Top DOJ Attorney David Margolis Nixes OPR Report Recommendation
Author’s Note: The last sentence of the first paragraph has been slightly edited for clarity.
Justin Elliott at TPMMuckraker has comprehensive details about yesterday’s exoneration of John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the Bush lawyers who crafted memos designed to give the C.I.A. and the White House legal cover for their torture program — euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation techniques” by most of the major media and by supporters of the program. The most important thing to know about this decision is that it’s even worse than it seems. That’s because the already-inadequate conclusion reached by the authors of the OPR (Office of Professional Responsibility) — that Yoo and Bybee engaged in “professional misconduct”– was downgraded by David Margolis, a high-level attorney who has worked in the Department of Justice under several administrations, including the previous one:
The Justice Department has released the long-awaited report on the torture memos and the conduct of Bush Administration lawyers including John Yoo.
While the final report by the department’s internal watchdog, the Office of Professional Responsibility, found that attorneys John Yoo and Jay Bybee engaged in professional misconduct, top DOJ official David Margolis overruled that finding in a memo to Attorney General Eric Holder.
Margolis, associate deputy attorney general, says in the 69-page memo that he did not find OPR’s definition of misconduct persuasive. And he blocks the agency from referring the matter to state bar disciplinary authorities where Yoo and Bybee are now licensed. Yoo is a Berkeley law professor and Bybee is a federal judge in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Margolis, the most senior nonpolitical official in the Justice Department, has served for many years, including during the Bush Administration.
Marcy Wheeler spent Friday night reading the reams of paper, and comes up with some initial thoughts. Of course, Marcy’s initial thoughts (she calls it a “first draft“) are like anyone else’s completed dissertation. I won’t even attempt to quote.
Jack Balkin has an incisive commentary on Margolis’ decision that makes me think maybe I judged Margolis too harshly. Apparently, Margolis was both more constricted by the legal standard required for a charge of professional misconduct, and more aware of the seriousness of what Yoo and Bybee did, than I had thought:
In deciding not to refer charges to state bar committees, Margolis does not tell us that Yoo and Bybee behaved admirably or according to the high standards that we should expect from Justice Department lawyers. Indeed, he says the opposite. Yoo and Bybee exercised poor judgment and let the Justice Department down. But Margolis argues that the Office of Professional Responsibility chose too high a standard to judge the professional responsibility of Yoo and Bybee. The OPR argued that Yoo and Bybee had “a duty to exercise independent legal judgment and to render thorough, objective, and candid legal advice.” This standard, Margolis explained, is much too high a requirement and not one that Yoo and Bybee were previously warned was the standard to which they would be held.
I know what you are probably saying: shouldn’t every government lawyer have to live up to this standard? Of course, they should, but the point is that this is a disciplinary proceeding. It’s not about what people should do, but about how badly they have to screw things up before they are subject to professional sanctions.
Instead, Margolis argues that, judging by (among other things) a review of D.C. bar rules, the standard for attorney misconduct is set pretty damn low, and is only violated by lawyers who (here I put it colloquially) are the scum of the earth. Lawyers barely above the scum of the earth are therefore excused.
[...]
To show misconduct, according to the standard that Margolis finds most relevant, one would have to show that Yoo or Bybee intentionally made arguments that they knew were wrong and false or did so not caring whether they were wrong or false. That standard could not be met for Jay Bybee, because Bybee was, to put it bluntly, an empty suit who relied on the advice of others and didn’t analyze the memos all that closely. He just signed the papers. This makes him pathetic, but not, in Margolis’s view, someone who unambiguously violated existing rules of professional responsibility.As for John Yoo, Margolis explains (although he puts it far more diplomatically) that Yoo was an ideologue who entered government service with a warped vision of the world in which he sincerely believed. Yoo had crazy ideas even before he entered government; which strongly suggests that he probably shouldn’t have been hired in the first place. Therefore it is hard to conclude that Yoo deliberately gave advice that he knew was wrong to the CIA. Yoo isn’t putting people on when he says the absurd things he says in these memos and elsewhere. He actually believes that the President is a dictator and that the President doesn’t have to obey statutes that make torture a crime. He actually believes that you should read the torture statute so narrowly that it lets the CIA torture people. John Yoo used every trick in the book to twist the law because he actually believes in a law that is twisted. … It is important to understand that Margolis reached this conclusion not because Yoo’s arguments were just or sensible, or even plausible, but because lawyers can make really really crazy arguments and still avoid professional sanction. This is less a defense of Yoo than an indictment of the doctrines of professional responsibility.
