Comments (19)

nofltwlt wrote on December 21, 2007 1:34 PM:

It is not beyond belief that the judge would be blackmailed by the contents of illegal wiretaps.

PHB wrote on December 21, 2007 1:36 PM:

The court should not do that because the court should not depend on this administration to investigate itself when acused of acting in bad faith.

chisholm wrote on December 21, 2007 1:48 PM:

People have been saying that Mukasey has a conflict of interest because of his ruling in the Padilla case, when he was a judge.

Can anyone with professional knowledge of the situation elaborate on this?

brian wrote on December 21, 2007 1:58 PM:

It is highly likely that this Mukasey was appointed precisely because he is up to his neck in the case involving the tapes.

All the promotions in this administration go to people who are in danger of being nailed for some misdoing. They got rid of Powell, kept Rice. They hired Mr Iran-Contra for Secretary of Defense.

A mafia boss cannot have one of his captains NOT be a murderer. The capos have to be facing the same jeopardy as the boss to be reliable.

jimijazz wrote on December 21, 2007 2:47 PM:

Decision or no decision, this CIA story is going to come out one way or the other. The judge can't stop freedom of the press though he may think he does. Like I said before don't depend on the normal channels of oversight because they're bought one way or the other. But to this day, the Bush administration has been unable to keep leaks from getting to the public and the press. This story is just waiting to explode - judge or no judge.

danger wrote on December 21, 2007 3:02 PM:

Beyond being blackmailed from the contents of the case, a guy like Kennedy probably doesn't want to touch this case with a 10 foot pole for obvious reasons relating to his personal safety and his career prospects. The paranoia surrounding the Bush administration has been quite palpitable, so if this were the case with Kennedy getting cold feet I'd hardly be surprised.

Now, Leone Brinkema, on the other hand, is a totally different story.

jimijazz wrote on December 21, 2007 3:24 PM:

Afraid of what exactly? Bush's threats are about as thin as a piece of paper. People really have to get over this Mafia-like control they think the Bush administration has. It simply does NOT exist. Bush's cache went out the window right after the election of 2004 and it hasn't come back and never will. The system has been corrupted and corroded for some time now and Judge Kennedy is just another example of that.

steve wrote on December 21, 2007 3:40 PM:

As corrupt, inept and repulsive as they are, let us not underestimate the pressure that can be brought to bear on an individual, judge or not, by the world's most powerful government, its full array of agencies and political agents. This guy suddenly sounds either scared or naïve. Something happened.

jimijazz wrote on December 21, 2007 3:55 PM:

I don't buy it and I may be wrong, but the Bush administration trying to intimidate this judge is just postponing the inevitable. We could run through a list of Bush scandals as serious as this and yet were seen the light of day. CIA secret prisons, Guantanamo, etc. As you may have noticed, the democrats on the judiciary are taking this scandal more seriously now and I think this "hearing" was just a red herring. Again, You're buying into the one thing Bush has been using since day 1: FEAR

steve wrote on December 21, 2007 4:03 PM:

"Again, You're buying into the one thing Bush has been using since day 1: FEAR "

I agree with your point, but as to who is buying the fear, let's not confuse me with that judge.

And postponing the inevitable is what this administration is now all about. We can agree on that.

danger wrote on December 21, 2007 4:38 PM:

jimjazz - i caught a post on Digg yesterday where somebody made a scroll of all of the scandals.

It was 60 feet long!!!!!!!!

Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 8:14 PM:

Then again, why isn't the court jailing the court officers (attys) for apparently not immediately providing in 2005 information the tapes were destroyed?

WexlerImpeachHearing wrote on December 22, 2007 8:41 AM:

HMM..What happens when the CIA breaks federal law?

A great question for our Constitutional experts!

What do you mean the CIA is not in the Constitution???

Shouldn't it be if it's doing things like torturing people?

Obviously, C.I.A. ghouls were Enjoying an Act of Torture Straight out of the Inquisition.

