Justice Official Clears Bush Lawyers (Yoo & Bybee) in Torture Memo Probe

[kpete]

Source: Newsweek

Posted Friday, January 29, 2010 8:07 PM
Justice Official Clears Bush Lawyers in Torture Memo Probe
Newsweek

By Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman

Excerpt from the Aug. 1, 2002, ‘Torture Memo’:

For weeks, the right has heckled Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. for his plans to try the alleged 9/11 conspirators in New York City and his handling of the Christmas bombing plot suspect. Now the left is going to be upset: an upcoming Justice Department report from its ethics-watchdog unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), clears the Bush administration lawyers who authored the “torture” memos of professional-misconduct allegations.

While the probe is sharply critical of the legal reasoning used to justify waterboarding and other “enhanced” interrogation techniques, NEWSWEEK has learned that a senior Justice official who did the final review of the report softened an earlier OPR finding. Previously, the report concluded that two key authors—Jay Bybee, now a federal appellate court judge, and John Yoo, now a law professor—violated their professional obligations as lawyers when they crafted a crucial 2002 memo approving the use of harsh tactics, say two Justice sources who asked for anonymity discussing an internal matter. But the reviewer, career veteran David Margolis, downgraded that assessment to say they showed “poor judgment,” say the sources. (Under department rules, poor judgment does not constitute professional misconduct.) The shift is significant: the original finding would have triggered a referral to state bar associations for potential disciplinary action—which, in Bybee’s case, could have led to an impeachment inquiry.

The report, which is still going through declassification, will provide many new details about how waterboarding was adopted and the role that top White House officials played in the process, say two sources who have read the report but asked for anonymity to describe a sensitive document. Two of the most controversial sections of the 2002 memo—including one contending that the president, as commander in chief, can override a federal law banning torture—were not in the original draft of the memo, say the sources. But when Michael Chertoff, then-chief of Justice’s criminal division, refused the CIA’s request for a blanket pledge not to prosecute its officers for torture, Yoo met at the White House with David Addington, Dick Cheney’s chief counsel, and then–White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. After that, Yoo inserted a section about the commander in chief’s wartime powers and another saying that agency officers accused of torturing Qaeda suspects could claim they were acting in “self-defense” to prevent future terror attacks, the sources say. Both legal claims have long since been rejected by Justice officials as overly broad and unsupported by legal precedent.

A Justice official declined to explain why David Margolis softened the original finding, but noted that he is a highly respected career lawyer who acted without input from Holder. Yoo and Bybee (through his lawyer) declined requests for comment.

Read more: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/01/29/holder-under-fire.aspx

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. oh fuck me with a rotting goose.

Mr. Margolis, who is paying for this whitewash? Do they have some tidbit on your history?

[PatrynXX]

25. O_O ick a rotting goose?

tell me that wasn't an original line?

I grew up on George Carlin , if he was still around he'd torture that line.

"The country is going down the tubes.... what tubes?"

but fuck me with a rotting goose? How? :) Are we into voodoo? no way thats a chicken head.

but thanks for putting a smile in my face over a story that was like "DUH"

I'm just waiting for the Repukes to give O'Keefe the best lawyer in the world.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

31. I just made it up,

putting my honest feelings into it.

[ooglymoogly]

64. Ahhh; Didn't actually picture it, as you know we must.

and yuk Hindsight is a "good thing" for the future.

[wordpix]

105. now THAT's an apropos exclamatory I've never heard

:rofl:

[Mari333]

2. they skate. asshole. assholes.

[Go2Peace]

50. It is far more serious than the nation realizes. When the Justice system is political Democracy dies

Ollie North, Iran Contra, etc was impeachment, the Pres got off because those below him took the fall, then they were just pardoned.

This is very different, because no-one is even getting indicted. The Justice system itself is now so political it can't do so.

[ooglymoogly]

65. +1 nt

[wordpix]

106. +2

[JDPriestly]

Not so much as a rep?rimand.

I wonder how the lawyers who appear in front of Bybee feel about having to call him "Your Honor"?

"Your Dishonor" would be more appropriate.

And Woo -- if I were a student assigned to his classroom, I would ask for a transfer. He lacks the moral uprightness and strength of character to teach law.

[anachro1]

3. No surprise

He was 'only following orders' from his hateful fearless leader.

Hey; if the Nazi's can use that defense, why not Amerika?

I know Berkeley. Justice may someday be served.

[newspeak]

112. the Nazis used that defense

but it didn't fly. They were still held accountable for their actions. It's different when we do it--see, we're not like those guys. They're bad, we're good.:sarcasm:

[No Elephants]

4. I guess Obama really, really did not want to prosecute ANYone. Shameful..

I give now to the ACLU and Amnesty International and specific, liberal candidates. The DNC and the others can go to hell.

[sandnsea]

12. Check out David Margolis

He's the one that downgraded this. He's screwed up a lot of cases, all in favor of the Bushies. Pretends to be a maverick, ha.

[TheEuclideanOne]

15. There will set a legal precedent ....

It will be "Obama" vs "People who are not pussies"

[nutshell2002]

20. "I give now to the ACLU and Amnesty International..."

I'm doing the exact same thing.

[Go2Peace]

51. Yes, the Party, by allowing our Justice system to make expedient political moves, is participating

in destroying the foundation of Democracy. There *is* some blame to go on Obama. Sorry, but he could send a strong signal to HIS employees, that he will support appropriate Justice activity and not reinforce political decisions.

But supporting Justice to do the right thing would indeed cause a political fight.

By not doing so, he participates.

I think that some powers in our own party *want* this to happen. They want it to *go away*. Not because they are "evil", but because they are just blinded to the extend that things like this corrupt a democracy. They want to "move on" and get it behind us, or they think that if they do not see themselves *winning* it, they can't afford to try.

