Senior Justice Department Lawyers are INCENSED at the WH

[polichick]

"Senior Justice Department lawyers are “incensed” at the White House for waging a frontal assault on the autonomy and independence of the criminal justice system. Scott Horton on how it can backfire.

On Sunday, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, appearing on ABC’s This Week, underscored that President Obama had promised that CIA agents who acted in reliance on Bush era Justice Department memoranda approving torture techniques but since repudiated would not face criminal investigation or prosecution. Then he went one step further, stating “those who devised the policy, he believes that they were—should not be prosecuted either.” A few hours later White House press secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated Emanuel’s remarks as official policy. But during the course of the day on Tuesday the White House appeared suddenly to shift gears. President Obama, responding to a reporter’s question, declared that he was not prejudging a possible criminal investigation or prosecution of "those who formulated those legal decisions" behind the interrogation methods.What happened?

President Obama’s reversal on investigating and prosecuting Bush administration officials for their involvement in the torture policy was prompted mainly by Obama’s own Justice Department, especially “incensed” at chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s perceived politicization of the issue."


http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-22/obamas-about-face-on-prosecution/

[jefferson_dem]

1. This incident reflected poorly coordinated communication among adminstration officials, at least.

n/t

[polichick]

6. I suppose it could work in favor of the people though...

Maybe incensed lawyers will lead to justice served.

[tomp]

14. what happened to the chess-player-in-chief?

[polichick]

19. Do you think Rahm said what he did to set things in motion??

[Qutzupalotl]

28. I don't.

I think he either misunderstood Obama's earlier statements about the CIA to mean no prosecutions at all of anybody (an honest mistake, which Gibbs and many DUers made too); or more nefariously, Rahm wanted to quash any deep investigations into this, for reasons yet unknown to me. Given the inflammatory nature of the subject, I don't see how he could have reasonably thought torture investigations could be suppressed; such a move would suggest irrational desperation like we're seeing from Cheney.

Obama's later statement was clearer and more constitutionally correct: the Justice Department has to lead this investigation, and the WH has to get out of the way. What Obama wants or doesn't want here should be irrelevant.

[tomp]

39. i always assume the worst about the government until proven otherwise.

and i passionately distrust rahm emanuel.

i also think obama telegraphed his intention regarding war criminals when he accepted the endorsement of colin powell, praised him, and gave him an open invitation to work with him.

that was when i became an obama "hater".

i also never imagine i know what's "really" going on. all of these players, including obama, are slick and the layers run very deep.

[polichick]

40. I was thinking of Powell this morning - would he have been in the torture loop?

[tomp]

51. funny how he's not even being mentioned.

why would he not have been in the loop?

[polichick]

52. Finally, they're talking about him this morning (at least on msnbc)...

Yeah, it's likely he knew - as you say, why wouldn't he?

[Cha]

37. No worries..President Obama is

doing fine.

[HereSince1628]

2. Emanuel needs more training on the leash.

Doberman Pincers must follow, not lead.

[annabanana]

3. As well they SHOULD be... It's not the job of the WH to speak for

the DOJ.

8 years of the criminal previous admin has made everyone think that there's only ONE opinion that matters.

[Supersedeas]

49. exactly, let Eric Holder do his job -- and keep the political staffers in/on their turf

[depakid]

4. Yep- Rahm opened up his fat mouth

as predicted.

Won't be the last time before he goes....

[annabanana]

5. (rec this up.. You won't hear this until maybe Rachel)

This is something that people need to understand.

[Connie_Corleone]

7. I was shocked when Rahm included that tidbit at the end of his answer.

It was completely different from what Obama had been saying.

It actually might turn into a good thing though by reading this paragraph:

Another Justice Department official observed, “The department is now in the process of making some very tough decisions about what to do with this extremely complex and difficult matter. Emanuel’s statement was unfortunate, because now if the attorney general decides against appointing a special prosecutor, people are going to believe that this was a politically dictated decision. The only clear way out of this bind may now be to do what the critics suggest and appoint a special prosecutor.”

[polichick]

10. I agree that this pushes it in the right direction, though the prez might not agree.

[vaberella]

13. Where does the President not agree?

All he's ever said is that he's worried about politicization which is valid (9/11 Commission comes to mind) and the lower peeps should have a level of immunity if they worked within the boundaries of the law.

[polichick]

15. People around him seem to think he wants no prosecutions at all...

He may not like the direction this is going. It's true that prosecutions of lawyers and higher ups could have an impact on the president's agenda, but imo you can't just "move forward" without putting things right.

[vaberella]

25. First you say it's him...now it's people around him.

Look...at this point he's made his position extremely clear and said it on national television if people didn't understand. You can't twist his words and he already stated where he stands. He clearly said that everyone is up for prosecution except those who followed orders and even those people if they didn't follow the OLC guidelines are subject to prosecution. So he's never denied it's possibility...which is irrespective of those in his Admin. Added to that Rahm released an apology and clarification and Gibbs even said well look to the words of the President...end of story.

[polichick]

32. What's clear is that the game changed overnight...

The question is whether Obama planned for this to happen or not ~ there's no way to know that right now.

