Glenn Greenwald: What the new Jim Comey torture emails actually reveal

[babylonsister]

NYT and BFEE enablers, BUSTED!


What the new Jim Comey torture emails actually reveal
Glenn Greenwald


The New York Times was provided 3 extremely important internal Justice Department emails from April, 2005 (.pdf) -- all written by then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey -- which highlight how the Bush administration's torture techniques became legally authorized by Bush lawyers. As Marcy Wheeler documents, the leak to the NYT was clearly from someone eager to defend Bush officials by suggesting that Comey's emails prove that all DOJ lawyers --- even those opposed to torture on policy grounds -- agreed these techniques were legal, and the NYT reporters, Scott Shane and David Johnston, dutifully do the leakers' bidding by misleadingly depicting the Comey emails as vindication for Bush/Cheney (Headline: "U.S. Lawyers Agreed on the Legality of Brutal Tactic"; First Paragraph: "When Justice Department lawyers engaged in a sharp internal debate in 2005 over brutal interrogation techniques, even some who believed that using tough tactics was a serious mistake agreed on a basic point: the methods themselves were legal").

I defy anyone to read Comey's 3 emails and walk away with that conclusion. Marcy has detailed many of the reasons the NYT article is so misleading, so I want to focus on what the Comey emails actually demonstrate about what these DOJ torture memos really are. The primary argument against prosecutions for Bush officials who ordered torture is that DOJ lawyers told the White House that these tactics were legal, and White House officials therefore had the right to rely on those legal opinions. The premise is that White House officials inquired in good faith with the DOJ about what they could and could not do under the law, and only ordered those tactics which the DOJ lawyers told them were legal. As these Comey emails prove, that simply is not what happened.

The DOJ torture-authorizing memos are perfectly analogous to the CIA's pre-war intelligence reports about Iraq's WMDs. Bush officials justify their pre-war statements about WMDs by pointing to the CIA's reports -- as though those reports just magically appeared on their desks from the CIA -- when, as is well documented, Dick Cheney and friends were continuously pressuring and cajoling the CIA to give them those threat reports in order to supply bureaucratic justification for the attack on Iraq. That is exactly how the DOJ torture-authorizing memos came to be: Dick Cheney, David Addington and George Bush himself continuously exerted extreme pressure on DOJ lawyers to produce memos authorizing them to do what they wanted to do -- not because they were interested in knowing in good faith what the law did and did not allow, but because they wanted DOJ memos as cover -- legal immunity -- for the torture they had already ordered and were continuing to order. Though one won't find this in the NYT article, that is, far and away, the most important revelation from the Comey emails.

* * * * *

Just read the Comey emails for yourself -- they're not long -- and you'll see exactly how these DOJ torture memos were actually produced. The key excerpts tell the story as clearly as can be. Comey was vehemently opposed to a draft memo written by Acting OLC Chief Steven Bradbury -- ultimately dated May 10, 2005 (.pdf) -- that legally authorized the simultaneous, combined use of numerous "enhanced interrogation techniques" on detainees. This "combined techniques" memo was crucial because these were the tactics that had already been used on detainees, and -- after the prior OLC memos authorizing those tactics were withdrawn -- the White House was desperate for legal approval for what they had already done and what they wanted to do in the future.

more...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/07/torture_memos/

[pleah]

1. K&R

[Solly Mack]

2. K&R

[5X]

3. K & R.

[HughMoran]

4. Nail these M'er F'ers

They are desperately trying to justify what they knew was illegal.

[spanone]

5. who provided the nytimes with these e-mails?

if all the lawyers agreed that torture was legal, they should ALL be disbarred.

[hootinholler]

6. I doesn't matter what the DOJ said about the tactics being legal or not...

They were used before the DOJ had anything to say about them. This was an attempt to use the DOJ to provide legal cover for the international and US crime of torture.

I am having a harder and harder time accepting htat no one has pointed this out. The order of events was 1. torture, 2. get legal cover. That should be the headline rather than burying it in the article: "the White House was desperate for legal approval for what they had already done"

WHY isn't that the story?

-Hoot

[kentuck]

23. That is correct.

They were desperate for "legal" approval, even then.

[L. Coyote]

27. because: "The order of events was 1. torture, 2. get legal cover."

BINGO! Calling Eric Holder!!!!!