Of course, this is not how conservative bloggers are spinning Margolis’s overruling of the OPR report’s conclusion. To them, Margolis heroically exposed the shabby, shoddy mess that the OPR made of the report, and revealed them as incompetent hacks.
Nick Baumann at Mother Jones thinks that the Department of Justice caved in to “massive pushback from Yoo and Bybee” after the report came out. I’m certain there was enormous pressure from those two and their supporters; it’s not far-fetched to think it could have played a part.
Marc Ambinder provides additional backstory:
The OPR report presents a fairly compelling case that the White House and Yoo created a “golden shield” to provide prospective legal immunity for CIA interrogators and U.S. officials after the Justice Department declined to promise not to prosecute these cases after the fact. (Read the report here) The documentation that would provide this is missing — see footnote three — relevant e-mails from Yoo and a deputy could not be found.
The scenario is this. Yoo writes his memo analyzing the torture statutes. The CIA and the White House ask the head of the criminal division, Mike Chertoff, and the AG, John Ashcroft, for prospective immunity. Ashcroft flatly turns them down. So Yoo is summoned to the White House — Alberto Gonzales recalls that David Addington, Vice President Cheney’s top national security aide, did the summoning — and then, after a meeting, Yoo adds two paragraphs to his memo, — that President, in his capacity as commander in chief, is not bound by the torture statues, and then lists a series of other defenses that can be used. Yoo is asked by a colleague why he added those two paragraphs. Yoo responds: “They” — we don’t know who “they” are — told him to. The OPR concluded that Yoo’s reasoning here was incredibly flawed and that Yoo knew that the consequence of his actions would be to provide the declination that the Justice Department said it would not and could not provide.
That missing material, plus the fact that key personnel, such as David Addington, refused to cooperate with the OPR’s investigation, obviously raise questions that can’t be answered now, and also leave the door open for criminal investigations in the future. For now, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairs of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, respectively, have called for hearings on the OPR report’s conclusions.
45 Responses to “Top DOJ Attorney David Margolis Nixes OPR Report Recommendation”
More on David Margolis courtesy of Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/5/62425/22619
They cite the Legal Times which wrote:
Continuing a bit further:
The DK article added:
———-
So you see Kathy, Margolis is no partisan hack. I might agree with you regarding torture, but when you try to paint Margolis is the way you seem to be, your barking up the wrong tree. As Daily Kos put it he is clearly a clean player.
Oh also he isn't just a holdover from the Bush administration, he has been a career lawyer with the Justice Department since 1976. That makes him a holdover from the Carter Administration doesn't it.?
Surprise, surprise, we learn that lawyers are scum bags and Washington lawyers are scummier. It is absolutely inconceivable that an administration can violate with impunity the US laws that are the foundation of our national identity and international relations. Laws which, by the way, have been followed by American military and political leaders from the country's inception. Dubya & Company should face the consequences of their decisions and behavior in a public court of law.
These people are untouchable. Add it to our very long list of problems.
Margolis interpretation of the Rules of Professional Conduct is correct. Lawyers, to do their jobs, must be able to make good faith arguments, even if those arguments are contrary to accepted interpretation. That is the ingredient that causes our laws to evolve. The standard is that the argument or advice must be one that the lawyer believes, in his or her own mind, can be plausibly defended. Note that the standard is plausibly defended, not successfully defended.
Without the ability to argue for reinterpretation of laws and court cases, we would still operate under “separate but equal”, for example, and would never have seen Roe v. Wade which finds a constitutional right of privacy where no express right of privacy is written into the constitution.
To find misconduct, there must be bad faith or corrupt intent on the part of the attorney. Unless there is evidence that Yoo/Bybee acted with knowing bad faith, they are within the rules. The counter to that is that there is much unknown in this case, and much of the evidence remains ungathered. Many, including myself, believe, feel or sense that there may have been bad faith or corrupt intent, but there is no evidence to prove it. Without that hard evidence, Yoo/Bybee get the benefit of the good faith presumption…sort of like innocent until proven guilty.
It doesn't excuse the Bush Administration's torture policies, but Margolis' take is legally correct as regards Yoo/Bybee.
When even the regular process and application of law is made unacceptable because society is too weak to follow its own, ostensibly hallowed rules, one invites vigilantism.
Hopefully the complete relativism, nihilism, spinelessness and dissolution of all meaning in Western society will lead to a stunning backlash, an epoch of terrorism. In our blind, religious devotion to consumption, GDP, markets, jobs and other parameters the meanings of which we don't understand (we just know that all the curves have to climb all the time, the numbers must go up up up!) we've completely abandoned everything to market logic and convenience. Meanwhile, the same people who tell us we can't prosecute past war crimes because some lawyers said it was “OK” or it will be too time-consuming (we are in a crisis after all – people can't buy stuff all the time!) are angry at Iran because they don't follow the rules.
Um, apparently the rules have no meaning. Jose Padilla has as much chance of vindication as a man beaten by Iran's riot police for exercising free speech *and for exactly the same reasons*. But there is *no time* to stand for centuries-old values and preserve the last kernels of values in the face of fascist logic – the NUMBERS are too low! Making the numbers go higher is all we can possibly focus on!
Everything is getting muddled and stripped of significance.
Does this mean the official witch hunt is over? That the dispicable attempt to destroy the lives of these two fine American lawyers over a policy disagreement is over?
The witch hunt has officially been found to be without merit to sustain it, even under the most left wing administration in history.
Congratulations to these two patriotic lawyers who came to the aid of their country when we needed it. They deserved better treatment but have in the end emerged victorious and vindicated.
Ever see a snake devour its prey DaMav? It starts at the whiskers and ends at the ass. I can pretty much guarantee you this will end with the Ass.
Of course, if we can't test the culpability of plausible war criminals in court, then the rules of society are null.
I remind people again that good can't defeat evil – we can only win by becoming evil ourselves. So the response when the powerful evil-doers laugh at our rules is most certainly not to try and extend another contingency of rules – because they can skirt that too. No, the response is to recognize the lawlessness of those who apparently don't respect the rules, and seek justice outside of societal constraints.
If the victims of the last administration can not even seek a fair hearing of the people who wronged them, they are of course within rights to pursue vindication through terrorism. After all, we just said that the rules are merely guidelines. So, within a decade the American population is already about to effectively validate and by analogy admit that the 9/11 terrorists did not act immorally. Sure they broke the rules, but… The rules are meaningless, only to be upheld when circumstances allow it. This means that the Nuremberg trials are annulled as well.
You are failing, you are becoming lesser and your struggles as individuals and as a nation are becoming less possible to sympathize with. You are giving up, willingly admitting that you are incapable of being a different class of humans than the 9/11 terrorists who – just like you – abandon societal mores and pillars for convenience and self-interest. I'm not the relativist here, when I make an analogy between you and the 9/11 terrorists, I am merely repeating, word for word, exactly what it is you are telling me through your actions.
The judgment in this particular instance was legally correct. I think we can all agree on that. What I wouldn't do is call these two heroes. They were tasked with finding a way to legally torture people. They did their job well….and we as a country have and will suffer greatly because of it.
The world knows that we tortured…what we did will not be forgotten….it will be passed down to further generations. Who knows what price we will pay in 50 years for the torture we inflicted?
Leonidas,
Your comment is bizarre. It does not follow from how I wrote about Margolis.I have no clue whose post you're defending against, but it's not mine.
Which are exactly the points I made clear in my post.
There is and has been no witch hunt. Torture is not a “policy disagreement.” And you both ignore and distort, utterly, the purpose, scope, and content of the OPR report as well as the recommendation of the assistant deputy AG.
This was not a criminal investigation. The purpose of this report was narrow, the standard low, and the report's findings *in no way* justify your celebratory attitude. I won't say more, because it's obvious you haven't read a word of my post, or the posts I linked to, or any of the original documents, and since you haven't done that much, I doubt you'll read any reiterations here.
WELL said, shannon. Thank you.
Tidbits response is well done and I agree. The 2 lawyers are relying on the investigating side to follow the rules which IMO they did not. Their protection is secure. That is the challenge. The American people can absorb the damage as they hide behind the rules. We are sure not to violate them lest we become like L G Carroll's Alice in Wonderland – first the verdict then the trial.
Tidbits, I most particularly agree with your words ” . . . there is much unknown in this case, and much of the evidence remains ungathered. Many, including myself, believe, feel or sense that there may have been bad faith or corrupt intent, . . . ” DOJ inspectors or a Congressional committee needs to get off their fannies and get going.
Kathy,
Yes, you did make these points clear in your piece, and nothing in my comment was meant to imply otherwise. Perhaps my comment was supurflous in restating the obvious.
gc
I was just restating John McCain's reasons for why we shouldn't torture
One day, I'll let go of 2008.
” You are failing, you are becoming lesser and your struggles as individuals and as a nation are becoming less possible to sympathize with. You are giving up, willingly admitting that you are incapable of being a different class of humans than the 9/11 terrorists who – just like you – abandoned societal mores and pillars for convenience and self-interest. I'm not the relativist here, when I make an analogy between you and the 9/11 terrorists . . .”
Axel, your logic is hard to follow here. If the American public overwhelmingly opposes use of torture and there are efforts to investigate its occurrences by a corrupt administration it seems to me there are redemptive elements here. You say you are ” . . . not the relativist here . . .” but aren't you the writer who stated you would feel no compunction over leaving without helping a certain person in a burning car turned upside down? Do you have any idea the number of military, political, financial and humanitarian initiatives we have undertaken since 1940 to help other nations? I have an idea. In furtherance of your principles of conscience why don't you launch a movement to have Obama's Nobel Peace Prize revoked. I'm sure you would have no problem in persuading your Norwegian neighbors to approve. I always enjoy reading your post but damn you present uptigtht. Relax, have a sazerac, it's mardi gras season. As we say in our part of the world 'Laissez les bon temps rouler'.
” If the American public overwhelmingly opposes use of torture and there are efforts to investigate occurrences in a corrupt administration it seems to me there are redemptive elements here. “
But you would not defend this administration against the torrent of hatred and relativism that the right would unleash, and there's the rub. Your support of those who would prosecute the plausible war criminals of the past would not translate into political capital.
“but aren't you the writer who stated you would feel no compunction leaving a certain person to perish in a burning car turned upside down? “
Only if that person is a relativist. Can you honestly not see how that works? Being hostile towards relativists is non-relativist, as is being non-hostile towards non-relativists. I don't move my rules about or hold any double-standards. For the same reason that we treat criminals differently than non-criminals, I believe we cannot approach homophobes, water-boarders, anti-secularists etc. in the same sense we approach people we have less fundamental disagreements with. For example, it is 100 % moral to somehow disrupt the democratic process or cheat in order to stop a supporter of waterboarding or a homophobe from getting elected.
We don't have an obligation to extend the protection of the rules towards the people who spit on the rules. Did a criminal bribe a judge, flagrantly? Are the rich or politically connected using their clout to be treated differently under the law? Then we take matters into our own hands – if the people we appointed to uphold jurisprudence in our absence are failing, we have to take up the job again. Look at Italy – there are now manifold justifications for criminal and terrorist activity from a conscientious Italian citizen. If even law can succumb to market forces etc., then we move towards a future where the only possible heroics will fall under the official definitions for terrorism and crime.
When we try to prosecute the previous administration, they throw some think-tanks or legal wrangling our way. They won't even risk being put under basic jurisprudence – they don't care about the basics of law. Trying to play fair against them is like continuing Queensbury rules against someone who uses kicks. If we aren't allowed to prosecute them fairly, we should kidnap them and hold our own trials, and strike down those who would stop us – only evil can defeat evil, but one evil doesn't need to have the same objectives as all the other evils.
“Do you have any idea the number of military, political, financial and humanitarian initiatives we have undertaken since 1940 to help other nations?”
Do you have any idea of how many manhours, money and other resources you have devoted to hinder other nations?
“In furtherance of your principles of conscience why don't you launch a movement to have Obama's Nobel Peace Prize revoked”
Why not? He is not willing to defend his values or actively push them against the fascists in America.
One day, not in this hour, I would like to have a discussion with you on the multiple types of relativism, absolutism and solipsism and how they reflect certain personality types and characterological functions. But for that I would need my pipe and tweed jacket and this is mardis gras season; I’m into sazeracs and comfort out of respect.
“But you would not defend this administration against the torrent of hatred and relativism that the right would unleash, and there's the rub. Your support of those who would prosecute the plausible war criminals of the past would not translate into political capital.”
This may have a nuanced meaning but I would be very comfortable in defending this administration against political assault. As for political capital, you are certainly correct that any investigation into Dubya and his Texas boys would piss off a lot of right wing nuts. I’m not so sure you quite understand that political motivation is not always the reason or rationale for re-ordering priorities in the USA. The wheels of American justice grind slowly but exceedingly fine. Recall the events of the 1970’s when Vice President Agnew was removed from office, then Tricky Dicky himself, AG John Mitchell sent to prison, FBI Director Patrick Grey out, AG Nicholas deB. Katzenbach ruined, and a retinue of hirelings and sycophants imprisoned. Later my idol Ronald Regan and some of his boys were roughed up. House Speakers Newt Gingrich and Robert Livingston were run out of office within weeks of each other. The Hammer, ole Tom DeLay, once the impolitic despot of the HR was reduced to dancing the la cucaracha. We can be pretty nasty to the leaders as well as forgiving, see Bill Clinton. I would be very surprised and disappointed if this is over. I have a sneaking suspicion Dick Cheney is raising such a ruckus now in hopes of deflecting a thorough look see. I think he’s just whistling past the graveyard.
“ Then we take matters into our own hands – if the people we appointed to uphold jurisprudence in our absence are failing, we have to take up the job again “
Well, yes we do have the right and obligation to make corrections through ballot box and normative procedures. But what you’re suggesting is vigilantism and we all know where that road leads – thinking of Maximilien Robespierre.
“ Do you have any idea of how many manhours, money and other resources you have devoted to hinder other nations? “
You’re much too intelligent to ask that question. Particularly if you read history. Skip WWII and review one thing – the Marshall Plan, you may know it as the European Recovery Plan (ERP) 1948-1952. Then again we could discuss Enskilda Bank, Ernst Wigforss, etc. etc. But now it is time for another sazerac and Arturo Fuente on the veranda.
“As for political capital, you are certainly correct that any investigation into Dubya and his Texas boys would piss off a lot of right wing nuts.”
It would piss of legions of people who are part of the mainstream chattering classes – just look at self-described moderate Jason Arvak – the subject sends him flying into hectoring surliness automatically. The village would be full of smarmy douchebags pushing the narrative that Obama was caving into MoveOn rather than just upholding the constitution. The right hates what people said about W and Cheney – defending them now is revenge for them. It's a complicated, fundamental issue that would take eons of legal wrangling – that kind of issue is incompatible with today's politic. The American public would not be able to grasp the issue and defend those who are on the correct side of it.
” I’m not so sure you quite understand that political motivation is not always the reason or rationale for re-ordering priorities in the USA.”
This senate couldn't even get student loan reform through.
“Well, yes we do have the right and obligation to make corrections through ballot box and normative procedures. But what you’re suggesting is vigilantism and we all know where that road leads – thinking of Maximilien Robespierre.”
The road to hell is paved with good intentions abandoned and forsaken out of fear or trepidation. What we have here is an upper class making itself economically and legally untouchable, while at the same time reaping the benefits of the system. They only want you to uphold enlightened, Western or otherwise liberal and egalitarian values when it suits them. The US and all other nations are on the same spectrum as Russia or Italy – it doesn't take much for an accumulation of power and corrosion of values to run rampant. Cheney is basically sticking his nose out at centuries of progress and creation of societal defenses against fascism and authoritarianism. If I was an American citizen, I'd consider a lot of actions to be self-defense at this point – he and his dogs are breaking down society.
“Skip WWII and review one thing – the Marshall Plan, you may know it as the European Recovery Plan (ERP) 1948-1952.”
You needed a trade partner – another continent to sell to and buy from. You also needed us to be stable and not completely despondent so that we wouldn't snuggle up to Moscow. I'm very happy about the mammoth aid package from the American tax payers, but with all certainty you gained that money back and then some.
Most of your examples are of people run out of office….not tossed in jail. When crimes are committed, the political class sticks together. Presidents do not go after Presidents because they don't want the next President going after them. The unwritten rules involve resignation…not imprisonment. I assume that we are unaware of 99% of the crimes committed by our political class. It seems like sex scandals are the only “crimes” that carry any weight these days.
Sorry if I was a bit sharp, tidbits. I had just read and responded to the first comment under the post — Leonidas's — and I read your comment in that light. You were not being accusatory, and if I hadn't read his comment first, I probably would not have seen it that way.
Axel, I'm off to the store to get more Peychaud Bitters for the sazeracs. You can't use Angostura Bitters, it's just not the same. I do want to reply to your revisionistic comments though. Please forgive.
As for shannonlee – would you feel more comfortable if we prosecuted fewer sex offenders? Review my blog, John Mitchell, H R Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and other Teutons were sent to prison. Those guys were huge fish. As for Nixon going to jail, Ford did the right thing with a pardon. I resented it at the time. So much that I almost voted for a fellow southerner Jimmy CATAH. I recovered in the nick of time. The spectacle of a president in jail for the Watergate burglary would never wash in history. No lives were lost, a constiutional insult to be sure but it was corrected without a committee of 100 and vigilantism. His sins pale in comparison to what was done in Iraq by Dubya and his gang of fools.
Things have changed since then…politics have changed. How many big fish have gone to jail in the past 30 years?
side note….I enjoy your posts. I hope to read more from you.
“was downgraded by David Margolis, a holdover from the Bush administration:”
Sorry Kathy, don't buy it, you put that bit in trying to make it appear as if a Bush appointee excused Yoo and Bybee. It was instead a career official who had been in the department since the Carter years with a sterling reputation. You effort was faulty, and either partisan based or the result of lack of research or both.
Now if you edit out that bit, I won't have a problem, but until you do I will call you on it.
If anyone wants a really good roundup and timeline with links to both liberal and conservative responses to this, I strongly recommend Johnathon Adler:
http://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2010/02/do…
Its much better than looking at just one side, and no matter your own personal bent, you will find something there to both agree and disagree with, and not just a one sided view.
Leonidas,
If that single part of that one sentence was what you objected to, you could have been a lot clearer if you had just specified it in the first place, rather than writing a minor treatise on how and why I maligned David Margolis. Clearly, that was both untrue and unfair, given that I made it clear I revised my initial impression of Margolis' motivations after reading Jack Balkin's post, and went on to provide a detailed analysis, my own and quoted from others, about why Margolis overruled the OPR report's recommendation.
I think your complaint that that particular portion of that particular sentence created an inaccurate impression that Margolis was a political appointee is a fair one, and if you had simply stated that straightforwardly and clearly, it would already have been fixed before now, without going through that whole lengthy defense of Margolis's reasoning and motivation that was totally unnecessary given that I had already expressed all of it in my post.
[...] Geographic, NBC Nightly News, the Today Show and the Craig Ferguson Show. Davis said the dogs Top DOJ Attorney David Margolis Nixes OPR Report Recommendation – The Moderate VoiceAuthor’s Note: The last sentence of the first paragraph has been slightly edited for clarity . [...]
[...] Top DOJ Attorney David Margolis Nixes OPR Report Recommendation – The Moderate VoiceAuthor’s Note: The last sentence of the first paragraph has been slightly edited for clarity . Justin Elliott at TPMMuckraker has comprehensive details about yesterday’s exoneration of John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the Bush lawyers who crafted memos [...]
[...] Top DOJ Attorney David Margolis Nixes OPR Report Recommendation – The Moderate VoiceAuthor’s Note: The last sentence of the first paragraph has been slightly edited for clarity . Justin Elliott at TPMMuckraker has comprehensive details about yesterday’s exoneration of John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the Bush lawyers who crafted memos [...]
[...] Top DOJ Attorney David Margolis Nixes OPR Report Recommendation – The Moderate VoiceAuthor’s Note: The last sentence of the first paragraph has been slightly edited for clarity . Justin Elliott at TPMMuckraker has comprehensive details about yesterday’s exoneration of John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the Bush lawyers who crafted memos [...]
“It's a complicated, fundamental issue that would take eons of legal wrangling – that kind of issue is incompatible with today's politic. The American public would not be able to grasp the issue and defend those who are on the correct side of it.”
Don’t underestimate the American public. The causative factors with this “complicated, fundamental issue” does not emanate from the public rather from the elected Democratic leaders who made promises. The electorate was told epochal changes were on the agenda. As for “grasp(ing) the issue and defend(ing) those who are . . . correct. . . “ remember, the American people gave an impeached president a 66% approval rating on the day he left office. His detractors are vanquished and Bill Clinton remains a greatly admired statesman nationally and internationally. Furthermore, consider that the American public, bestowed the mantle of leadership on an unknown blackman with no creditable political portfolio. An election with sizeable electoral and popular majorities at that. And that’s not all, it handed him a super majority in (no filibuster) congress. It really appears to me that some leaders in Washington need to study St. James “ Behold the ships, which though they be so large, and are driven by fierce winds, yet are they turned with a very small rudder, whithersoever the governor listeth.” The governor in Washington ought grab a hold of the rudder and listeth.
“This senate couldn't even get student loan reform through.”
Fiddle de dee. The Senate did a heck of a lot more. Hate crimes legislation, major recovery acts and stimulus bills, Senate HCR bill passed with 60 votes, antismoking legislation, and credit card protection act. To list a few. I agree they can do a helluva lot more and better. I’m not sure Pelosi and Reid could pour piss out of a boot using 4 hands. Obama needs to kick butt or the American people will. We want him to deliver on the needs of the country and that’s the crux of Sen. Scott Brown’s election. Not much should be read into the MA vote beyond the fact the American people want reasonable improvement in government dysfunction. Scott Brown should not buy a house in Washington as he’ll be gone in 3 years. IMO.
“Cheney is basically sticking his nose out at centuries of progress and creation of societal defenses against fascism and authoritarianism.”
Do you mean Cheney’s “sticking his tongue out,” flipping us a bird? Or is this an idiom like the Capulet’s “biting their thumb”?
In response to my suggestion of reviewing the Marshall Plan you responded:
“You needed a trade partner – another continent to sell to and buy from. You also needed us to be stable and not completely despondent so that we wouldn't snuggle up to Moscow. I'm very happy about the mammoth aid package from the American tax payers, but with all certainty you gained that money back and then some”
“A trading partner” hell, for 15 years, most of Europe didn’t have two dimes to rub together. The American public didn’t need a trading partner and they certainly didn’t want to have a lot to do with Europe. Most of us wanted to shrink into a cocoon, bind our wounds, bury our dead, heal our injured and renew our family and community lives. We were pulled kicking and screaming into a recovery program for Europe. The taxpayers had funded a war and financed a Lend Lease program for the allied powers. It was not eager to spend more money and take more risk for Europe. But we did. The same recovery assistance was offered to the Russians but they refused. It was obvious that Europe could not re-organize and reconstitute without US intervention. Social chaos, political upheaval and drift toward totalitarianism were inevitable without attention. And as you say, destitute Europe snuggling up to an increasing militaristic Russia was not a plausible scenario for us because we would be back at war within a few years. Nevertheless, it was not because we needed a trading partner. Whether we regained the investment is not the point. That’s a retrofitting rationalization. The American taxpayer funded the European Recovery Act fundamentally out of altruism and pragmatism. We were basically good folks doing another good deed of an extreme and generous magnitude with the sure knowledge that it’s a lot better to have healthier friends than weak ones.
NATO and projects such as the Berlin Airlifts were excrescents of our commitment to Europe. Attempts at significantly modifying that interpretation are just plain revisionism that are not borne out by history.
Axel, I see you didn’t engage my bait on Ernst Wigforss et. al.. So let’s discuss that with another batch of sazeracs. And by the way, I like Sweden, in fact, I love Sweden. I even have Swedish friends and I’m not embarrassed to admit it. God natt, kär vän. Kan du väcker till fred, hälsa och framgång
[...] Top DOJ Attorney David Margolis Nixes OPR Report Recommendation – The Moderate VoiceAuthor’s Note: The last sentence of the first paragraph has been slightly edited for clarity . Justin Elliott at TPMMuckraker has comprehensive details about yesterday’s exoneration of John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the Bush lawyers who crafted memos [...]
“Furthermore, consider that the American public, bestowed the mantle of leadership on an unknown blackman with no creditable political portfolio.”
Gotta hand it to W – he made it difficult for a white war hero with “foreign policy credentials” to win the election. Obama deserved that win not entirely out of his own hard work and his hard-working supporters.
“Do you mean Cheney’s “sticking his tongue out,” flipping us a bird?”
That one.
” The American taxpayer funded the European Recovery Act fundamentally out of altruism and pragmatism. We were basically good folks doing another good deed of an extreme and generous magnitude with the sure knowledge that it’s a lot better to have healthier friends than weak ones.
NATO and projects such as the Berlin Airlifts were excrescents of our commitment to Europe. Attempts at significantly modifying that interpretation are just plain revisionism that are not borne out by history. “
Fine, then. But my point was never about whether America was a net good or not in the world. My point was that the American public often makes insane decisions because it is enthralled with semiotics.
“God natt, kär vän. Kan du väcker till fred, hälsa och framgång”
Well, thank you and likewise. That needs some work, but no matter.
[...] Top DOJ Attorney David Margolis Nixes OPR Report Recommendation – The Moderate VoiceAuthor’s Note: The last sentence of the first paragraph has been slightly edited for clarity . Justin Elliott at TPMMuckraker has comprehensive details about yesterday’s exoneration of John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the Bush lawyers who crafted memos [...]
[...] Top DOJ Attorney David Margolis Nixes OPR Report Recommendation – The Moderate VoiceAuthor’s Note: The last sentence of the first paragraph has been slightly edited for clarity . Justin Elliott at TPMMuckraker has comprehensive details about yesterday’s exoneration of John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the Bush lawyers who crafted memos [...]
Kathy, sorry if I was unclear to you, I didn't realize i wasn't.
I posted ” But, to your credit after the initial comments you backed off and said you might have judged him too harshly., of course not enough to temper your earlier words and post something different.”
I thought It would be clear, I guess I should have initially been more specific.
Anyhow you fixed it so its all good now. =D
Also, a final note, I do think it proper and a good addition to the topic to note Margolis' sterling reputation among even liberal partisan sources to show that this was a man of character who reached this decision.
Explanation accepted, but I do want to note for the record that what you see as “not tempering my earlier words and posting something different” after I said I judged him too harshly, I see as being honest about the process I went through. I could have deleted the first part of my post and just praised Margolis for his decision, but I think that would have been intellectually dishonest — as if I thought that way the whole time.
By noting the above, I am not looking for your approval. I am telling you why I did what I did and I am telling you why it would have been wrong for me to have done it any other way.
” The American taxpayer funded the European Recovery Act fundamentally out of altruism and pragmatism. We were basically good folks doing another good deed of an extreme and generous magnitude with the sure knowledge that it’s a lot better to have healthier friends than weak ones.
NATO and projects such as the Berlin Airlifts were excrescents of our commitment to Europe. Attempts at significantly modifying that interpretation are just plain revisionism that are not borne out by history. “
Fine, then. But my point was never about whether America was a net good or not in the world. My point was that the American public often makes insane decisions because it is enthralled with semiotics.
Axel, when we began the interchange you weren’t talking semiotics we were talking substance and whether the decision to fund the Marshall Plan had anything to do with a return on the dollar
Was it pragmatic? Yes, we didn’t want to go back over there. We wanted to stay at home. We certainly did not want to go back in a military operation. But damned if we didn’t, to protect the asses of Europe and to be able to keep our distance. It wasn’t with the intention of establishing a trade partner which was your assertion: “You needed a trade partner – another continent to sell to and buy from. “ “ . . but with all certainty you gained that money back and then some.” Don't try to philosophically retrofit history.
Did Sweden take Gold & Bronze in Men’s 30 km Pursuit (Crosscountry)? I know you took Gold but I can’t confirm if you took another medal. I think you may have.
Makkan Hellner(gold) reports that he likes hunting playing poker and dating women,. I’ll bet he would like sazeracs too! He would fit in well in our part of the world. If he liked Tobasco sauce (mother’s milk to us) he’d be a real coonass.
[...] Top DOJ Attorney David Margolis Nixes OPR Report Recommendation – The Moderate VoiceAuthor’s Note: The last sentence of the first paragraph has been slightly edited for clarity . Justin Elliott at TPMMuckraker has comprehensive details about yesterday’s exoneration of John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the Bush lawyers who crafted memos [...]
dear axel, We hold to newspaper standards at TMV. Appreciate your holding to that also.
thanks
dr.e
hi there, and welcome… just a note wagglebutll: TMV holds to newspaper standards in terms of language. Please read the commenters rules at the top of the home page for further clarification. Thanks
[...] Top DOJ Attorney David Margolis Nixes OPR Report Recommendation – The Moderate VoiceBut, to your credit after the initial comments you backed off and said you might have judged him too harshly To find misconduct, there must be bad faith or corrupt intent on the part of the attorney. Unless there is evidence that Yoo/Bybee acted [...]
Has an infraction been committed? If so please advise. I am unsure of the
reference below. Thank you. WagglebuttII
I'll contact you by email.
Thanks