Jose Rodriguez to Seek Immunity in CIA Tape Destruction Probe

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:09:21 PM EST
Tags: CIA, David Addington, Jose Rodriguez (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The House Intelligence Committee has scheduled a hearing on January 16 (pdf) regarding the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes of two al Qaeda suspects held in secret overseas prisons, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

The order to destroy the tapes allegedly was given by Jose Rodriguez who at that time was head of the CIA’s clandestine service. Rodriguez, who has hired lawyer Robert Bennett to represent him, has no intention of being the scapegoat.

The TimesonLine reports Rodgriguez is seeking immunity for his testimony. Who might he give up?

Four names in the White House have surfaced so far. My money is on Cheney lawyer (now his Chief of Staff) David Addington.

Jose Rodriguez, former head of the CIA’s clandestine service, is determined not to become the fall guy in the controversy over the CIA’s use of torture, according to intelligence sources.

It has emerged that at least four White House staff were approached for advice about the tapes, including David Addington, a senior aide to Dick Cheney, the vice-president, but none has admitted to recommending their destruction.

Former CIA agent Larry Johnson writes the real issue isn't who ordered the tape destruction, but who lied to the Judge in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. That was my first thought when I read that one of the taped suspects was Abu Zubaydah.

Larry points out: [More...]

The real priority is who in the Bush Administration knowingly lied to a Federal Judge in the spring of 2003. Either the CIA told DOJ the truth and DOJ lied or the CIA lied to DOJ or the White House directed DOJ to lie. It is that simple.

....There are at least two felonies here–obstruction of justice and lying to a federal law enforcement official. Someone who worked for John Ashcroft, the Attorney General at the time, certainly was in touch with the U.S. Attorneys who fielded this question from Judge Brinkema. And the Department of Justice asked the C.I.A. I will bet you dollars to donuts that the White House also was in the loop on this. At least Harriet Miers, Gonzo, and Addington. Who would they talk to at the CIA?

I'd bet it wasn't Miers or Gonzales. That leaves Addington. But Larry is focused on the CIA end, since they are the ones who had to tell DOJ there were no tapes to turn over to the Judge.

When the CIA affirms to the court in November of 2005 that there are no tapes, that may have been a true statement at the time. If the tapes were destroyed in June or July then it was a factual statement. The real crime starts in 2003. Funny, but then Deputy Director of the CIA, John McLaughlin, has been quiet as a church mouse of late. Ditto for Tenet and Pavitt. With reason. Someone lied.

Who else was involved in giving advice to the CIA on interrogation techniques? Michael Chertoff. His role is described in this 2005 New York Times article.

For more on Addington, read Jane Mayer's 2006 New Yorker article, Hidden Power: The Legal Mind Behind the White House's War on Terror.

Everything seems to come full circle at some point with this Administration. Let's hope that continues to hold true in the new year.

< J. Edgar Hoover Redux | An Iowa Poll Hillary Supporters Will Love >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Jose Rodriguez to Seek Immunity in CIA Tape Destruction Probe | 47 comments (47 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If Santa can give me one thing for Christmas (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by kovie on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 03:16:10 AM EST

It would be to see David Addington taken down like a Loizeaux implosion. I.e. methodically, systematically, deliberately and spectacularly. Other than Bush and Cheney there has not been a more destructive person in recent US history. Probably even worse than Hoover (either), McCarthy and Nixon. And few people probably deserve to be taken down more than this modern day Iago.

I assume that Santa still likes our constitution (and doesn't mind that I'm Jewish).

i think perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by cpinva on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 03:49:33 AM EST

a little waterboarding might be in order here. i'm sure mr. rodriguez and his atty. won't mind. frankly, who cares if they do?

forget immunity. subpoena him, force him to claim his 5th amendment rights, in public, then fry his ass. offer a plea deal: only a semi-indefinite detention, at gitmo, if he talks.

ok, you're right, that would be an insult, to the many innocent parties currently being held there.

oooo! a hearing! perhaps they'll send (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by chicago dyke on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 05:02:54 AM EST

a strongly worded letter too. that'll teach em!

i love you, J, but at times i find your faith in the law unrealistic. who, exactly, is bringing up charges, starting a grand jury, taking concrete steps to prosecuting any of these people? which leading democrats are calling for the forceful application of the law, outside the blogosphere? hillary? reid? indeed, the administration knows it can completely stonewall any congressional "investigation," and get away with it. they've done so a bunch.
no democratic coalition seems to be able to stop them, or willing to apply their own constitutional powers to the fullest.