[ClarkUSA]

27. Who said Pres. Obama "he wants no prosecutions at all..."? Back up your conjecture with evidence.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zipplewrath]

20. It isn't clear

Obama started out, in the past, suggesting that he didn't really want prosecutions at all "rather look forward" and has repeatedly suggested that people who actually committed acts of torture should be protected from prosecution. As you suggest, lately he has seemed to comment more about what he would prefer Congress do. He isn't clear on that point usually and so his comments about politicization come off as appearing to mean the DoJ as well, which I'm not sure is what he means. Also, he seems to be narrowing the nature of the actual perpetrators as well ("with in the four corners" and all that). It isn't clear exactly whose "back" he has considering we don't even know who did what to whom how often. 185 times in a month may or may not be "with in the four corners". And some of these folks committed acts prior to these memos. They were acts that were subsequently "protected". So are they "within the four corners"? War crimes were committed. I'm not sure how you get from there to "protecting" certain people, and he isn't explaining it.

[vaberella]

26. He said look forward....

Which he's correct one..we can't live in the past we have to make sure this shit doesn't happen again. Prosecution and revenge is a separate matter than moving forward. That's one. He never gave any indication to me that he wasn't going to allow a prosecution considering he CAN'T stop one anyway. He knows as everyone else in who's looking at politics that he SHARES power, even if he has the highest seat, it's not his place to dictate who does what. He even said as much.


Finally, yesterday he was completely clear if he was NEVER clear for you before.

[zipplewrath]

33. Still don't know whose back he has

I'm still a bit confused about whose "back" he claims to have. And what "four corners" protect someone who committed war crimes. That could be a very low levels, or it could be anyone and CIA who was smart enough to wait for the memos. And what power does he use to "have their back"? Short of pardons, how does he stop DoJ from prosecuting folks?

[Adelante]

8. Can't blame them

I hope DUers who keep hammering Obama on this can start to understand, too. There is only so much he can properly do or say without damaging the independence of the DOJ and the integrity of its investigations.

[zipplewrath]

9. Primarily his chief of staff

The truth is, as one of the "hammerers" I suspose, is that I was already sensetized to Obama's apparent position on this topic. I was finding it strange that he was wandering around explaining who would and would not be prosecuted, and whose "back" he had. His chief of staff really put it over the top indicating that almost no one would be subject to prosecution. This was completely opposite to the position that Holder had been staking out. I was always vastly more comfortable with what Holder was saying as what Obama was.

[polichick]

11. Wonder if Rahm's remark was a mistake, or part of the plan.

[zipplewrath]

12. I hope a mistake

Please don't tell me they plan on using lies and disinformation as a way of dealing with the public.

[polichick]

16. I would hope not, but people around here are always talking about those "chess" moves.

[zipplewrath]

21. Yeah, I hear ya

I've tried to engage folks on that topic, but they blow up on ya fast. I'd sure like to see a defense of this point of view, but they don't feel it needs defending. Sorta an article of faith or something.

[polichick]

29. Lots of heads in the sand at DU - imo this is a fascinating set of moves...

...which can be read a number of ways.

[high density]

17. Rahm's comments from Sunday are really old news on this issue.

As if this issue wasn't already politicized!

[polichick]

18. Don't you think it was more that he stepped on the toes of doj lawyers?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

22. I'm glad. That suggests that Obama's Justice Dept. isn't staffed by a bunch of toadies.

[polichick]

34. I like the way this moves things away from the president and his agenda.

[blogslut]

23. Rahm spoke out of turn

It took Robert Gibbs every bit of strength he had to keep from saying that during yesterday's press conference.

[opihimoimoi]

24. A self correcting course is way better than hitting the REEF and resulting damage

[Fire1]

35. Well, that answers THAT! Thank you. Now we can put

all the speculation behind us. But it still makes COS sound like he 'over spoke,' which was my original contention.

[polichick]

36. Do you think he "over spoke" on purpose, to set things in motion at the doj...

...and take the heat off the president at the same time?? I could see it either way.

[Fire1]

41. Mixed messages for this reason? Could be, if either of them

had an inkling to what the reaction would be from the legal dept. Pretty slick, if that's the case.

[polichick]

42. Very slick, but effective (if that's the case).

[ClarkUSA]

38. I'd expect to see this kind of unsourced sensational headline over at Drudge. Thanks for sharing.

:eyes:

[bvar22]

43. So whats up with Rahm?

Loose Cannon?

Putting in Public what the White House's real plans are?

Trial Balloon?

Rogue Trouble Maker?



This was not a Little mistake or minor misunderstanding.
Since Rahm wasn't fired or forced to make a public Retraction and apology,I tend to believe it was a trial balloon, and the loud, public outcry by The Left influenced the Obama Administration to backtrack (somewhat) on Tuesday.

[polichick]

45. Trial balloon makes sense - and the outcry was LOUD, given the number...

...of petitions I was emailed.

[polichick]

44. EDIT BY The Daily Beast...

They've changed their opening lines (bold) ~ which I used as the thread title

FROM:

Senior Justice Department lawyers are “incensed” at the White House for waging a frontal assault on the autonomy and independence of the criminal justice system. Scott Horton on how it can backfire.


TO:

The Daily Beast has learned that department lawyers are "incensed" at the White House for waging a frontal assault on their independence to prosecute over torture.




So "Senior Justice Department lawyers" is now "department lawyers." Don't know the reason for the change.

[Thrill]

46. THERE WAS NO OBAMA REVERSAL

Obama NEVER ruled about prosecuting Attorneys and Bush Officials

[Name removed]

47. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ncteechur]

50. Last time I checked, Rahm Emanuel is NOT THE PRESIDENT!

and generalissimo francisco franco is still dead!