CNN's Ed Henry talks about the Keane/Hamilton op-ed and Jeffrey Toobin discusses the new criminal probe of the destroyed CIA tapes led by John Durham.

Download | play   Download | play (videos will be working momentarily)

Toobin: It's a big deal because particularly when you assign one prosecutor to investigate one case, it takes a long time....but the Bush administration is certainly in for the remainder of its tenure dealing with subpoenas, grand jury testimony about a very difficult subject.

OK, who thinks David Addington has more to do with this than has been previously reported? I'm just saying that because he's been behind so much garbage as Cheney's right hand man....Here's a little more on Durham.

OK, let's see what happens now...

The U.S. Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes, and Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said Wednesday that he appointed an outside prosecutor to oversee the case.

The CIA acknowledged last month that it destroyed videos of officers using tough interrogation methods while questioning two al-Qaida suspects. The acknowledgment sparked a congressional inquiry and a preliminary investigation by Justice.

"The Department's National Security Division has recommended, and I have concluded, that there is a basis for initiating a criminal investigation of this matter, and I have taken steps to begin that investigation," Mukasey said in a statement released Wednesday.

Mukasey named John Durham, a federal prosecutor, to oversee the case. Durham has a reputation as one of the most relentless U.S. prosecutors...read on

And we know how much Republicans like "outside prosecutors." Or is that special prosecutors? I mean this in the Patrick Fitzgerald kinda way. We'll be talking about this a whole lot more as time goes on...

UPDATED: CNN's Jeffrey Toobin just said that this case is going to take a fairly long time to complete and there will be tons of subpoenas being thrown around

Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton wrote an op-ed for the NY Times: "Stonewalled by the C.I.A."

MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11 commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the fullest possible account of the “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001” — and to offer recommendations to prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation, the president’s chief of staff directed all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the commission.

The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation...read on

Mukasey Confirmed 53-40. : Schumer does "the stump!"

Schumer:  "When Judge Mukasey came before the Senate judiciary committee last month he refused to state waterboarding as torture. That was unsatisfactory, that was wrong. That will be a blemish on judge Mukasey's distinguished career for as long as he lives. But he has made it clear that if Congress passed further legislation in this area, the President would have no legal authority to ignore it...

Thanks Chucky for clearing that up for us...

Dianne Feinstein describes Mukasey as a man that is "well-steeped in national security law." If that's true then why doesn't he know if waterboarding is torture? via CNN's Late Edition on Sunday:

Download | play Download | play

Blitzer: When you both announced on Friday you will support the confirmation of Michael Mukasey to be the next attorney general, that effectively guaranteed that he'll not only get out of the committee but eventually will be confirmed as the attorney general. Even though he's taking what some are calling a wishy-washy position on waterboarding or torture, why do you believe he should be confirmed?

Feinstein: Well, first of all, because he is a bright, independent figure. Well-steeped in national security law, presided over some of those trials. In the 172 pages of written questions and answers, the independence of thought comes through.

He's not going to wear two hats like Gonzales did. He'll wear one hat, and that will be an independent attorney general for a department which right now, today, is in disarray. Twenty-three out of 93 U.S. attorneys are not filled with permanent confirmed U.S. attorneys. The 10 top positions are vacant.

What I believe this president would do if Mukasey was -- failed to be confirmed was put in an acting, also make recess appointments. That would bring about diminished transparency, diminished Congressional oversight and would not be for the benefit of the department. So this is a strong independent figure. I'd be happy to talk about my views on torture, if you want.

We're only interested in what Mukasey's views on torture are, Dianne. He's the one trying to get confirmed here. And if they don't match up to your view on waterboarding then why did you push his nomination through? Sigh...Then she goes on to quiver at the thought of what George Bush might do if he doesn't get his way. Mr. 24% is making her nervous.

What the heck is wrong with these people? She actually used the term "diminished transparency," and "diminished Congressional oversight" to describe what might happen in the Justice department if Bush had a hissy fit...Isn't that what we've had since Bush and Cheney took office? I could go on, but what would be the point. Please contact her and let her know (It does help) this is not acceptable:

Washington Office:
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0504
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954

Main District Office:
One Post Street, Suite 245
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 393-0707

Continue reading »