Whether clandestine CIA or Gestapo operations,
both dutifully administered by members of our blood revenge specie.

Any subsequent U.S. Imperial Empire investigation whispers will occur quietly in the red glow of a sub-basement bunker.

Anonymous wrote on December 22, 2007 11:47 PM:

DoJ Staff atty said in effect, "court cannot proceed because of an ongoing investigation." This smacks of DOJ Staff counsel challenging the independnece of the court: "ongoing" events are not relevant -- the evidence is what it is.

When will DoJ Staff counsel be challenged on their apparent contempt for the independence of the court?

Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 2:07 AM:

Well then congress needs a vigorous investigation of this because no one can trust the justice department anymore.

Helen Rainier wrote on December 23, 2007 11:16 AM:

Anonymous at 2:07 AM 12/23/07 -- I'll go a step further and say we can't trust any of the federal government anymore.
Each and every department, near as I can tell, has been politicized past the point of working for the taxpayer and instead bears its allegiance to the Bushies.

Geronimo wrote on December 23, 2007 3:20 PM:

I'm interested in why you think anything will be done the right way in regard to any of this? The CIA Torture Tapes, the assorted Bush corruption, telecomms/NSA crap etc????

Is there some invisible track record that our nation has when it comes to this stuff that I've missed???

Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 4:06 PM:

I. CONCERN: Out of court, inconsistent statements are admissible.

The claim "there was no pending proceeding" defies the record:

A. MCA of 2005-6

The President signed language, contradicting later WH assertions, which did forsee litigation before the ICC. MCA language would provide defense-funding for these future proceedings before international tribunals.

B. DoJ-DoD POW Working Group after 2001

JAGs well documented concerns ICC could prosecute.

Note the above events [1, 2] are on both sides of the CIA tape destruction [before, after]. Legal counsel well knew before and after the tape destrution that ICC-proceedings were possible.

II. CONCERN: Defendants destroyed "helpful evidence"; or it's still retained in EU/GCHQ/JTTF/CIFA intelligence for training purposes.

Note, they've destroyed evidence that would be "helpful" to them: Supposedly showing prisoners were treated humanely, Despite this "propaganda coup," someone made the decision to put the destruction of evidence over the US stated goal of showing the world US was humane.

- What is plan of European Commission to secure copies of all copies of all tapes obtained by GCHQ, Polish, and Romanian intelligence?

III. CONCERN: Congressional complicity/tainted

After Teguba issued his report, why did Members of Congress not discuss the wider prisoner abuse; and how did heir legal counsel discuss the MCA/DoD-DoJ working group memoranda in re ICC?

Time for special prosecutor to review the evidence President/DoJ gave to Members of Congress; and their "reasons" for not forwarding that alleged war crimes evidence to the ICC. Look at the alleged frivolous statements of WH-DoJ-Congressional staff counsel to take no action in re war crimes.

IV. CONCERN: No confidence in CIA IG.

Review in Rolling Stone the article, "Bush Lap Dogs". Explains loyalty IGs have to the President, not fact finding.

V. CONCERN: Environment of apparent obstruction of justice, witness tampering -- Judicial check of Congress, President warranted

Until impeachment used, possibilty of President providing a pardon remain on the table, except for war crimes before ICC. Arguably, the court in "deferring" to the Congress or Executive would be judicial assent to more alleged war crimes, actionable before the ICC.

VI. Concern: Inconsistent statements -- Admissible, exception to hearsay

Tapes made with intent to show public to show "there was no abuse"; but now claiming opposite: Despite outing Plame, pretending they were "concerned" to protect CIA identify. Shows a transition from one argument to another.

brutallyhonest wrote on December 23, 2007 11:54 PM:

I second the motion that it is not impossible for this judge to have been black mailed by warrentless wiretapping. Or even bogus "evidence". What were the Bushies seeking from the telcoms before 911? Info on the WOT and AQ? Per their response to the Clinton admn warnings, such things did not yet exist. Consider this: Rove and warrantless wiretapping existing in the same time/place.