[ooglymoogly]

68. This is, if not the biggest, one of the biggest

roadblocks in our history to moving forward. This country cannot move forward without correcting major faults in our crumbling foundation. You would think O would see this.

[bertman]

73. "hey want it to *go away*. Not because they are "evil", ut because they are just

blinded to the extend that things like this corrupt a democracy."

If political "leaders" in this democracy cannot see the dangers that lie in allowing themselves to be "blinded", then they qualify as evil in my book. They are supposed to be aware and educated about how this country's government is SUPPOSED to operate. When they allow themselves to be otherwise, they are giving in to the forces of darkness who see government of the people, by the people, and for the people, as an impediment to their power. If that's not evil, then I'm not sure what is.

This failure to call these fascist collaborators what they are is one of the reasons we have gotten to the point we are now. Everybody is willing to give them a pass because they don't want to label them as bad people. Destroying this democracy by their actions or inactions when they have the power to do something about it, is the equivalent of what the Germans did during the years leading to WWII.

[MissDeeds]

30. I am with you

How can he let this slide, and why? I shudder to consider the possibilities. Only specific candidates and causes I believe in will get my support from here on. I am beyond disgusted and disillusioned.

[CONN]

89. yep

[Lost4words]

110. A nation of laws, what a funny statement.

no doubt there are some here who will think this is a good move.

:wtf:

[mbperrin]

5. Gosh, how can advocating criminal activity be unprofessional for lawyers?

After all, if there were no criminals, there'd be no cri...no, wait, fool me once, no...uh, I got goosed....no, well, anyway, Citizen, move along, nothing to see here.

Go home and enjoy your delicious choco-ration!

[shadowknows69]

9. Bravo +100000

[ooglymoogly]

71. I see a bumper sticker here. If there are still cars in our future. nt

[Suji to Seoul]

6. Nothing more to see here. . .it's been covered up successfully

The Obama administration just cleared torture.

And we've lost our moral high ground, if we ever had it in the first place.

[SlingBlade]

7. Aw-www, Ain't That Precious ? ....

" Change you can believe in " :)

[Joe Bacon]

8. IOKIYAR again

Why even go thru any motions at all? Republicans are above the law.

[sandnsea]

10. David Margolis strikes again

He oversaw Fitz during the Plame leak. And he was directly involved in the prosecutor purge, which went nowhere. Now this. This guy needs some sleuthing done on him.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Margolis

[ooglymoogly]

26. Here is some sleuthing, though it only leads to confusion

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/5/62425/22619

I am confused about this man, something does not square. If this were not Dailkos I would have dismissed it out of mind.
Could the order have come directly from Holder who did not want this decision on his and O's head. Even though it ultimately falls there anyway

[sandnsea]

27. That was 2 years ago

I've been reading more on him. This is one of those times I wish I had the resources to really go after someone. This guy is CIA, I'd bet money on it.

[ooglymoogly]

32. So in two years, he turns from scrupulously honest to

unscrupulously dishonest? Who knows which dark tunnel, in the rabbit hole of these unchecked agencies, to follow, to find the answers. These particular secretive branches of government are purposely enigmas and they make sure no one can see through the looking glass or behind the curtain where scum and unfathomably depraved actions are piled into a black hole, that could see the light of day only in infamy.

[sandnsea]

34. What was known then, what is known now

And if he's scrupulously honest, then I guess nobody should be upset about his Yoo-Bybee decision, right?

[ooglymoogly]

39. I, my friend do not have a clue as to an anwer.

My thought process in this is that if one story is true the order came from above. If not, he is as folks here think. The true answer might never be known. There is a heavy weight on the scales of "justice" that if the first is true he would not have tolerated his name used to sanctify an illegal and criminal decision by the O admin to let thugs who have committed the most heinous crimes be in effect pardoned.

[sandnsea]

43. Plame, Siegelman, prosecutor purge, now this

He's been covering for the Bushies for a while now, that much is clear.

[ooglymoogly]

49. Yes I, have done a little sleuthing and am doing an about face

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000509
article on the Seigleman case; A perversion of justice.
Margolis is a RAT extraordinaire

[sandnsea]

60. Here's a DU thread from 2005,

I don't know this DUer well, but there's a couple of good links in this post, and a question in the thread wondering if he's one of the bad ones Sibel Edmonds was referring to.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2009524

[ooglymoogly]

58. About face, He is a slimy rat. nt

[grantcart]

44. I don't believe that is correct tht is on H and O's head.

Politically sensitive cases are given to career DOJ attorneys and are not handled by political appointees (unlike Bush who abrogated this longstanding principle).

Holder could only reject Margolis report and then have it done by another career attorney.

Obama could only get involved if he found that Holder had committed massive error and would have to remove Holder.

You have to remember that Margolis is not moved by what is right but by what the actual evidence and facts show. I think it is safe to assume that there are other things that are known but cannot be proved or are not in a memo that were not taken into effect.

Remember they are investigating attorneys and attorneys are trained in framing things in a way that would make their intention difficult to prove.

I believe that your link is correct and we are witnessing the return of the DOJ to professional standards.

Sometimes that means that the available evidence will not provide the results we desire.

In the long term this is a good development.

[ooglymoogly]

53. A good deveopment yes, in that it exposed

manipulation; In that the original finding was doctored to fit an agenda unilaterally promulgated by O. Gross criminal acts will be forgiven and we are looking, not back, but forward. Not prosecuting vast and admitted crimes, in my book is unconscionably criminal and might just turn out to be the biggest blunder for the democrats in a long while.

[Go2Peace]

55. I hope you are right. But it is really hard for me to understand how...

if Obama really placed serious emphasis on restoring the Department of Justice, that these issues are not turning.
Certainly, he cannot just go in and say "I want you to indict Alberto". But what he can do is empower the many employees at the department who have been disturbed and silenced, let the department know that politisizing cases will be punished, clearly give support to appropriate whistleblowing.