: whither your faith be placed, then, chicago? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by the rainnn on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 11:04:05 AM EST

i hear your frustration, but i do not
see many alternatives. we, at least,
have agreed to continue to honor the rule
of law -- elsewise, we become no different
than cheney and addington -- we must employ
the lawful tools the founders left us, not
some darwinian-jungle-law attack [quite be-
fitting these war criminals]. . .
so, i believe the HJC will convene its
hearings on january 19, 2008, and rodriquez's
immunity could deliver addington -- and
addington is no scooter -- he'd roll
on richard bruce cheney in a heartbeat!
so -- my reindeer-milk induced haze has
this triple play as rod-takes-addington;
addington-takes-a-plea; addington's plea
takes down richard bruce cheney.
what's not to like?
p e a c e
yes -- i'll also have cookies out
for santa, later this evening. . .

It is hard to fight a war on terror (1.00 / 2) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:52:34 AM EST

when those supposedly on your side are more interested in attacking you than the other side.

Sad.

Especially (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by Repack Rider on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 09:51:03 AM EST

when the guy working hardest for the terrorists is the president.


And then there's the guy who said. (1.00 / 1) (#7)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 02:19:34 PM EST

Define torture. (1.00 / 2) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:31:16 PM EST
No problem (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Repack Rider on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:33:31 PM EST
Anything you would not want me to do to you is torture.

'When I use a word,' Repack said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said pppj, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Repack, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

My apologies to Lewis Carrol

And we understand, Repack. We understand quote well.


Relativity (none / 0) (#8)
by manys on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 04:52:46 PM EST

If this were Saudi Arabia both of yours' nuts would be in a vise right about now.


: Merry Christmas (1.00 / 1) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 04:58:31 PM EST

and if my aunt had nuts she would be my Uncle.
And your point was?

Funny (none / 0) (#10)
by Repack Rider on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 06:04:10 PM EST

Your first person plural includes everyone EXCEPT you.

Jim, I had a book published and I was a magazine editor for about ten years. My grasp of the language was sufficient to provide me with a decent income. Yours is not.

OBL and GWB pursue the same objective, i.e. to terrify the American public in order to enhance their own political power. OBL does it directly, and Mr. Bush does it by invoking OBL as the boogeyman.

After five years of GWB not finding the guy he was going to pursue ("Dead or alive...") with every resource at his disposal (and later admitting that he doesn't think about finding OBL very often), you have to admit that OBL is more valuable to Mr. Bush at large than in captivity. If capturing Osama was important to Mr. Bush, he would have tried to do it.


: Nice try at changing the subject (1.00 / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 10:45:53 PM EST

but OBL is not being discussed.
Glad to know you are such a wunderfel riter. I am empressed beyand buleaf....youse guys
BTW - I aint duing this tu make money... My grasp of the language was good enough to let me make enough money to hire writers when I needed one.
Ever do any technical stuff?? I might recommend you. Send me some samples.

Are you wrong? (1.00 / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 01:59:58 PM EST

Do bears poop in the woods?

Have you ever been right?? My comment re the tapes is that this is much ado over politics. The Demos want to hurt the Repubs and if it hurts the country, so what??

As for tapes, I find it difficult to believe that the 9/11 Commission didn't ask for a transcript, but evidently they did not. But then I am not surprised.

As for publicizing the methods employed on thousands of terrorist prisoners.... ooops, make that two very high level prisoners and note that it was most effective...

Well, it was probably decided that flushing a Koran down a commode would be more terrifying. Opps that didn't happen either....

That this didn't work as well as the methods employed by Col West is actually not known...

Also unknown is the number of people alive today because of the effective interrogation of the two terrorist leaders...

People who, evidently, you would sacrifice... regretfully perhaps... but still sacrifice...so you can look down your nose... is it pointed??.. and cluck disdainfully that you have a more refined sense of ethics.

Hooey is the best word I can think of to describe my rejection of such trashy logic and, in my view, a position that can only result in immoral acts.


Misinformation Central (5.00 / 0) (#14)
by squeaky on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 03:25:25 PM EST

AKA ppj.

I guess as self appointed TL propaganda minister your powerlie links are to be expected.

The rest of the world is not buying your BS.


Unfortunately you still can't read. (1.00 / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:37:56 PM EST

Reading YOur Nonsense (5.00 / 0) (#17)
by squeaky on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:46:49 PM EST

At least you occasionally admit that it is nonsense, intentionally or not.


: Another mistake by squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:32:39 PM EST

and he responds by trying to change the subject.
hehe

Here you go (1.00 / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:06:53 PM EST

Can I do what?? Hehe. The old prove a negative, eh??

