David Addington

Whitehouse: Torture Probe Should Look At Bush Officials

Zachary Roth | September 1, 2009, 10:01AM

Another top Democrat has come out in support of the view that the torture investigation announced by the Justice Department shouldn't be limited to CIA personnel.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a former federal prosecutor who sits on the Judiciary committee, suggested in an article (sub. req.) for the National Law Journal that the probe should extend to:

DOJ Torture Emails: How The Times Could Have Reported The Story

Zachary Roth | June 8, 2009, 1:01PM

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that Justice Department lawyers agreed in 2005 that harsh interrogation techniques were legal. The impact of the story -- which was based largely on email messages written at the time by James Comey, then a high-ranking Justice Department official -- has been, it seems, to bolster the Dick Cheney position in the ongoing torture debate in Washington.

But the Times also, to its credit, released Comey's emails in full, allowing us all to make our own judgments about what they show. And after a close look at the emails, it seems clear that the paper could have used them to write a very different story -- with a very different effect on the public debate.

Report: Addington, Like Gonzo, Said To Still Be Looking For Work

Zachary Roth | March 9, 2009, 11:34AM

Buried in a New York Times story today about the fallout for several former Bush lawyers who crafted the administration's war on terror policies, is the following gratifying nugget:

David S. Addington, a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who was a forceful voice in internal legal debates, is also said to still be looking for work.

As far as we know, Addington has not yet described himself as a "casualty of the war on terror", as Alberto Gonzales did recently in explaining his own failure to find a job.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (33) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (33)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, Dick Cheney, Torture, Wiretapping

David Addington

Cheney Aide's Testimony In Records Case "A Triumph Of Obfuscation"

Zachary Roth | January 21, 2009, 12:58PM

Dick Cheney may be in a wheel-chair -- but did he get away with pulling a fast one as he left office?

Yesterday we noted that a court had declined to compel Cheney's office to hand over all of its records to the National Archives -- instead taking the word of a low-ranking vice-presidential aide that she would do so.

As we said, the plaintiffs -- a group of historical and non-profit organizations -- are still concerned that key documents are missing. And after speaking to them, it's easy to see why.

"There's all kinds of wiggle room" within the pledge by Cheney's aide, Claire O'Donnell, that might have allowed the veep to withhold key material, Stanley Kutler, a historian and a professor at the University of Wisconsin, and one of the plaintiffs in the case, told TPMmuckraker.

He added: "Why is [Cheney] fighting so much if he didn't have the intention of absconding with the stuff?"

Kutler called O'Donnell's deposition in the case "a triumph of obfuscation." But the bigger issue may be that O'Donnell, as an aide in charge of record-keeping, was almost certainly out of the loop for many of the key decisions Cheney made. So even if she were to make good on her pledge to turn over all the records in her possession, it's doubtful, say the plaintiffs, that that would cover everything of interest to historians and the public.

According to Anne Weismann, a lawyer for CREW, another plaintiff, O'Donnell admitted in her deposition that she had no firsthand knowledge of what the veep did. "She absolutely didn't have access to all the records," said Weismann.

Kutler said he expects that when the National Archives are opened, likely in 12 years as the law states, we'll find that we've got only "perfunctory stuff" from Cheney's office.

The plaintiffs explained that the judge had limited their ability to conduct discovery to just two witnesses -- O'Donnell and a staffer at the National Archives. They were denied the ability to depose David Addington, the lawyer in Cheney's office who formulated many of the opinions which the vice president used as justification for his efforts to expand the power of his office. Without Addington's testimony, the plaintiffs were unable to offer positive evidence of the existence of further records, beyond what O'Donnell handles, that might be withheld. But it still appears more than likely that such material exists.

The good news is this approach to transparency looks like it's on the way out. At a ceremony for the new White House staff today, President Obama declared: "There's been too much secrecy in this city."

Referring to the Freedom of Information Act, he added:

The mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it. I expect members of this administration not simply to live up to the letter, but also the spirit, of this law.

Unfortunately, that change of attitude may come too late to help us get a look at the full range of Cheney's records.

Late Update: In fact, the new administration is already acting to avoid a future repeat of Cheney's effort to claim expansive power. Among several executive orders issued by President Obama today dealing with transparency and secrecy issues, was the following:

Finally the Executive Order on Presidential Records brings those principles [of openness and transparency] to presidential records by giving the American people greater access to these historic documents. This order ends the practice of having others besides the President assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends. Now, only the President will have that power, limiting its potential for abuse. And the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution.

So in other words, the vice president can no longer claim executive privilege to keep records from the public. It really is a new day.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (16) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (8)
Topics: David Addington, Dick Cheney

David Addington

Quote of the Day: Vice President Is a "Barnacle" on the Legislative Branch

Kate Klonick | June 26, 2008, 2:35PM

Between David Addington failing to submit testimony, and John Yoo forgetting his words, not a whole lot was cleared up by the House Judiciary Committee's hearing on interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay.

But on the bright side Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), did manage to clarify a very important question. Just what branch of government is the Vice President in?

Cohen: Mr. Addington, what branch are we in?
Addington: Ah, sir, perhaps the best that can be said is that the Vice President belongs neither to the executive nor to the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. That's from two legal opinions issued by the office of legal counsel to the Department of Justice dated March 9th, 1961, and April, I believe, it's 18th, 1961 by, I believe, Mr. Katzenbach if I remember. . .

Cohen: So he's a member of the legislative branch?

(cross talk)

Addington: No. I said attached by the Constitution to the latter. He is not a member of the legislative branch because the Constitution says that the Congress consists of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The Constitution further says that the Senate consists of Senators and the House of Representatives consists of Representatives and he is neither a Senator nor a Representative.

Cohen: But he is attached to the legislative branch?

Addington: That's the quote I read you.

Cohen: So he's kind of a barnacle.

(voice off camera): Kind of a what?!

Addington: He is attached. . . the word was attached by the Constitution to the latter. I don't consider the Constitution as a barnacle, Mr. Cohen.

Cohen: No, the Vice President. Since he's really not fish or fowl, he's just attached to something.

But don't take our word for it:

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (47) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (28)
Topics: David Addington, House Judiciary, John Yoo

David Addington

Law Professor Confused by SAT Word

Kate Klonick | June 26, 2008, 1:01PM

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) tried to pin John Yoo down on what exactly happened after he wrote his most infamous torture memo for the Bush administration, but like David Addington before him, Yoo seemed to have a small problem remembering his words:

Ellison: The name on the memo was Bybee, but you contributed to the memo right?
Yoo: Yes, sir.

Ellison: The memo was implemented at some point. Is that right?

Yoo: What do you mean by implemented sir?

Yoo later cited attorney client privilege in declining to answer questions about what happened after he wrote the memo.

Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) interrupted Ellison's line of questioning to summarize the subcommittee interrogators' frustrations:

I have been on the committee for a year and a half, I've never seen two witnesses, frankly, struggle as much to appreciate ordinary use of terms and questions. Would you consider instructing the two witnesses to answer the questions that they're asked and if they wish to elaborate or clarify they can ask to do so, but given that we have time constraints I would ask that the chair admonish the witnesses to err on the side of being responsive as opposed to constantly quibbling over word choice because I've never seen it to the degree I've seen it today.

The seven and a half minutes of excruciating video are here:

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (25) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (8)
Topics: David Addington, House Judiciary, John Yoo

David Addington

Addington: Unitary Government? Wha's That?

Kate Klonick | June 26, 2008, 12:08PM

After grilling John Yoo on the possibility of burying suspects alive, the great, grumpy committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) turned his attention to David Addington to question him on the Unitary Theory of the Executive, something Addington should know something about, oh, considering that was his primary justification for torturing terrorism suspects:

Conyers: Do you feel that the Unitary Theory of the Executive allows the President to do things over and above the stated law of the land?
Addington: The Constitution binds all of us, Congressman, the President, all the U.S. members of Congress, all of the federal judges. We all take an oath to support and defend it. I frankly don't know what you mean by the Unitary Theory of Government. I dont -

Conyers: Have you ever heard of that theory before?

Addington: Oh I have, I've seen it in the newspapers all the time-

Conyers: Do you support it?

Addington: I don't know what it is.

Conyers: You don't know what it is.

Addington: No, and it's always described as something Addington's the great, you know-

Conyers: I see.