I have no doubt, that he has much more power to change the way the department works. I just think "political" expediency is so powerful in Washington, that even our leadership is stuck in that mode. As I said in another post, that is not about "men doing evil", that is what people like Alberto and Bush did. I am absolutely sure that Obama means well and thinks that he cannot either take the risks involved, or that it is better to just move on. But make no mistake that the lack of more serious investigation or depoliticizing of Justice in regards to the last 8 years is to an extent on our President's shoulders. He has more capability than some here give him credit for to make this change.

In the interim, Democracy is corrupted as our Justice system continues to fail.

[grantcart]

67. What is known and what can be proven are two different things

Professional prosecutors have no interest in anything that cannot be proven with evidence that can be admitted into evidence.

I will give you an example. Remember Lou Dobbs and the outrage he had against the Border Guards who were prosecuting for shooting at a drug dealer on the border.

The DOJ and Bush took a huge amount of heat from the right on the issue.

My work brings me into contact with federal immigration prosecutors. These guys spend 99% of their time prosecuting illegal aliens. I was told in no uncertain terms that the reason that the prosecutors pursued the highest level of charges against the border patrol was that they had other additional information that they could not confirm as evidence that motivated them.

The inference was that prosecutors suspected the guards were either inforcing a gang hit or trying to rip off the drug dealer.

Restoring the Department of Justice means that we have to rely on career known prosecutors who are known to be fearless and honest and accept their judgement even if we "know" that the people being investigated are guilty of more serious, but unprovable, crimes.

[JDPriestly]

91. This was a political move.

For different reasons, both the President and the right-wing politicians do not want the torture issue to dominate the news headlines for months to come.

[grantcart]

93. No it wasn't

It was delegated to a career DOJ of outstanding credentials who made a judgement based on the evidence he had.

There was no input from Holder.

This is how the law lays out the role of the AG and the President in administering the DOJ.


If Holder had any involvement in it we would be reading about in the NYT.

There is no evidence that Holder infringed on the professional responsibilities of Margolis:


A Justice official declined to explain why David Margolis softened the original finding, but noted that he is a highly respected career lawyer who acted without input from Holder. Yoo and Bybee (through his lawyer) declined requests for comment.



Those that allege otherwise, like the brazenly stupid FDL article on the subject, demonstrate that they have no working knowledge of how the Office of Professional Responsibility works.

By allowing the OPR to carry out their legal responsibilities without political pressure the AG is following the law.

Simply to assert that it was a political move simply demonstrates that you don't understand how the AGs office is structured by law. Bush/Gonzales/Rove involvement in cases and prosecutors was against the law. What you have now is not a political act but a professional one.

[sabrina 1]

101. Yes it was, and not the first one for Margolis.

He's a 'fixer' for the powerful, always has been. The question is, why is he still in the DOJ operating in the same old way, now it's torturers he's protecting, before it was the Republican slime in Alabama who falsely proecuted Don Siegelman and what was his role in the Plame case, the firing of the US Attorneys? He has been compared to a 'mafia' lawyer who comes in after the bodies are found, and cleans up the mess.

Again, what is this career 'fixer' doing in the Obama DOJ?

[JDPriestly]

102. The official DOJ decision does not really vindicate Woo and Bybee.

It states that they showed "poor judgment." Do you think that the DOJ official decision prohibits Bar Associations from reviewing the credentials of Yoo and Bybee?

I don't think so. I think that a Bar Association could read the report, apply the ethical standards of the Bar Association in the state in which these attorneys are licensed and take action. What do you think?

State Bar Associations have independent standards.

Clearly, a lawyer who advises a client who is not a president to violate a law is probably breaching ethical rules at least in California. Bush was Yoo's and Bybee's client. The Constitution states something to the effect that the president must uphold the law and the Constitution. It seems to me that, while they may not have violated the law, they may have violated their ethical duties by advising Bush that as the president he did not have to uphold laws about torture. Assuming that the California Bar Association has licensed one or the other of these lawyers, couldn't it determine that they violated ethical rules and take punitive action of some sort, perhaps short of disbarment? I don't think this decision dictates a course of action to a bar association. What do you think?

[sandnsea]

59. He let them walk

Just like he's let them walk since Iran/Contra. He manipulates people to get them to do government undercover work. He is not a prosecutor.

[JDPriestly]

90. And so we have the leak about the original report -- because this

"fixed" report is a political maneuver.

[grantcart]

94. Nothing in the "leak" indicates that the professional prosecutors disagree

with the report.

In fact the leak indicates a nuanced and legally established procedure.


Those that argue that Holder should instruct professional prosecutors what to do are


1) Arguing that the AG break the law

2) Arguing that the DOJ become a political wing of the administration and not an independent professional body that has a firewall proventing political interference.

3) Arguing for a precedent for future Republican administrations to put aside professional prosecutors judgement and insert that of political appointees instead.


Fortunately it is obvious that the DOJ operating procedure has returned to a rule of law, as supported by details of the leak.

[clear eye]

114. Holder has a history of doing only what the WH tells him to.

His proclamations after a bit of confusion in the first month or so have exactly matched what has come from the WH. There appears to be strict "message discipline".

His decision not to find fault w/ Margulies' report is the Administration's decision as a whole.

And overlooking blatant lawbreaking and anti-Constitutional advice which violates any federal official's oath of office is a terrible development.

[sabrina 1]

100. That diary is very heavily editorialized by the

author and from what I know of Margolis, the author of the diary got it all wrong. I'm familiar with that diarist, he's been very wrong before on other matters, so not a reliable source at all.

Margolis, eg, played a significant role in the Alabama Siegelman case. And in another case involving the same gang of corrupt Republicans who went after Siegelman. In both cases he interfered on the side of the same Republican, Canary, the person most responsible for the false prosecution of Don Siegelman. Here's a link to a Harper's article on Margolis, and his invovement in those two cases.

Prosecutorial Ethics Lite

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002121

He 'fixed' things for the corrupt Republicans in both cases, to the dismay of many legal experts, who most likely only knew of him as this supposed 'legend' but had not looked closely at him before.

He's another career insider like Gates, going from one administration to the next for approx. 40 years. True, he is said to be a 'legend' to the insiders, but so is Dick Cheney.

He's known as someone who 'cleans up messes' when things start getting beyond the control of the powerful. He has said so himself.

'A clean-up guy for the powerful' ~ He's smart, and would not compromise himself, as in the Goodling and Sampson cares. Once they showed him the emails he was not going to risk pretending he never saw them. I haven't done enough research to know how or whether he was able to do much in that case, to 'clean up the mess' but as far as I know, no one has been yet been held accountable for the firing of the US Attorneys.

In this case, having him dismiss this the criminal actions of the torturers would fit right in with his past history. Make things alright for the powerful! Why he is still there is a mystery, considering 'Change' was the mantra of this administration.

I think this should be protested vehemently and his ethics in making this decision severely questioned. In fact that should have happened a long time ago.

Maybe there is a way for the ACLU to get involved. I don't know much about law so I don't know how they could involve themselves. But I think Mr. Margolis' manufactered reputation is about undergo a change.

[clear eye]

113. NIce try.

Anything to distract from the President's responsibility.

[FlyByNight]

11. Ah, this must be part of that "looking forward"...

...horseshit we kept hearing about. Evidently, the laws only apply to we the people and not those who occupy (or once occupied) top level government (or private) positions.

Atty. Gen. Holder and the OPR seem to be pretty much worthless. I think the republic is dead.

:thumbsdown:

[Solly Mack]

13. American war criminals are somehow different...better...less offensive

not as bad....as other war criminals



You might even say that America's war criminals put the exception in exceptionalism

[Mr. Sparkle]

14. Eric Holder should resign, i have not confidence in him and his abily to do his job.

John Yoo is the guy would defined torture downwards where he said "torture" is where there is an organ failure that has been intentionally inflicted.

He was also the guy Ashcroft blocked from getting the job as United States Assistant Attorney General in the office of legal counsel, whom he called Dr. Yes as there was nothing he would not do for Cheney.

Prof Jack Goldsmith ( a conservation professor) who did get the job, after reviewing Yoo's work deemed much of it illegal and stopped the administration continuousness use of Yoo's draconian approved actions.

This is the guy "career veteran David Margolis" has said used “poor judgment” ... hmmm

imo, David Margolis has just said that if an administration appointed the dumbest mofo there is, to the OLC, where he gives approval to just about anything the president, or in this case , the vice president wants. There shall be no repercussion's, no matter how illegal it was.

Unbelievable!

[slay]

19. +1... And the cover-up continues..

fucking sickening.. my country makes me sick.. :puke:

[sandnsea]

28. And so why not go after the career guy, Margolis?

He's the one that keeps turning up in all these White House cases that go nowhere.

[avaistheone1]

104. Holder has got to go.

He has no credibility left.

[Luciferous]

16. I'm disgusted, but not surprised

[proReality]

17. It's like Alice Through The Looking Glass

Everything is backward and upside down.

[L. Coyote]

85. beginning 2000.12.12

and no change yet.

[EFerrari]

18. What a crock.

[pink-o]

21. Letting this slide is as serious a blow to our democracy as the SCOTUS decision last week!

Talk about a slippery slope! Ford pardoned Nixon, and since then nobody in power has been held accountable for any heinous acts. Not Reagan, or Bush 41 for Iran/Contra, not Cheney and Bush 2 for (well, pick a crime!). Now it's just spiraling out of control! I thought we were a nation of laws, not of men. Our founders must be spinning! This is not what they foresaw when they drafted a government that rejected absolute power!

[conservdem]

22. Can others refer the matter to the state bar association?

[L0oniX]

23. No surprise there. War criminals and traitors go free is the status quo.

Same ol same ol

[ooglymoogly]

24. KR nt

[Hissyspit]

29. The Siegelman criminals. Yoo and Bybee. No politicization of DoJ? This IS

Politicization. The politics of "looking forward/no accountability."

SPENCER TRACY as CHIEF JUDGE DAN HAYWOOD in Judgment At Nuremberg (1961): "You were speaking of crimes against humanity... saying that the defendants were not responsible for their acts.

I'd like you to explain that to me."

JUDGE CURTISS IVES: "I've just been explaining it."

JUDGE HAYWOOD: "Maybe.

But all I've heard is a lot of legalistic double-talk and rationalization.

You know, Curtiss, when I first became a judge... I knew there were certain people in town I wasn't supposed to touch. I knew that if I was to remain a judge, this was so. But how in God's name do you expect me to look the other way... at the murder of six million people?"

JUDGE KENNETH NORRIS: "I'm sure he didn't mean that."

JUGE IVES: "I'm not asking you to look the other way at them. I'm asking you, what good is it going to do
to pursue this policy?"

JUDGE HAYWOOD: "Curtiss, you were saying that the men are not responsible for their acts.

You're going to have to explain that to me.

You're going to have to explain it
very carefully."

...

JUDGE HAYWOOD: "The tribunal is now in session.

God bless the United States of America and this honorable tribunal.

The trial conducted before this tribunal began over eight months ago.

The record of evidence is more than 10,000 pages long... and final arguments of counsel have been concluded.

Simple murders and atrocities do not constitute... the gravamen of the charges in this indictment.

Rather, the charge is that of conscious participation
in a nationwide, government-organized system... of cruelty and injustice...
in violation of every moral and legal principle known to all civilized nations.

The tribunal has carefully studied the record and found therein abundant evidence to support... beyond a reasonable doubt...
the charges against these defendants.

Herr Rolfe... in his very skillful defense...
has asserted that there are others who must share the ultimate responsibility for what happened here in Germany.