From the article:

Philip Zelikow prepared a memorandum for the Commission reviewing the Commission's requests and the CIA's responses thereto...
Zelikow does not quote any request made by the Commission that unambiguously covered the video tapes.
The staff was repeatedly assured that there were no material or substantive differences between the information contained in the operational cables and the information in the disseminated reports." Still nothing about transcripts or tapes. Again, it seems inconceivable that Commission staffers could have had these conversations without determining whether transcripts existed.
Putting all of this together, it appears that that the September 11 Commission never made a request of the CIA that clearly would have encompassed the video tapes of interrogations. Thus, the outrage expressed by the Commission's Chairmen and the suggestion that someone at the CIA may have committed a crime are misplaced.
Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot. Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses--sworn enemies of the United States--is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place

More Powerlies (5.00 / 0) (#19)
by squeaky on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:02:17 PM EST

From the ppj portal.

In May 2003, CIA told Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema that there were no recordings or other records of the interrogations. That was a lie. In 2003 and 2004, the Congressional 9/11 Commission made "repeated and detailed inquiries relating to interrogations." The CIA said there was no additional material, another lie. In June 2005, Director of Operations Jose Rodriguez ordered the tapes destroyed. The order came, perhaps not coincidentally, just as the Italian authorities were entering into the investigative phase of a major inquiry into CIA renditions in Italy.
[snip]
The real reason for the cover-up on the tapes is because torture is universally acknowledged to be a war crime and everyone in the CIA and White House hierarchy knows that to be true.

The recordings were not provided to a federal court hearing the case of the terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui or to the Sept. 11 commission, which was appointed by President Bush and Congress, and which had made formal requests to the C.I.A. for transcripts and other documentary evidence taken from interrogations of agency prisoners.
[snip]
"The commission did formally request material of this kind from all relevant agencies, and the commission was assured that we had received all the material responsive to our request," said Philip D. Zelikow, who served as executive director of the Sept. 11 commission and later as a senior counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
"No tapes were acknowledged or turned over, nor was the commission provided with any transcript prepared from recordings," he said.
[snip]
Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, has been pushing legislation in Congress to have all detainee interrogations videotaped so officials can refer to the tapes multiple times to glean better information.
Mr. Holt said he had been told many times that the C.I.A. did not record the interrogation of detainees. "When I would ask them whether they had reviewed the tapes to better understand the intelligence, they said, `What tapes?'," he said.

NYT


: hehe (1.00 / 0) (#28)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:09:41 PM EST

has been pushing legislation in Congress to have all detainee interrogations videotaped so officials can refer to the tapes multiple times to glean better information.
Or leak them to the NYT?
The record of Congress, including staff and various government officials when it comes to keeping secrets has been poor to ungodly bad.
Why, things are not even safe in the National Archives.... just as Sandy B if you doubt me. ;-)

What I said (1.00 / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:41:42 PM EST

Based on this:

This effort is not very successful; Zelikow does not quote any request made by the Commission that unambiguously covered the video tapes. But the review raises much more fundamental questions: does the CIA have transcripts of terrorist interrogations, and if so, did the September 11 Commission ask for them?

I opined this.

(Fast forward through squeak's nonsense.)
You ask:

Could you show the evidence that they DID NOT ask for a transcript

I quoted what I felt as the definitive answer on tapes and transcripts.

The staff was repeatedly assured that there were no material or substantive differences between the information contained in the operational cables and the information in the disseminated reports." Still nothing about transcripts or tapes. Again, it seems inconceivable that Commission staffers could have had these conversations without determining whether transcripts existed.
..Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place

Now remember, that is Zeliknow writing about the commission who is saying that they didn't have transcripts. It occurs to me that if the commission had actually said, "Give me the tapes and transcripts," they would have a record of the request and Zelikow would have a copy. He doesn't.

As I noted above, I am not surprised. Why? Simple. We know that by this point in time, at least four Demos knew of waterboarding being used on these two terrorists, and well as, I am sure, some Repubs. Given that no secrets can be kept for more than 30 seconds in DC, the commission didn't want to know "too much."

Tapes, if they showed waterboarding, would be a problem. Transcripts would be less of a problem, but might still be too specific.

So they settled for reports.

Now they are trapped and are trying to wiggle.


Jose Rodriguez was right (1.00 / 1) (#21)
by LisaPeters on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:48:21 PM EST

The CIA tapes had to be destroyed.

It wasn't pretty, but it had to happen. Read linked arguments by former NSA analyst for a different perspective. And despite what you may feel -there is logic in the opposing viewpoint.

