Margolis is the DOJ's Ultimate 'Inside Man': National Law Journalà ? ¨Ã ? ¨ David Margolis (right) is the most powerful career official at the Justice Department. He got there by making himself the man to call when a problem had to be cleaned upà ? ¨09/18/2006 Jason McLure
The report is voluminous. There are a couple of drafts and a final version that was released as well as supporting documents and responses from Yoo and Bybee. This is ultimately what the report says:
, Yoo was found to have "committed intentional professional misconduct when he violated his duty to exercise independent legal judgment and render thorough, objective, and candid legal advice" in five legal memoranda he prepared for the Bush administration.
Bybee was found to have "committed professional misconduct when he acted in reckless disregard of his duty to exercise independent legal judgment and render thorough, objective, and candid legal advice" in two legal memoranda he signed.
à ? ¨OPR investigators also noted that during their four-and-a-half year probe, they were unable to obtain all of the evidence they needed. For example, they said "most" of Yoo's emails during the critical time period of August 2002 when the memos were drafted, "had been deleted and were not recoverable."
Finally, here's Margolis's reasoning, which is just stunning:
While I have declined to adopt OPR's findings of misconduct, I fear that John Yoo's loyalty to his own ideology and convictions clouded his view of his obligation to his client and led him to author opinions that reflected his own extreme, albeit sincerely held, view of executive power while speaking for an institutional client," Margolis added.
"These memos contained some significant flaws," Margolis said. "But as all that glitters is not gold, all flaws do not constitute professional misconduct." He left it to the bar associations in the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania to decide whether to take up the issue of further discipline.
This Margolis sounds like a major piece of work. I understand that Rep. Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee is planning to call for hearings on this. What do you think? Is he our last chance? Can he get us something of what we should have gotten from either Obama or the press?
I
think Conyers is our best hope in terms of hearing Yoo, Bybee, Cheney's former
counsel David Addington and others testify publicly about what the DOJ's ethics
report says about the flawed legal work they did for the Bush White House on
torture. Conyers is currently working behind the scenes with Congressman
Jerrold Nadler on a hearing about the report.
Even then, however, it will come down to how well informed Conyers and his staffers are on the report and the questions they pose to the witnesses. The hearing Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy held last week was an utter waste of time as it did not break any ground
I don't believe Conyers can get us anything other than sworn testimony from the likes of John Yoo and right now that's a good start.
Well, I guess it's
good to have lowered expectations. One more topic to discuss, Jason.
Whistleblowers, especially at the federal level, are often the only way
the public knows anything about governmental abuses and wrongdoing. And
yet, whistleblowers are constantly harassed, threatened, and often fired,
rather than rewarded for their patriotism and bravery.
And now, besides for positive aspects to the Whistleblower Protection Act, there are also various poison pill provisions in the Senate version (S. 372) that actually make whistleblowing even more difficult. And the word was out last week that the bill was due to be hotlined, meaning no debate, no amendment, no roll call. Any comment?
This is just another
example of how the president's and Congress's rhetoric stand in direct
opposition to their actions. In fact, what the current legislation proposes is
worse than the law currently on the books as it actually repeals an order signed by President Clinton protecting FBI agents
who put their careers and lives on the line to expose wrongdoing.
Forcing this bill through, if that were to happen, would follow a similar route Democrat took when they renewed the Patriot Act for another year. There wasn't any debate and the Bush-era provisions in that bill were left intact. The privacy concerns raised by civil liberties groups, which Democrats promised to address last year, were simply swept aside. They did that, despite the widespread abuses documented in a voluminous FBI inspector general's report. With the Whistleblower Protection Act, Congress will make it impossible for any government employee to speak out*.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
2