[wiggs]

28. It also shouldn't matter if the DOJ provided legal cover before or after torture. Torture

is illegal. The torture memos are clearly ridiculous legally. If my accountant says it's legal to deduct a trip to Europe for my family, that doesn't mean I'm immune from audit.

[kentuck]

29. Good point.

If I ask my lawyer if it is OK to rob a bank and he says, "Sure, so long as you don't get caught..", does that mean it is legal?

[Hissyspit]

36. Yup.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5780807

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5746800

[alfredo]

7. Little by little the case gets stronger

[malaise]

8. Greenwald nails them

K & R

[bluesmail]

9. What if DOJ offered a plea bargain to * ? In exchange for what he

knows about Cheney? Cheney's the real prize. :evilgrin: I wouldn't be as peed-off if they had an iron clad case against Cheney. * would need to testify, HA! HA! Without using a teleprompter or ear thingy. (Time for me to wake up and stop dreaming).

[Jazzgirl]

10. Kickety kick again.

I saw that article when I went to see if Frank Rich had written an editorial today. Every time I see anything written by these two guys I am very, very skeptical. They always sound like they are apologists for the RNC/BFEE. I didn't read it because I knew Cheney probably got them to write the article to continue his "torture works" message.

[Gregorian]

11. Sub-judicial crimes

The Bush administration was the fruition of many years of think tanks inventing new ways to circumvent and end run the laws. That is my opinion. I believe that what happened was a series of crimes that individually were not significant enough to constitute public outrage enough to overcome an overwhelming malfunctioning national media and politicized judicial system. And unless these crimes can be connected into a meaningful string of events, will most likely be mostly unprosecuted. I wonder if our laws provide for a means of connecting crimes. I was under the impression that this was not the case. If someone robs a bank in order to publish increasing crime rates in order to build that new prison in town that they will get to build because they are a prison contractor, I suppose we can find ways of connecting the series of crimes.

This was a keenly designed series of evil deeds. A multiple series of parallel avenues. From leaking to the NY Times, to outing Plame, to stealing embassy letterheads. All I can wonder is what would have happened had they actually been able to sneak WMD's into Iraq.

[JDPriestly]

15. You are correct. The Bush administration was the product of

many years of research on how to undermine and destroy our democracy and replace it with an out-and-out plutocracy, a fascist dictatorship by a relatively small group of very wealthy extremists. That is the conspiracy theory that really holds water if you look at recent history. Numerous think-tanks funded by the plutocracy that will benefit once they have completely destroyed the fabric of our democratic society. They assaulted our trust in the government, our sense of fairness and our faith in public institutions. They robbed our government and in particular elderly people blind -- which is going to result in legions of hungry, desperate, very poor people within a few years. The result will be riots, the emergence of what appear to be demagogues arising from extreme leftist groups but who are, in fact, and regardless of their sincerity, mere tools of the same plutocracy that is now seeking to divide the American middle and working classes.

The means to the ends for this plutocracy are the churches and the right-wing TV preachers, Fox News and the misinformation spewed out on right-wing talk radio and a subverted military. The upper echelons and "leadership" of the middle class sit in Congress. It's quite a simple matter to pay these folks off. We see that every day.

A ship of fools, and I must say that what makes it all work is the lack of integrity with which so many people live their lives. I know so many "middle class" people who have been living on credit and nothing else, never saving, always pretending to themselves and others that prosperity was just around the corner and that everything would be OK if only their favorite team would win the next whatever type of game. It is those of us who have insisted on pretending we are wealthy for many years who have empowered the very rich to do what they are doing. Stop pretending. Stop shopping (if you haven't already). There is no "freedom" without fairness and honesty. And the fairness and honesty start in our own personal lives.

[Gregorian]

24. A subverted military

That's a really good way of putting it.

I've been boycotting everything for thirty years. No kids, no travel, no job, no driving, everything. It's how I wanted to live anyways. But my life is actually better than just about anyone's I've ever known. I have espresso, biking in the forest, and time. Although my finances are about to come to a dwindling zero after fifteen years of coasting. However, I just began the one thing I've been cursing for decades. I'm building a house. I can't believe it. But no wood. No deforestation. Just horrible mining. It's a steel house. At least it's recyclable.

Yeah, I go in the opposite direction from the hoards. I never understood what the fuck they were all trying to do. Even their music sucks. :) Give me punk, real jazz. Not the bullshit blues and sing song sleepy time rock and roll. And I don't do commercials. Ever. Oops, I think I got off subject here.

[Enthusiast]

31. +1, JD.

I hate to believe these things but I can come to no other conclusion.

[Enthusiast]

30. +1 Gregorian. I am convinced they would have

planted WMD evidence could they get away with it. And those think tanks are operating on overdrive right now. Scum of the earth.

[BuyingThyme]

12. kcik

[BlueJessamine]

13. K&R!!!!!

:kick::kick::kick:

[Badgerman]

14. Move on folks, nothing here! OB&Holder ain't prosecutin' nobody! especially torturers.

[JDPriestly]

16. Read the e-mails and you learn that Comey had already quit

when this occurred and that the "legal opinions" were obtained by Bush and Cheney through subtle if not actual threats -- after the torture had already begun. Those were not true "legal opinions." I think even less of the Yoo and Bybee and all those who wrote these "opinions" than I did before I read these memos.

Whatever Comey may or may not have thought is not so important although it is clear that he was quite certain that the second memo was quite indefensible and that both memos would harm the AG's department eventually.

One thing is absolutely clear from the e-mails. Both Bush and Cheney actively demanded that the legal memos be written. Another thing that is clear is that demanding the memos was a cover-up for the crimes of torture that had already been committed. The crimes were not only intentional but compounded by the extortion of cover-up memos from the AG.

In addition, it is clear from these e-mails that there was some other even worse program (alluded to briefly) to which Comey objected even more vehemently than to the torture memos. Was that just the wiretapping we know about? Or something else? We need to find that out.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

19. Yeah I picked that up too

There is something that Comey is even more worried about than the torture they are referring to here.

[leftstreet]

56. I'd like to know what that other, worse program was

:wtf:

[JDPriestly]

64. I would to.

I expect Bush to get arrested for something completely unrelated to his presidency -- It will take a couple of years maybe a few more than that.

GWB is a prison sentence waiting to be imposed. He is such a risk taker. He has such a problem with authority, such a need to challenge it to the limits, such a need to break the rules and thumb his nose at those who would enforce them. George W. will not have fulfilled his fate until he lands in prison. That is where his soul wants to be. It's as if he has to get himself into trouble and get punished just to prove that there is a God -- a vengeful God.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

17. We didn't see much of Cheney

during the reign of terror, but he certainly was busy in his underground hell.

K&R

[K Gardner]

18. These are absolutely sickening to read. eom

[OnyxCollie]

20. K&R. nt

[HOLOS]

21. K&R

[kentuck]

22. If you read the emails....

Then I am certain your opinion may differ from that of the NY Times?

Deputy Atty-General Comey warned them in every way possible that these "techniques" could come back to bite them in the ass and that it might be considered torture. The VP Office was pressuring every to get the legal approval before the weekend. All the "Principals" involved in the discussions, including Condi Rice, agreed to go with the "techniques" despite the warning of possible torture.

Comey disagreed with the procedures the entire time. They disregarded everything he said. These memos seem to raise more questions than they answer, in my opinion.

[Patsy Stone]

25. And Condoleezza the chicken hearted's plausible deniability.

Remember when she told that student that she had only "sent the info along" but never signed off on torture? Well, here we see how that manifested itself: she basically told them, "I don't want to know what that says or what you approved, but send it on in to them."

[L. Coyote]

26. Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Addington, Miers ALL GUILTY of TORTURE

with documentary proof in the public domain. Calling Eric Holder!!!!

"Gonzales told him (Comey) that he was under extreme pressure from Dick Cheney, David Addington, Harriet Miers -- and even Bush himself -- to get these memos issued: ..."

That's "extreme pressure" at that, not hints ....

[MannyGoldstein]

32. You're Saying Thet The NY Times Fabricated This Email From Comey?

Unless the email they referred to is a fabrication, then it looks to me like the Times is spot on. Do you think the Times made this email up? Or is there something else I'm not seeing here?

From the article:

That opinion, giving the green light for the C.I.A. to use all 13 methods in interrogating terrorism suspects, including waterboarding and up to 180 hours of sleep deprivation, “was ready to go out and I concurred,” Mr. Comey wrote to a colleague in an April 27, 2005, e-mail message obtained by The New York Times.

