer and see what's on Fox eh.
August 29, 2007 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Well, Gonzales could rescind his resignation, if you prefer?"
GREAT IDEA, then "I don't recall" Gonzales can be impeached. hehehehe what an idiot.
You reich wing, brown shirt, goose steppers need to be in Iraq. Why are you not serving your leader? Oh, that's right you are a RepubliCON, all show and no go.
Do you get paid by the stupid remarks you make or are you on salary to the RNC? Oh never mind, we don't give a rats ass what you have to say anyway. :-)
August 29, 2007 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Well, Gonzales could rescind his resignation, if you prefer?"
GREAT IDEA, then "I don't recall" Gonzales can be impeached. hehehehe what an idiot.
You reich wing, brown shirt, goose steppers need to be in Iraq. Why are you not serving your leader? Oh, that's right you are a RepubliCON, all show and no go.
Do you get paid by the stupid remarks you make or are you on salary to the RNC? Oh never mind, we don't give a rats ass what you have to say anyway. :-)
August 29, 2007 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chertoff has no legitimacy and should not be employed anywhere in the government. After the mess he made trying to figure a way to profiteer off of Katrina, were it not for Bush he would not have a job in government. Bush always picks the most incompetent, least qualified people to nominate for positions of authority as if this is the best America has to offer...when all it amounts to is who's the most loyal Bushie.
code word: Chertoffisajerkoff
August 29, 2007 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want a good laugh, take a look at Josh Marshall's top ten "I don't recall" Gonzales moments. Really funny and shows you how stupid Gonzales is.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/051804.php
August 29, 2007 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The post over at Patterico is now up.
Its quite impressive. And it makes Ackerman look like the fool he is.
http://patterico.com/2007/08/29/tpmuckraker-on-chertoff-lies-written-by-a-clown-named-ackerman/#more-6737
August 29, 2007 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
shipwreckedcrew:
I agree that the post at patterico is well presented and contradicts key points in this piece. However, being a jerk doesn't make me more sympathetic to your POV. Also, since you knew about the article before it was up on that site, I have to wonder if you wrote it and are complimenting yourself.
August 29, 2007 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh -- I wrote it. Regulars over at Patterico know both my handles. I think I've even used both here. The "shipwrecked" one is simply the default here whereas the Guest Posting Account set up for me at Patterico is under WLS.
As for the attitude -- its no more than Ackerman displays in his willingly duplicitous account.
August 29, 2007 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sewage always seeks it's own level.
There are not a whole lot of gang members left to pick from who have not already twisted themselves into knots just to stay where they are in the food chain.
August 29, 2007 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another great post TPM. There is more than enough muck to rake in today's culture of corruption Republican crime syndicate.
And as far as trolls go, I didn't know they allowed internet access behind bars. One learns something new every day.
August 29, 2007 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's clear that Chertoff won't get the nod. BushCo doesn't want to relive his Katrina failures, and Monday's rapid response indicates that any higher profile for skullface than he has right now will inflict considerable damage on the Bushies who remain.
Where is Ol' Gap Teeth when you need her? I haven't heard much lately about what Sleezy has been keeping herself busy with. She'd make a great AG- she's not even a lawyer.
Or maybe, as I'm sure I've read here already, they're keeping her in reserve for the VP nomination once Big Time decides to spend more time with Lynn and his lesbian whore-spawn granddaughter.
August 29, 2007 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Skelator is a lying sack of shit? Who woulda guessed . . . Bush 43 has as much trouble finding good help as Guliani and McCain . . . I wonder what these folk have in common?
August 29, 2007 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The post over at Patterico is now up.
Its quite impressive. And it makes Ackerman look like the fool he is.
http://patterico.com/2007/08/29/tpmuckraker-on-chertoff-lies-written-by-a-clown-named-ackerman/#more-6737
It isn't impressive, it shows that the lawyer in question DID ask advice of the other lawyer in question and was told SPECIFICALLY that in her opinion, that Lindh's FBI interrogation wouldn't be ADMISSABLE, just as ACKERMAN SAID. Shipwrecked is an idiot. His self-serving compliments to his own space-case article should have clued us all.
August 30, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I vote that it makes Ackerman look like the fool he is.
August 30, 2007 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink