Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush was lying to the Judge.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 02:52 PM
Original message
Bush was lying to the Judge.
id Bush Lie to Vaughn Walker?
By: emptywheel Saturday February 28, 2009 10:39 am

Yesterday, after the 9th Circuit refused the Obama/Dead-Ender appeal in al-Haramain case, the Obama Administration filed two documents to try to minimize the damage of Judge Walker's presumably imminent review of whether or not George Bush broke the law when it wire-tapped al-Haramain's lawyers. I discussed this filing, which warned Walker that they intend to fight his efforts to make information available so al-Haramain's lawyers can litigate the suit, here.


That news from the filing--that they maintain this information is still classified--is not surprising.

But this is:

The Government’s ex parte, in camera classified submissions also address an inaccuracy contained in a prior submission by the Government, the details of which involve classified information that cannot be set forth on the public record.


Given that Obama has not yet submitted classified information in this case, this almost certainly means that the Bush Administration submitted "inaccurate" information in one of its past representations to Walker.

Or, to put it another way, now that Walker is going to look at the wiretap log from al-Haramain and assess whether or not the wiretapping was legal, the Obama Administration is changing the record in some meaningful way.

Obviously, we don't get to know what Bush either lied or hid, but here are three possibilities:

1. Bush withheld something (to use WO's speculation, perhaps something like proof that they not only wiretapped al-Haramain's lawyers' conversations with al-Haramain, but that they also wiretapped the lawyers' conversations with others?) and it is now being advanced as an "inaccuracy"

2. Obama is introducing something new (perhaps some evidence that might go further to support an otherwise nonexistent probable cause determination) in an effort to limit the damage of the impending Walker review

3. Bush had not yet admitted one of his rationales for legality before (perhaps, for example, he was hiding the OLC opinion that eviscerated the 4th Amendment out of embarrassment?) and they're adding it now to minimize the possibility that Walker will rule the wiretapping illegal


All of these utterly speculative possibilities, of course--as well as some more I can think of--are ones that would mean Obama was trying to cover-up Bush's earlier efforts to pull a fast one over on Vaughn Walker. Sure, maybe this "inaccuracy" was something totally innocuous. Just as likely, though, Bush was lying to the Judge.


links and more at:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/28/did-bush-lie-to-vaughn-walker/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. Of Course Bush Was Lying
You can tell when he tells the truth---he giggles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. His mouth was moving.
as always.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Ding ding
bla bla bla :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesmail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. I don't see Obama doing anything to help those white sepremacists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
5. This is not an idle question, and one to watch carefully
Edited on Sun Mar-01-09 02:23 AM by chill_wind
in what the Obama admin does further. More importantly, what Judge Walker does with this admission, since he feels this has been a bullshit case from the beginning (paraphrasing some of the more learned opinions over there in the comments' section from time to time.) The Obama lawyers know what this "inaccuracy" is, yet they are still fighting the plaintiffs with everything they have. I was there reading for hours tonight, back through the back-blogging done on this one. It's an excellent blog to follow-- there are some very bright people there with an obvious knowledge of the law, and others with some apparent experience in government, or close occupational ties. While it seems no one there can fully agree on- or claim to really know, for certain - the rationale for the way the Obama DOJ has fought this case, you won't find any serious or wishful suggestion by the legal minds there that Obama is "trying to lose this one" as some sort of grand-master "chess strategy"- not to restore the constitution, anyway.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. Updated at EW--- oh if she is right, this is GOOOOD.
Bush "Dead-enders" maybe discovered they are about to hang themselves?

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/03/01/some-clues-to-what-inaccurate-information-bush-provided-in-al-haramain/

House of Cards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC