and all…

Posted on Friday 8 February 2008


… But no one seems to get the reason why Bush has forced this stand-off with the Senate. As I pointed out several weeks ago, the re-appointment of Bradbury–whether or not he is confirmed – serves as a control on Mukasey from now until the end of Bush’s Adminstration: "…the re-appointment guarantees that Bradbury can continue to act as OLC head through the end of Bush’s term. It ensures that Dick and Addington have their stool (in both senses of the word, I suspect) in the heart of DOJ, preventing any real roll-back of Dick’s Constitutional atrocities. No matter what Mukasey’s intentions, it seems, Bush and Dick now have their insurance that Mukasey can only do so much to fix this Administration’s shredding of the Constitution."

More importantly, as yesterday’s HJC hearing proves, having Bradbury in OLC authorizing whatever atrocities BushCo dream up gives them immunity from federal prosecution for those atrocities; Attorney General Mukasey has made it clear that he will not investigate or prosecute anything that has OLC sanction. The very best we can wish for, from Mukasey, is that he won’t sign off on any more Pixie Dust and Waterboarding opinions (though that assumes that Addington and Bradbury will show him the opinions, which may not be a safe assumption).

George Bush would forgo all his other 84 appointments because he wants to remain safe from prosecution and probably would like the insurance of immunity for any of his actions going forward. Democrats need to make this clear – Bradbury is about more than a personnel dispute, it’s about whether the President is above the law.
Day after day, we listen to the myriad of ways the Bush Administration uses legal loopholes, secrecy, logic games, whatever it takes to actively undermine the very government they are supposed to be running. This one is particularly aggregious. They garnered legal opinions from Steven Bradbury, John Yoo, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, and others to cover their asses when they secretly broke the Law. These opinions say that the President is the law, that waterboarding isn’t Torture, that domestic surveillance without oversight isn’t an invasion of privacy, etc. etc. Now that Alberto Gonzales and his cadre at the Department of Justice are gone, we have a new generation inm Michael Mucasey who won’t investigate his predecessors. We’ve now had a year of Hearings since the 2006 break on the Republican stranglehold on Congress and they’ve obstructed, stonewalled, destroyed email, refused to turn over documents, and barrelled ahead with their same sheenanigans.

The matter of Steven Bradbury is a big deal. He holds the Office of Legal Counsel, the office responsible for legal opinions for the Executive Branch. Here are some of his connections [from Muckity]:

 

 

So, he’s in all the right clubs to be in Bush’s DOJ. He’s an active Federalist Society member. He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. He’s acting in an office the Senate refuses to confirm him for because of his involvement with "the Torture Memo." Bush’s OLC from 2001-2003 was Jay Bybee. The memo in question was framed by John Yoo of the DOJ with Steven Bradbury involved. It is the center of the storm around the Bush Administration’s Torture policies. If you read it, you’ll find that Torture was defined so as to allow almost anything that didn’t disfigure the victim. Bybee and Yoo moved on and were replaced by Jack Goldsmith in 2003 who lasted only nine months:

Office of Legal Counsel

The office provides legal opinions and advice to the president and the executive branch on legal issues of special importance or complexity, including the limits of executive power. Goldsmith resigned after 9 months. Some claimed that he resigned after a failed attempt to moderate what he considered the constitutional excesses of the legal policies embraced by his White House superiors in the war on terror. Goldsmith himself claims that he largely succeeded in correcting what he saw as overbroad legal opinions issued by his predecessors at OLC. In his book, The Terror Presidency, he claims he resigned partly in an attempt to ensure those corrections stuck and partly because he felt he had lost the confidence of administration leaders. He does not specify who those leaders were, but notes that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales several times asked him to remain while David Addington, then the legal counsel to the Vice-President and an influential White House figure, was concerned with how often he had overturned previous OLC opinions.

