« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Mukasey Taps 30-Year Vet Prosecutor for Tapes Probe
The man Michael Mukasey chose to lead the CIA tapes probe is John Durham. Who is John Durham? Well, the short answer is a 30-year veteran prosecutor with some serious experience with tough prosecutions.
We've posted his work experience below, as passed along by the U.S. attorney's office in Connecticut, where Durham serves as the deputy.
As the AP puts it, "Durham has a reputation as one of the nation's most relentless prosecutors. He served as an outside prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the FBI's use of mob informants in Boston and helped send several Connecticut public officials to prison."
Update: From The Washington Post:
Durham is well known in New England legal circles as a tough, publicity-averse prosecutor who has specialized in organized crime cases. Former attorney general Janet Reno named Durham as a special prosecutor to investigate allegations that FBI agents and police officers in Boston had ties to mafia informants. He is a registered Republican, according to Connecticut voter records.The Boston probe led to the 2002 racketeering conviction of retired FBI agent John J. Connolly Jr., who was the handler for gangster James "Whitey" Bulger, a former FBI informant who is now a fugitive.
Durham's history is below.
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT* March 1994 - Present (except for interim service as United States Attorney and Counsel to the U.S. Attorney) - Deputy United States Attorney: Supervises all Assistant U.S. Attorneys assigned in the three offices of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut; evaluates, prepares and prosecutes major felony cases within the District with special emphasis on complex criminal matters
* January 1999 - Present - Special Attorney, District of Massachusetts, Head of Justice Task Force reviewing alleged criminal conduct of FBI and other law enforcement corruption in Boston, MA
* September 1989 - March 1994 - Assistant United States Attorney (Chief, Criminal Division): Supervised all Criminal Division Assistant U.S. Attorneys assigned in the three offices of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut; evaluated, prepared and prosecuted major felony cases within the District with special emphasis on organized crime matters
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ORGANIZED CRIME AND RACKETEERING SECTION (Boston Strike Force/New Haven Field Office)
* December 1982 - September 1989 -- Supervised the New Haven Field Office of the Boston Strike Force from June 1987 until September 1989; evaluated, prepared, and prosecuted major RICO and RICO-related cases directed at Gambino, Genovese, and Patriarca LCN members and associates operating within the District of Connecticut
OFFICE OF THE STATE'S ATTORNEY/NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
* November 1978 - December 1982 - Assistant State's Attorney: Supervised operation of the Career Criminal Unit of the State's Attorney's Office; evaluated, prepared, and prosecuted major violent felony cases against repeat offenders; supervised work of all Unit attorneys, inspectors, and staff
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF STATE'S ATTORNEY
* September 1977 - November 1978 - Deputy Assistant State's Attorney: Preparation and prosecution of criminal cases in various criminal courts throughout the State of Connecticut; preparation and argument of appeals; preparation of legal memoranda, grand materials, and research data
Comments (24)
jolly ranchero wrote on January 2, 2008 3:17 PM:Can Bush declare "executive privilege" to an outside prosecutor? If not, anyone want to wager that he will anyways?
mo2 wrote on January 2, 2008 3:22 PM:Durham anecdote - January 28, 2001 - The Hartford Courant
"Does the Department of Justice have the stomach to pursue this investigation to its conclusion?" one of the reporters asked, meaning will the government find some excuse to shut down the case to prevent further shredding the FBI's credibility?
It was the only question Durham answered.
"The government absolutely has the stomach," he said.
http://www.laborers.org/HartfordCour_Lawyer_1-28-01.htm
pinson wrote on January 2, 2008 3:28 PM:Sounds like he's the guy who took down the FBI agents who worked for Whitey Bulger. If so, Gonzales and Addington are in for a world of hurt.
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 3:30 PM:Coming soon to a theater near you:
"Saturday Night Massacre II"
Larry wrote on January 2, 2008 3:30 PM:Anyone want to take bets on whether the Office of the Vice President is the focus of this special prosecuter as well?
aravir wrote on January 2, 2008 3:35 PM:pinson is right. This guy looks like the real deal.
serge wrote on January 2, 2008 3:36 PM:Is he going to be an actual *special* prosecutor? I can dig that muchly, if so.
EH wrote on January 2, 2008 3:44 PM:serge: it looks like a half-step in the special prosecutor direction. naming an "outside prosecutor" will let them stanch the special prosecutor talk w.r.t DoJ firings, NIE, etc. by pumping up the significance of the "outside prosecutor," possibly equating the OP with SPs. that said, it's a half-step in the right direction, at least, rather than throwing it to the IG/SG blackhole.
parrot wrote on January 2, 2008 3:46 PM:Bring out your long-knives, for the night is young. What's this guys connection to...Guiliani? Seriously, didn't Rudy participate in those same cases way back when?
Philip Wright wrote on January 2, 2008 4:05 PM:Well,
First guess was that we would have an Abu Gharib type "investigation" where some poor saps who took some liberties with the basically illegal process of sanctioned torture and then took the rap for everybody.
But in a widely ignored diary on DK I did openly hope that enough of our constitutional government remained to result in the appointment of a qualified special prosecutor.