While signing off on the techniques, Mr. Comey in his e-mail provided a firsthand account of how he tried unsuccessfully to discourage use of the practices. He made a last-ditch effort to derail the interrogation program, urging Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to argue at a White House meeting in May 2005 that it was “wrong.”

“In stark terms I explained to him what this would look like some day and what it would mean for the president and the government,” Mr. Comey wrote in a May 31, 2005, e-mail message to his chief of staff, Chuck Rosenberg. He feared that a case could be made “that some of this stuff was simply awful.”

[Enthusiast]

33. K&R

Will anything be done?

[kentuck]

34. Why is the NY Times distorting this story??

It's pretty obvious from the emails that DAG Comey was against "legalizing" until the very end. But the VP and the White House were intent on making it legal and they demanded the lawyers declare them as "non-criminals".

[MannyGoldstein]

37. Did Comey Not Sign Off On Torture?

What am I missing here?

[kentuck]

43. My interpretation was that he was against it all the way...

And the others approved it, at the behest of the VP office. I did not interpret that Comey "signed off" on it??

Here is a defining paragraph from Greenwald's column:

"But the real story here is obvious -- these DOJ memos authorizing torture were anything but the by-product of independent, good faith legal analysis. Instead, those memos -- just like the pre-war CIA reports about The Threat of Saddam -- were coerced by White House officials eager for bureaucratic cover for what they had already ordered. This was done precisely so that once this all became public, they could point to those memos and have the political and media establishment excuse what they did ("Oh, they only did what they DOJ told them was legal"'/"Oh, they were only reacting to CIA warnings about Saddam's weapons"). These DOJ memos, like the CIA reports, were all engineered by the White House to give cover to what they wanted to do; they were not the precipitating events that led to and justified those decisions. That is the critical point proven by the Comey emails, and it is completely obscured by the NYT article, which instead trumpets the opposite point ("Unanimity at DOJ that these tactics were legal") because that's the story their leaking sources wanted them to promote."

[MannyGoldstein]

44. What's Wrong With This Understanding?

Please, find a flaw in this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5799041&mesg_id=5802155

I'm beginning to think I'm insane.

[kentuck]

45. Which quote are you referencing?

??

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Here:

From: http://static1.firedoglake.com/28/files//2009/06/050427-comey-emails-compressed.pdf

First email.

Help me out here.

[kentuck]

47. Go back and read it more slowly...

He says his "concerns were not allayed, only heightened". I read the entire email again and I do not see what you are talking about??

[MannyGoldstein]

48. Here's Comey's Very Specific Approval of Torture:

From the first email at http://static1.firedoglake.com/28/files//2009/06/050427-comey-emails-compressed.pdf:

"As OLC has worked on the memos, one of which addresses each technique in turn, and the second of which addresses "combined effects"...

...I told him that the first opinion was ready to go out, and I concurred. I told him I did not concur with the second and asked him to stop it."

Comey repeatedly states that his problem with the combined effects memo, not with the individual techniques memo.

[kentuck]

52. And what was the first opinion and what was the second opinion?

He had "grave reservations" about the second opinion which addressed "combined effects".

It seems to me he was saying that the "combined effects" opinion needed to be considered in deciding "whether something amounted to torture". It was an inadequate analysis about the "combined effects" of these techniques.

Of course, these were only lawyers "opinions". The controversy was over the second opinion, the "combined effects". Comey was not ready to give his approval to the second opinion but the White House and the Vice President went ahead without his approval.

Then he sent his buddy, Pat, to tell them he would oppose any opinion that was not "significantly re-shaped" by Friday, which he said was not able to complete by Friday??

Was it completed by Friday and did he eventually sign off on it? These memos do not say.

It's mostly a confusing mess, it seems to me, and probably intentionally so?

Comey was the Acting Attorney General when Ashcroft was laid up in the hospital and they tried to get him to sign off on some papers and he refused. Were these the opinions that he refused to sign off on??

There still a lot to know.

[MannyGoldstein]

70. It Is A Mess. But The Accusation The Comey Was Against Torture Is Wrong.

He was clearly in favor of torture - just one torture at a time, perhaps not several at once.

[L. Coyote]

35. kick & rec

1358 views and off to StumbleUpon we go.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Am I Insane? What's My Problem? What Am I Missing?

As I read Comey's emails, they address two opinions:

1. An opinion as to whether each "technique" by itself is torture
2. An opinion as to whether these "technique" are torture when combined

In the very first email, Comey gives the first opinion a full-throated endorsement. A full endorsement of waterboarding and other techniques.

The only objection in any of the emails is to the second opinion. So, Comey whole-heartedly agrees that waterboarding is OK, and that endless days of sleep deprivation are just fine, but the written opinion justifying both at the same time is lacking.

Unless anyone can show that my reading is faulty, this post and Greenwald's piece are totally off base and should be withdrawn.

[bjobotts]

54. You're cherry picking.Read how everyone acts like they are working for the WH instead of the DoJ

[bjobotts]

55. Read how they are being pressured to give the WH what it demands

[bjobotts]

57. Read how Comey regrets that his boss is spineless and how much he objects to the whole affair

[bjobotts]

58. Read how Rice refused to allow 'details' to be disclosed.Comey assumed WH would reject after details

told.

[bjobotts]

59. It discloses that there was no discussion,that Comey was rejected

[bjobotts]

60. Comey said once this comes out it will be seen for what it is..coercion to justify WH actions

[bjobotts]

61. Came right out and said this is what Cheney wants and he wants it by next week

[bjobotts]

63. For instance did U read this from March Wheeler about asking for torture immunity in advance

"... Mr. Gonzales told him that he was “under great pressure” from Vice President Dick Cheney to complete both memos and that President George W. Bush had asked about the memorandums, Mr. Comey recounted in one of the 2005 e-mail messages."

And what was the big rush for, anyway?

And what does it mean that CIA asked Chertoff to grant immunity in advance?

"They had asked Michael Chertoff, then head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, to grant interrogators immunity in advance from prosecution for torture. Mr. Chertoff refused, but neither did he warn the agency against the methods it was proposing."

[MannyGoldstein]

72. The Specific Allegation Was That Comey Thought Torture Illegal

But these emails show Comey clearly thought torture *was* legal as long as they were applied one at a time. The assertion that the NY Times is lying is thus false.

[L. Coyote]

74. Greenwald is right and you are reading Comey correctly.

Comey signed off on torture, true.
But the NYT is doing Bush propaganda too, as always.

Maybe you missed the week of spin on this story.
Greenwald is doing media a huge service, as usual.

[ProSense]

39. The NYT's Continuing Slide On Torture

The NYT's Continuing Slide On Torture

The New York Times Keeps Getting it Wrong:

The torture apologists are out in force trying to confuse and obuscate and the paper of record is helping them do it.

[thread-bear]

40. K&R

[MasonJar]

41. Send this to Obama and Holder. They are the ones preventing an

investigation. If those two wanted one, it would be underway.

[JDPriestly]

67. Maybe Obama is not pressing for investigations and prosecutions

for torture because of the equivocating and vague language from the Reagan era that the Clinton administration included in the federal laws -- and upon which the memos relied in arriving at their horrible conclusion that the torture was OK. That is what I suspect. Obama does not want to dump the mess on Clinton's lap, and that's where it will end.

What Obama does not realize is that he needs to end this whole use of torture for real. By avoiding the inevitable finger-pointing and criticism of Clinton for his role in this mess, Obama is accepting responsibility for the entire torture scandal himself. History will judge him for allowing the torture to go unpunished. Obama is making so many dumb mistakes -- mostly because he is naive and too trusting.

[moobu2]

42. K&R

[MannyGoldstein]

49. Gratuitous Bashing of the NY Times is Not Helpful

Clearly, Comey approved of torture: it's in the emails in question (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5799041&mesg_id=5802601).

Comey signed off on waterboarding. Repeat, Comey signed off on waterboarding. And he signed off on all of the other tortures. He had a problem with a combination of tortures, but not each individual torture:

From the first email at http://static1.firedoglake.com/28/files//2009/06/050427-comey-emails-compressed.pdf:

"As OLC has worked on the memos, one of which addresses each technique in turn, and the second of which addresses "combined effects"...

...I told him that the first opinion was ready to go out, and I concurred. I told him I did not concur with the second and asked him to stop it."

Comey repeatedly states that his problem with the combined effects memo, not with the individual techniques memo.

So why are people pretending that Comey was against torture? Why do people hate the NY Times so much that they'll even defend one of Bush's torturers in an attempt to strike a blow?

The NY Times went through a dark period in the run up to the Iraq war. The people responsible for this were fired. Has everyone forgotten that the Times single-handedly broke the warrantless wiretapping story, after Bush personally demanded in an Oval Office meeting that the Publisher and Executive Editor not do so?

Shame.

[kentuck]

62. I think you may be right Manny...

about Comey approving the memo concerning the individual tortures. But he did not want to sign off on the second memo about the "combined effects". We don't know if he signed off on it later? We can't forget that he was the acting Atty-General while Ashcroft was in the hospital. Ashcroft refused to sign it when they brought it to his bedside in the hospital, as we recall? Are we to assume these were the same "opinions"?

The memos give the impression that Comey never agreed to sign off on the second opinion?

Who gave these memos to the NY Times? James Comey? Who knows?

It all smells like a cover-up in the making to me.

[Duer 157099]

65. Manny, the point is that the memos were NOT written in good faith

That's been the whole premise of the Bush/Cheney justification for using the torture, and indeed Obama himself used that phrase when he talked about not pursuing those who acted "IN GOOD FAITH."

The whole point of what Glenn is saying is that Cheney, in particular, coerced the OLC et al, such that *any* memo they produced could not be claimed to have been produced "in good faith."

You might say the OLC was tortured to produce those memos! And we all know how reliable info obtained under duress is!

[Duer 157099]

66. Oh, and on the timing of them breaking the wiretapping story

When exactly was that?

And when exactly did they first have the story?

I think the complaints there have more to do with the timing.

[Usrename]

68. The Times deserves all the criticism that they get. In spades.

Remember, The Times KNEW that Scotty McClellan was lying when he told the White House press corps that Rove and Libby were not involved in outing Valerie Plame. The Times KNEW contemporaneously that this was a big fat lie.

They waited until AFTER the election to publish this bit of info; afraid, it seems, that this bit of NEWS might influence the outcome of the election.

They have no right to call themselves a NEWS organization, they are merely a propaganda outlet.

As to these particular Comey emails and their relevance to the OP, they do support the claims made against The NYT. He repeatedly calls for them to not go forward with the memo, he was adamantly opposed to it, and he repeatedly told anyone who would listen that it would come back to haunt them.

That is a far cry from agreeing with the legal policy, as the Times claimed.

[MannyGoldstein]

69. Comey Clearly Called Called For Release Of The First Torture Opinion

It couldn't be clearer. The Times is reporting that Comey was cool with torture, and he was cool with torture: it's right there in the first email.

As to your assertion regarding the withholding info until the election - do you have a link?

[L. Coyote]

76. Maybe because NYT covered up illegal spying to save Bush/Cheney in 2004?

Not to mention a very long list of other good reasons.

[MannyGoldstein]

79. If You Haven't Noticed... Most Americans Are In Favor of That Program

Even if The Times had run it, it probably would have helped Bush more than hurt him. Folks at The Times risked going to jail for running that story; some may disagree on the timing, but all should be grateful that they broke it.

[L. Coyote]

80. Actually, that is spin too. Most Americans are not in favor of illegal government activities.

[ProSense]

50. Here's another story the NYT got wrong

NYT: We Made Big Mistakes On Front-Page Gitmo Story, But We Did Not Get Spun

"confuse and obfuscate"

[dccrossman]

51. K&R

:kick:

[bjobotts]

53. K&R. Read this and am glad it is posted here too.Hope it's posted everywhere possible

[annabanana]

71. The Gray Lady is nekkid

and should be ashamed.

[myrna minx]

73. K&R n/t

[snot]

75. k&r'd.

[dorkulon]

77. All you need to know about (NYT reporter) Elizabeth Bumiller in one quotation:

"You can’t say George Bush is wrong here. There’s no way you can say that in the New York Times…You can’t just say the president is lying. You don’t just say that in the… You can’t say the president is lying—that’s a judgment call… What is wrong with that? What is your problem with that? What? Why do you all object to that?"

[kentuck]

78. What does it mean?

Either way?

If Comey signed off on the torture or if he did not?

Were they pressured by the VP or the White House to come up with an opinion to make torture "legal"?
If so, who are the guilty parties? The lawyers or the White House or the people that demanded the "opinions"?

And why only these three e-mails? What was the intent in releasing these specific emails? And who gave them to the NY Times?

Whether they prove Comey is innocent or guilty is irrelevant to the issue of torture. If the memos prove Comer disapproved of the second memo and approved the first, does that mean he approved of torture also?

The Comey memos seem like a great diversion at this time.