The Terror Presidency

He is the author of The Terror Presidency, a book that details the legal issues the Bush administration faced and continues to face in the war on terror, including the definition of torture, the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the war on terror and the Iraq War, the detention and trial of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, and wiretapping laws. Though he is largely sympathetic with the concerns of the Bush administration’s terrorism policies, his primary claim is that the administration’s focus on the hard power of prerogative rather than the soft power of persuasion had been counterproductive, both in the war on terror and in the extension of effective executive authority. Some of the assertions made in the book include that the current Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, David Addington, at one point said that "we’re one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious court," referring to the secret FISA court that rules on warrants for secret wiretapping by the United States government.

He appeared on Bill Moyers’ show on September 7, 2007 to discuss his work, and his time in Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital room when Alberto GonzalesAndrew Card attempted to persuade Ashcroft to change his mind about the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretap program. He reported that Mrs. Ashcroft stuck her tongue out at Gonzales and Card as they left the room. and White House Chief of Staff
Goldsmith was a good guy. He’s a conservative, but also an honest man who tried to set things right. Now Bush keeps nominating Bradbury for the job. The Senate keeps not confirming him. emptywheel is probably right about Bush’s stubborn stonewalling about Bradbury – it’s a way of hiding what really happened from close scrutiny and blocking investigations.

It’s interesting to speculate about why Bush and Cheney have been so unwilling to give up the Torture thing. They could have easily bailed out of it a long time ago. The Bybee Memo was written in August 2002. There have been innumerable opportunities for Bush/Cheney to back down with no cost to themselves, but both men are still advocating this policy – today. One could hypothesize that they just can’t tolerate being wrong, or having anyone question them. Or you could guess that they really think Torture is a swell idea – that the Geneva Conventions are for sissies. But I think there’s more. They don’t want anyone nosing around what they did, because as much as we know already, I expect there’s a lot more that we don’t know about what went on. And I’ll bet there are a lot of pieces of paper that will turn up missing like the Presidential emails. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have been very bad boys. We know that. But it’s what we don’t know that’s driving them right now. They saw what happened to Nixon when the lights came on. If we don’t Impeach the both of them, they’re going to cover their tracks so well we’ll never really have the full story. And Steven Bradbury is probably not the only secret keeper in place.

When the bough breaks
The cradle will fall
And down will come baby
Cradle and all
  1.  
    joyhollywood
    February 9, 2008 | 9:30 AM
     

    I have a feeling that Bush,Cheney and Bradbury know that Steven Bradbury would be in as much trouble as they would be if someone other than Bradbury did his job. I also feel that Mukasey has told them that he can only stop the investigations if Bradbury stays on the job and if they can’t keep the guy he will have no other choice but to investigate the whole operation which is not pretty. There is a limit to what he can do. I do wish that there was someone who said enough corruption, you are ruining our country and making a mockery of our Constitution. So far we have Jack Goldsmith and Paul O’Neil but not a big enough names to expose the poison to the media to remove Britney Spears off the cover story of the day. I always believed that you don’t burn bridges but I’d have to say that in Bush/Cheney’s case that theory has to go out the window. I hope when the true and whole story of the most corrupt and mean spirited presidental administration comes out, that I will be alive to read it. Of course we need a new administration to open all the dams of corruption and I wish I could ask Obama and Clinton at one of the final debates if they would give an executive order doing just that. I don’t want Obama or Clinton saying in the sake of unity that we don’t need to open the floodgates of the former administration. I want them to reveal the mess and prevent it from happening again. Of course Frank Church commission was supposed to stop that from happening but Bush and Cheney did starting with the Fisa court.

  2.  
    February 9, 2008 | 1:32 PM
     

    Joy,

    “I also feel that Mukasey has told them that he can only stop the investigations if Bradbury stays on the job and if they can’t keep the guy he will have no other choice but to investigate the whole operation which is not pretty.”

    That’s brilliant! It explains why the otherwise somewhat reasonable Mukasey is acting so “Gonzales-like” on this issue. Thanks for the insight…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.