There is truth in this.

The real complaining party at the bar in this courtroom...
is civilization.

But the tribunal does say that the men in the dock are responsible for their actions.

Men who sat in black robes in judgment on other men.

Men who took part in the enactment of laws and decrees the purpose of which was the extermination of human beings.

Men who, in executive positions actively participated in the enforcement of these laws illegal even under German law.

The principle of criminal law in every civilized society...

has this in common:

Any person
who sways another
to commit murder...

any person who furnishes...

the lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime...

any person who is an accessory to the crime...

is guilty.

Herr Rolfe further asserts that the defendant Janning was an extraordinary jurist and acted in what he thought
was the best interest of his country.

There is truth in this also.

Janning, to be sure is a tragic figure. We believe he loathed the evil he did.

But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and the death of millions by the government of which he was a part.

Janning's record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial.

If he and all of the other defendants had been degraded perverts...

If all of the leaders of the Third Reich had been sadistic monsters and maniacs then these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake, or any other natural catastrophe.
But this trial has shown that under a national crisis ordinary, even able and extraordinary men, can delude themselves into the commission of crimes, so vast and heinous that they beggar the imagination.

No one who has sat through the trial can ever forget them.

Men sterilized because of political belief.
A mockery made of friendship and faith.
The murder of children.

How easily it can happen.

There are those in our own country, too, who today speak of the protection of country, of survival.

A decision must be made in the life of every nation...

At the very moment
when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat.

Then it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy...
to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way.


Only, the answer to that is: Survival as what?

A country isn't a rock.

It's not an extension of one's self.

It's what it stands for.

It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult.


Before the people of the world,

let it now be noted,

that here in our decision,

this is what we stand for:


Justice.


Truth.


And the value of a single human being."

[sandnsea]

35. And David Margolis is in the middle

I was just starting to read about his part in Siegelman. Do you already know and can save me some time?

[Hissyspit]

37. Here's some:

http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/10/05/whistle-blower-claims-in-siegelman-case-unfounded-office-says

Whistle-Blower Claims in Siegelman Case Unfounded, Office Says
By Stephanie Woodrow | October 5, 2009

The Office of Special Counsel says in a new report it found no evidence to support a whistle-blower’s claims that the U.S. Attorney’s office for Middle District of Alabama acted inappropriately in its public corruption prosecution of former Gov. Donald E. Siegelman (D) and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

The OSC launched the investigation following allegations by Tamarah Grimes, a former paralegal in the office, who alleged officials in the district did not report improper jury communications, among other things. The OSC is an independent agency with jurisdiction only to look into Grimes’s claims that she was retaliated against as a whistle-blower. She was fired in July, which she said was due to her attempt to expose the misconduct – a claim the DOJ denied.

Grimes also claimed the Middle District caused the government to incur unnecessary costs due to gross mismanagement. She said victim impact funds were misused and that U.S. Attorney Leura Canary abused her authority by obstructing an Office of Personal Responsibility investigation into the conduct of Assistant U.S. Attorney Randolph Neely. She also said officials launched a DOJ Office of Inspector General investigation into her conduct following her whistle-blowing.


http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2009/10/department-of-justice-pulls-whitewash.html

MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2009
Department of Justice Pulls a Whitewash on Siegelman Whistleblower

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) long ago proved that it should not be taken seriously, particularly in matters connected to former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

OSC did not help its already sullied reputation with a recent finding that whistleblower Tamarah Grimes' allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in the Siegelman case were "unsubstantiated."

OSC's report is dubious on its face. It fails to address perhaps Grimes' two most serious allegations--that U.S. Attorney Leura Canary remained involved with the case after her supposed recusal and that prosecutors pressured witnesses to remember events a certain way.

It is interesting to note that those two charges can clearly be substantiated--the first with e-mail evidence that Grimes provided to the Department of Justice, the second with similar accounts from a number of other individuals. Is that why OSC did not want to touch those issues? Does that raise questions about the validity of OSC's entire investigation?

The report becomes even more dubious when you consider OSC's recent history. Federal agents raided the office of former OSC chief Scott J. Bloch in May 2008 amid allegations of improper political bias and obstruction of justice. The New York Times reported that agents were trying to determine if Bloch, a 2003 George W. Bush appointee, had hired an outside firm to scrub his computer.

Gee, where would a Bush loyalist ever come up with such an idea?

As we reported last November, substantial evidence indicates Bloch and associate deputy attorney general David Margolis did their best to sweep Grimes' allegations under the rug and protect Leura Canary. And it appears that Bloch, before leaving office with the feds on his tail, removed Grimes' most serious allegations--making sure investigators would not even look into them.

How bad have things been at OSC in recent years? Consider this article from governmentexecutive.com in May 2009. It provides a searing analysis of the agency's woes:
The Office of Special Counsel is an independent oversight agency charged with protecting federal employees from prohibited personnel practices, particularly whistleblower retaliation. For an agency that must build a reputation for fairness with federal employees and other agencies, scandals like the ones during Bloch's tenure can be especially harmful.

"There was a lot of damage done," says former Deputy Special Counsel Timothy Hannapel, who served under Clinton-appointed Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan. "We'd tried to put the agency on a new path to credibility and . . . it was all just erased and in a drastic way, with the credibility of the agency at rock bottom."

The agency's credibility is "at rock bottom," according to a former insider? And we are supposed to believe that OSC conducted a fair, thorough investigation of Tamarah Grimes' charges?

Things do not appear to have gotten any better at OSC in recent weeks. With Bloch's exit, William E. Reukauf became interim special counsel. Reukauf issued the report on Grimes' allegations, and his biography raises questions about whether he was able to approach the task in an impartial manner.

Reukauf is described in press reports as a career Department of Justice employee. But he was elevated to the role of associate special counsel in 1985, under the Reagan administration. He was appointed interim special counsel by George W. Bush.

A source tells Legal Schnauzer that Washington, D.C., insiders say Reukauf is a "Bush flunkie" and has been one since at least 1983. Our source also says that Reukauf worked for President George H.W. Bush about the time that Bill Canary worked in the White House as a special assistant for intergovernmental affairs.

Consider this item from Bill Canary's biography:

A former local elected official, Canary has an extensive background in the public policy and governmental arenas. In 1989, President George H. W. Bush appointed him to serve in the White House as special assistant to the president for intergovernmental affairs.

Canary, now head of the Business Council of Alabama, just happens to be married to . . . Leura Canary. Mr. Reukauf wouldn't have issued a seriously flawed report in order to save the skin of his buddy's wife, would he?

Tamarah Grimes was quick to point out the dysfunctional environment from which the OSC report sprang. Says Grimes:


The OSC report dated 9-29-09 is particularly egregious in that its conclusions are based on DOJ’s internal investigation. The gist of the OSC report is: Based upon information obtained from DOJ, in an investigation conducted by DOJ, we conclude that DOJ acted reasonably and within statutory limitations.

No one has been appointed as special counsel since former Special Counsel Scott Bloch resigned under a cloud of controversy late last year. Thus, based upon the OSC reports, it would appear that the Office of Special Counsel is a rudderless organization where no one is willing to stick his or her neck out for fear of reprisal.

After observing my fate and the fate of other whistleblowers, who could blame them? The irony is that the OSC is “the” whistleblower organization!

Grimes notes the high cost she has paid for bringing prosecutorial misconduct to public attention. She says change is desperately needed in the federal government's whistleblowing procedures:


None of this is likely to change unless the public demands change from the only entity with the authority to investigate–Congress. Congress has oversight authority over DOJ.

Today my life and my career are in shambles for performing my duty as a federal employee, for telling the truth and speaking out. Tomorrow it could be anyone--for without accountability, there is no justice.

Will anyone hold Leura Canary and her henchmen in the Middle District of Alabama accountable? Does anyone in the Barack Obama administration, particularly Attorney General Eric Holder, have a clue what is going on in "The Heart of Dixie"? Will Congress ever carry out its duty and investigate the Bush DOJ?

We still are waiting for answers to those questions.
Then-Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey ordered an investigation, which was headed by Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis and conducted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Ronald R. Gallegos of Arizona and Steven K. Mullins of the Western District of Oklahoma. After DOJ determined Grimes’ claims were unfounded, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) and House Judiciary commercial and administration law subcommittee Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) requested an additional investigation.

The second investigation by OSC “confirmed DOJ’s initial investigation findings that no improper communication with the jury occurred,” according to this analysis of disclosures, agency investigations and reports, by William E. Reukauf, associate special counsel at OSC. The report is broken into eight parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7 and Part 8. Reukauf signed off on the second investigation in a letter to President Obama.

Siegelman argues he was targeted for prosecution for political reasons. He has appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court.

[sandnsea]

41. He's supposed to be fearless

and yet nothing ever comes of any of his investigations into the Bush White House. I don't get it.

[Hissyspit]

42. And this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/5/62425/22619

David Margolis: USAGate's Deep Throat
by drational

Sat May 05, 2007 at 04:55:36 AM PST

Yesterday we learned from an astonishing Bloomberg article that David Margolis, a career DOJ employee testified to the HJC about the existence of secret Kyle Sampson emails that reveal the central role of the White House in organizing and directing the Prosecutor Purge.

Although Margolis, age 67, is outranked by Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling (36, and 33, respectively), Margolis was the man in whom they confided on March 8, 2007 about the incredible mess they were in as a result of White House manipulation.

So who is Margolis? See below the fold for why he is one of the most likely reasons that the truth will be told in this scandal.

[sandnsea]

45. But nothing ever happened

He takes these investigations so far - and then they just disappear.

[Hissyspit]

46. Yup.

I don't know.

[sandnsea]

56. What is Restricted Access Group One?

Knowing that I am not a big CIA cocaine conspiracy theorist, but it's interesting Margolis' name shows up with these others -- anywhere, conspiracy or not.

"In the words of Al Martin, ret. Navy Lt. Commander (who worked directly with Bush Sr.’s men on Iran Contra and who testified for Kerry’s Iran Contra hearings):

“Since (Bush-appointee Richard) Armitage is currently the Under Secretary of State, he is in charge of the Foreign Narcotics Control Office of the State Department, which is supposed to control cocaine and heroin…. The famous quote by Kerry Committee senior panel member Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii (D-Hawaii) should be noted. When Armitage was put under oath, he kept calling him (Armitage) "Mr. Cocaine" instead of "Mr. Secretary…."

“Armitage was also a member of the restricted access group known as RAG-1 (Restricted Access Group One) along with Elliott Abrams, Clair George, Attorney General Ed Meese, David Margolis, Chief of Domestic Criminal Operations of the Department of Justice, and Mark Richards, Chief of the International Criminal Division of the Department of Justice… The purpose of RAG-1 was first to develop and then to coordinate the CIA’s policy of trafficking in narcotics on a large-scale basis, in order to produce ongoing covert revenue streams pursuant to the aid and sustenance of illegal operations of state.

http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/5254.php

[Hissyspit]

66. Don't know, but it sounds yuck. From Iran-Contra cover-up:

I had forgotten about Margolis.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4332457


http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:eAFqIGxF8mkJ:www.democrats.com/view.cfm%3Fid%3D7506+david+margolis+and++Iran-Contra&hl=en&lr=lang_en

From Iran-Contra cover-up

The man who replaced Louis Freeh as FBI director that summer was Robert Mueller, a man whose name was way near the bottom of the list of people the FBI considered best for the job. But Mueller had qualities that put him at the very top of G.W. Bush's list. In the 1980s, Mueller was third in command in the FBI under under George Terwilliger. Mueller apparently put in a lot of overtime working to keep the Iran-Contra scheme under wraps, and then, once things got sticky for Reagan, helped the Dept. of Justice's Domestic Criminal Secition Chief Dave Margolis and International Criminal Section Chief Mark Richards limit liability for Reagan, and then Bush, Sr. According to political watchdog Al Martin, Mueller personally handled damage containment for Bush Sr. during Bush's potentially scandalous dealings with Jordanian coffee merchant Mansour Barbouti. Barbouti was involved in the illegal exportation of chemicals used in chemical weapons to both Iraq and Iran.