Oh Boy. Now if he is just given the proper mandate. That is, get to the bottom of the lack of cooperation with the Commission as well as look at everyone's involvement in destroying the tapes. We all know that everybody's favorite VP is up to his stinking eyeballs in this one. Just like the last one (Valerie Plame).
And Bush didn't want the Commission in the first place. It should open up the tap dancing the Commission had to do to get minimal cooperation from our current administration. And how they, just like Congress, entered into good faith negotiation, only to be screwed in the back room.
We are all best at the issues on which we spend our time and energy. These are the "fruits" people are known by as well in the sense that we show what we value by where we spend our time and energy.
This administration is incredibly skilled at stonewalling, lying, misdirecting, confusing, avoiding responsibility, backstabbing, etc. By their fruits they hopefully will be known by those with eyes to see and a mind to understand.
t
alex wrote on January 2, 2008 4:07 PM:Looking at a resume like this I can't help but think of Rachel Paulose, Monica Goodling, Bradley Schlotzman...
Fred Dodsworth wrote on January 2, 2008 4:07 PM:For our country's sake, I pray that this apparent light at the end of the tunnel ... is an overloaded, high speed freight train.
Dusty wrote on January 2, 2008 4:08 PM:He's a career prosecutor. That is a good thing since those are the guys that got hosed the most by Gonzo.
He owes 'berto ;p
cal1942 wrote on January 2, 2008 4:26 PM:serge wrote
"Is he going to be an actual *special* prosecutor? I can dig that muchly, if so."
Taking off on what serge wrote, will the scope of the investigation be tightly defined, who will set the rules?
ted wrote on January 2, 2008 5:05 PM:he looks good on paper, but is he a Republican and/or member of the Federalist Society? If so he can't be trusted.
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 5:56 PM:It doesn't matter how "relentless" a US Atty is. Fitzgerald shows us that a great/outstanding attorney -- when they confront a brick wall -- can't get the answers. Nor cooperation. Nor the truth.
We've seen the legacy of this OVP-WH-CIA in re Fitzgerald and the Plame-Libby investigation. WHy should someone expect "better" results from anyone other than Fizgerald?
Or is someone saying the DoJ "saved" their "better" prosecutor for this? No way. Fitzgerald got stonewalled not because of the US Atty integrity; but because of the investigation target. Durgham's got the same target. Bush already showed he'll commute the sentence; and CIA agents are trained to violate the law. Why expect the CIA to believe they need to cooperate?
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 5:56 PM:I hope DOJ saves backup copies of their investigation notes for the ICC.
za wrote on January 2, 2008 7:11 PM:Gee, sounds like another federal prosecutor who recently got bested by the Bushies.
Fitzmas, anyone?
Chicago Policy Mentat wrote on January 2, 2008 7:30 PM:Read the article mo2 linked to (second post), and thanks for that mo2. This guy sounds like the perfect pick for a Democratic administration's attorney general. Especially after having tangled with this administration.
Heironymous Josch wrote on January 2, 2008 9:41 PM:It's naive to assume this investigation will sniff around the hall, let alone target the Veep's office. Guy's a successful career prosecutor for at least one good reason - he prosecutes "win-able" cases. Twelve months from regime change, the tanks running on empty. If the powers that be stonewall even half as well as they have in the past (should we assume they won't this time around?), the clock will tick out. The best we can hope for from Mr. Durham is prosecutorial pseudo-savantism - a vastly deep-reaching and restrictively narrow investigation.
J
Utopia wrote on January 2, 2008 10:22 PM:Sorry to rain on the John Durham parade but given he's not an independent prosecutor I can tell you right now this investigation is going nowhere.
The administration will drag it's feet with security clearances, interview schedule conflicts, executive privilege, whatever it takes, to make sure this thing drags on until January 20, 2009. Mark my words. Do you guys seriously think Dick Cheney will let anything happen to his loyal capos? Where have you been for the past 7 years?
U
MW wrote on January 3, 2008 3:22 AM:Can a president pardon himself?
Anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 10:32 AM:Mukasey is Durhams boss....can you say whitewash?
Blue Sun wrote on January 3, 2008 12:47 PM:Durham was recommended to this position by his old boss in Connecticut, Kevin O'Connor. O'Connor was most recently an assistant to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and is now awaiting confirmation as an Assistant Attorney General under Mulkahey.
Durham may be a hardnosed prosecutor, but Mulkahey only appointed him the 'acting US Attorney' on the case. He is NOT a special prosecutor and it is still to be seen what independence he will have, or whether Justice will keep him on a tight leash.
He also has little or no experience on the national stage, and whether he will be strong enough (or be allowed) to subpoena people like the top aides to George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Dick Cheney, not to mention the real possibility that his investigation should warrant subpoenaing both Bush and Cheney, is questionable.
Whatever his own personal integrity and dedication to justice, he lacks the freedom he would have had if named as a Special Prosecutor. He is still working for the very people he must investigate.
I wish him well - these sleazy slime eels deserve to have their criminal backroom machinations exposed to the public. But, I'm going to remain skeptical until I see the results.