So, while on the FBI payroll technically, Mueller appeared to have worked in actuality as a master cover up artist for Republican presidents involved in scheming and intrigues. So...what better man could Bush, involved up to his eyebrows in scheming and intrigues, want? If Mueller could shield Bush, Sr. and Reagan from consequences while just the No. 3 man - just imagine the tracks he could sweep clean as FBI director!



http://denverpost.ezboard.com/fdenverpostnewsfrm8.showMessage?topicID=103.topic

Lee Radek has been Chief of the Public Integrity Section for a very long time. He has acted with his confederates within the DoJ, namely Dave Margolis, then Chief of the Domestic Criminal Section and Mark Richards, then Chief of the International Criminal Section of the DoJ. These three men, operating under the auspices of Deputy Attorney General George Terwilliger, essentially managed the Iran-Contra Cover-up for the Department of Justice.

I have talked with Dave Margolis several times. The only thing he ever did was threaten me. He would say to me that if I revealed anything to congressional committees, or if I leaked any thing out into the press, that I would be subject to all sorts of unpleasant things. Everything was "national security" with these guys.

...
Radek, Margolis, Richards and Scruggs were all involved in the so-called Reagan-Bush kidnapping policies that started in 1986 and were extant until 1991. It involved kidnapping both US and foreign citizens on foreign soil. After the US Supreme Court in its 1986 landmark decision gave the administration the right to use "extralegal" procedures to bring foreign fugitives before American courts. There were 21 in all who were kidnapped, mostly those who were under indictment for cocaine trafficking in the United States. The commonality is that all of these cocaine traffickers were controlled by the CIA. In their own defense, they had all begun to leak out information to Congress and the media about their connections to the CIA. That's why they were targeted for kidnapping.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1697382

Career Lawyer Gets Oversight of CIA Probe

David Margolis, a lawyer at the Justice Department for 40 years, was named Friday to oversee a special prosecutor's investigation of who in the Bush administration disclosed the name of an undercover CIAofficer.

Margolis, whose title is associate deputy attorney general, is taking the place of Deputy Attorney General James Comey, whose last day of work was Friday. Comey will be Lockheed Martin's new general counsel. Comey made the designation of Margolis. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has stepped aside from the probe because he was White House counsel when Valerie Plame's name was leaked in 2003 and he has testified to the grand jury investigating the unauthorized disclosure.

Comey gave broad discretion to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago when he was appointed to investigate the leak in December 2003. Margolis is not expected to alter Fitzgerald's mandate in what are likely to be the final months of his investigation. The grand jury ends its term in October. No one has been charged in the Plame case. However, it's known that Karl Rove, a top aide to President Bush, and Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, discussed Plame with reporters before her name was first published by columnist Robert Novak in July 2003.

[grantcart]

48. Just becuase Yoo and Bybee are unethical bastards doesn't mean that they

weren't clever in using language to minimize thier personal risk and hide evidence that would be damning to them.

For the same reason I have always been doubtful that any 'smoking gun' would ever be found on Bush.

And for the same reason I believe that Cheney was careless and his hubris meant that his signature is on all kinds of questionable memos, and that is the reason that he is taking such a public position against Obama. Any prosecution against Obama is going to look like a political and not a criminal act.

[sandnsea]

57. That's why the WMD lies are tough to get at

I've read all those reports and they really did hedge just enough to be able to say they didn't lie.

But in this case, Margolis appears to have acted on his own, that's why I started googling on him and his name is just popping up all over the place.

[clear eye]

115. And Holder didn't reject Margolis' memo. n/t

[Hissyspit]

36. Friggin' news dump, too.

A frozen Saturday.

[Solly Mack]

38. +1

[winyanstaz]

33. This makes the current administration AND these judges...

Equally guilty of war crimes and covering up murder.
It is total bullshit but what else can we expect from the same courts that just sold us to the highest bidder?

[benld74]

40. NO BIG SUPRISE - HAve you forgotten Reagan-Bush-Contras-Ollie North?

Did Ollie North commit a crime? In his mind NO, because of his LOVE for the country and doing what the President told him to do. Did he do any time? NO. Did Reagan? NO Bush HA! NEver!
Same type of the same ole quid pro quo formula
but now its another generation, another fake war, another means to get what THEY THINK THEY NEED at the time.


These guys are like slugs
They can sit on the razors edge of the law
Never get cut
Never wound themselves
Never bleed

[Thothmes]

92. Or LBJ or Robert McNamara, Another generation

another fake war.

[Doctor_J]

47. Maybe after the cameras shut off at the Q&A, the prez winked and said

"Just kidding - I'm on your side"

[ooglymoogly]

63. He didn't have to; If they do not know that by now they

are even dumber than we think they are.

[classysassy]

52. Big fish and little fish

the justice department prefer small fish,so they throw back the big ones.Are the jails over crowed with petty crooks(mostly black and hispanics),there is no room for the big fat white criminals? Just another day without justice in america.

[Ticonderoga]

54. I'm not an Atty.

So I have a question. If these schmucks acted on "our behalf" at the "pleasure" of fearless leader, and tortured and murdered innocents in our name, against our will. Why can't a class action be brought against them. Do they have complete immunity from prosecution?

[fascisthunter]

61. Actions should Define People, not their Words

pretty speeches aside, there is very little to applaud to. Things just keep getting worse.

[davidwparker]

62. One of the reasons that I was not a Hillary supporter in the primary was

because her less half swept under the rug the Iran-Contra crimes.

At least Obama can give a great speech.

:sarcasm:

[sandnsea]

69. Margolis is connected to Iran/Contra

So let's not be so quick to jump on Obama personally, and maybe help uncover this Margolis ratfucker instead.

[ooglymoogly]

74. I guess I went with O (only after it became a two candidate

race) because he did not always, note the word always, play the bible thumper card; And he had a good rap, which actions have, in no way, born out; Except (still to be seen, but promising at this point) Sotto Mayor. But the main reason at that time was she was statistically not able to win and her Lie-berman, McCain love affair. Her rock bottom positives have increased considerably to date as they should. If an election were held today and the only choices were Hillery and 0,I think she would win in a landslide.

[KoKo]

70. Eric Holder, Obama....Place Markers... n/t

[sulphurdunn]

72. Powers behind the shadow curtain

of representative government no longer acquiesce to even the appearance of legal accountability for the crimes of their servants.

[JDPriestly]

75. I am disgusted.

So, let's see, that kid who just put graffiti on your neighbor's fence, did he just "exercise bad judgment"? Or should he be arraigned and sentenced to do a certain number of hours of community service?

Then there is the kid who got scared walking home from work in a gang-infested era and broke into a car. Should he be arraigned and sentenced or excused because he exercised bad judgment at the age of 17?

How about the seven-year-old who along with his older brothers and sisters broke into a neighbor's house? How much time should he spend in Juvenile Hall?

And the irate wife and mother of four who created a scene in the courtroom when the judge in her divorce case ruled that her husband could keep all the money? Should she spend a couple of days in jail for contempt?

Bybee and Woo did not exercise bad judgment. They sold their integrity for their jobs and their careers. Talk about a deal with the Devil. Bybee and Woo . . . . . . .

[Goldstein1984]

76. Unfortunate

Another step away from the moral high ground.

[treestar]

77. This is like admitting the Nazis should have free speech too

As Jefferson said, the only anecdote to it should be more speech.

Likewise, it does no good to say the same of a lawyer. The jerk repukes could get into power and they in fact would prosecute lawyers for advising someone they did have rights.

[RufusTFirefly]

78. Note how opposing torture is spun as some left-wing obsession?

And how an insidious false equivalency is set up?
On the one hand, the right didn't like Holder's handling of the "terra" suspects. And on the other, the left has this silly little objection to torture.

Gee, I guess that makes things even then.

Not.

[defendandprotect]

79. TORTURE was/is against military laws, as well -- isn't it?

[Jefferson23]

80. .."poor judgment does not constitute professional misconduct."

SO they know the fucking God damn intent?? And that means they are cleared....then we are offically fucked.

God damn them all.

[bkohatlanta]

81. Zieg Heil, Mr. Obama and Mr. George W. Bush. Thanks, the Dream didn't DIE in the Bunker!

Zieg Heil!

[bkohatlanta]

82. Mark Fuller, Alice Martin and Leura Canary's jobs must be Safe Too!

When someone has no moral compass like George W. Bush and Barack Obama, then expect War Crimes, Atrocities and Crimes Against Humanity. John Yoo isn't the only one who should be shipped off to the Hague(or Nuremberg).

[midnight]

83. K&R.

[Hubert Flottz]

84. All of these goons will be back in power soon and the next time

they might round up the democrats.

[sulphurdunn]

87. Of course.

Being a Democrat means excusing upper echelon Republican miscreants from prosecution for such felonies and high crimes as bribery, extortion, warmongering, theft, treason, torture and murder when Democrats are in power and facilitating them when they are not.

[fan of the arts]

97. That's a fact

Not to mention continuing wars, bank corruption and cronyism and propaganda. And yet, gullible suckers still think "change" is possible when none of the things that need changed were changed.

We have an entire culture of propagandized dupes.

[cstanleytech]

86. Pretty clear this was purely a political decision

but it still leaves a foul taste in my mouth to let them escape without consequences.

[Grassy Knoll]

88. We all know what they were about........

Chin up and go forward.
http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~hujc4/QR/circus+freaks.JPG

[rhett o rick]

95. There can be no question that we are engaged in a class war. The ruling class all stick together.

They may fight over how to steal our money but they will not prosecute each other.

[sabrina 1]

96. They were working for the Empire. No one who works for the

Empire will ever be prosecuted. The little people can kick and scream all they want, it doesn't matter. We would have to live in a democracy to expect that the rule of law to be applied equally. Some people are more equal than others.

Margolis obviously didn't know the rules at first, probably thought this was still a democracy. I'm sure someone got in touch with him and explained how it all works so he could come up with the right results.

The only hope now is that the Spanish Court goes forward with its investigation. Airc, they said they were waiting to see if the U.S. would handle their own war criminals.

[earcandle]

98. Disgusting and criminal, in my opinion

[vanboggie]

99. WTF

:banghead:

[JBoy]

103. And the US's enemies snicker as they fail another test of moral leadership.

Can't uphold the rule of law abroad if you don't uphold it at home.

[wordpix]

107. so according to Yoo, wartime powers include overriding a federal law banning torture

and I guess anything else BushCo wanted to do. Reich On! :puke: Yet these guys skate. And Margolis acted without input from Holder. Interesting---Holder wants no say in the report. Maybe this is a trial balloon to see how the public reacts, and then Holder will step in and review the report.

Or else, this is just damn terrible. Period.

[Lost4words]

111. Eric Holder, whom I have HAD much respect for, appears spineless.

the entire Obama justice dept seems inept to the extreme.

[Hubert Flottz]

108. Beacon of Bullshit...

Human rights...we don't need no stinkin' human rights...here in the fourth Reich.

[Lost4words]

109. drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip,

call me if anything ever gets better.