: I read it (5.00 / 0) (#23)
by Repack Rider on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:11:21 PM EST

and if that is the case for destroying the tapes, there is no case for destroying them.
It is truly the emptiest argument in a sea of empty arguments, in a galaxy of empty arguments, in a universe of empty arguments.
Shorter version: "We're criminals and we don't want to be exposed. We'll take the heat for the coverup because the penalty for what we covered up is worse."
Thanks for pointing out how morally deficient these people are. Sometimes it's hard to be patriotic when your country is run by insane criminals and when evil is rationalized by the likes of this disgusting man.

Yo! Jack!!! (1.00 / 1) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:36:05 AM EST

Can we talk? Can you read? No? Let me help.

The order to destroy the tapes allegedly was given by Jose Rodriguez

You understand what that means???

Now he may have done so, he may not have. Do you think we should have an investigation before you just lynch him??

FELONY violation - U.S.A. Patriot Act (none / 0) (#24)
by Pat Jack on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:37:04 PM EST

Why has no person on the internet, except for myself, discussed the use of the USA Patriot Act to prosecute those that destroyed the tapes with FELONY VIOLATION of the USA Patriot Act.

Any person who has read and made a Patriotic attempt to understand the USA Patriot Act would quickly come to the conclusion that the CIA and operatives involved in the destruction of critical evidentiary in a terrorist investigation or proceeding by the government is a FELONY VIOLATION of the USA Patriot Act.

If lawyers stand up and use this law against the perpetrators its not like you are going to be locked up by the U.S. government like Musarref does to the protesting lawyers ...

It's not like U.S. lawyers would be locked up in the Gulag if they used the Patriot Act to prosecute this administration ...

It's not like in China, where lawyers protesting against the government are tortured, beaten and have their families come into peril.

Read the Patriot Act my lawyer fellow Americans and you will recieve power you have NEVER IMAGINED.

The first lawyer in America to use the Patriot Act against this corrupt administration will go down in history for all time.

Furthermore, if this congressional committe fails to use the Patriot Act to prosecute this criminal destruction of evidence, then all congresspersons on this committee are in MISAPRION of FELONY, under the USA Patriot Act.

Patrick Henry fed the chickens the morning of his ride, are any of you hungry?

Not To Seem (none / 0) (#25)
by squeaky on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:44:40 PM EST

Too cynical, but why don't you make a citizen's arrest. Mukassey does not seem interested. And while you are at it why not arrest bush, cheney, addington, wolfowitz, perle, feith, rumsfeld, powell, and any other BushCo criminal you can get your hands on.


Not to seem too technical (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:01:05 PM EST

but it is my understanding that something called "probable cause..... indictment....." and a few other things are required before anyone can be arrested.


Yes, but (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by squeaky on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:24:26 PM EST

In your wingnut world torture first then indict.


Squeak smears spontaneously (1.00 / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:45:20 AM EST

Can't help your self, can you?

But now you have revealed that your disbelief in Free Speech.

Waterboarding Is Torture (none / 0) (#17)
by squeaky on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:21:08 PM CST
You are the only one to disagree. YOu smear yourself with your unAmerican ideas. As far as proposing that nooses are lariots, you are FOS, as usual.

That ole pesky constitution has gotta go, eh???

hehe


Free Speech??? (5.00 / 0) (#31)
by squeaky on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:59:56 PM EST

What does the first amendment have to do with your inane comments at TL. Perhaps you should read the site policy and the constitution before you comment.

You are free to embarrass yourself with wingnut spew. Since many of your comments have been deleted at TL for violating site policy, maybe you should call the ALCU.

Poor baby...


squeak smears spontaneously (1.00 / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:58:47 PM EST

Calling my comments "un-American" is an obvious attempt to distort my position and shut me up. That, squeak, is an attempt at censorship. Your relationship to the truth and your stated belief that:

Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

To further demonstrate who you are, you followed up with the following almost 18 months later. So it isn't as if you were just angry or something.

ppj does as ppj does (none / 0) (#30)
by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:58:35 PM EST
(I had written)So because Rove is doing wrong, it is okay for you to do wrong?
(You replied.)I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.

You make things up squeak. And I am being charitable when I say that. Let me repeat. You make things up. And you do so because you disagree with someone else's views and you seek to smear them because you do not have the ability to refute them because your abilities are very modest and your positions are not supportable.

So let me repeat so that there is no misunderstanding. I do not consider waterboarding torture. I consider it to be the last recourse we have in aggressive interrogation and something we use rarely and only then when we think it absolutely necessary. Now, if you can't understand that, I am truly glad that people such as you are still in the minority in this country.

I also believe that there may come a time in which circumstances dictate that we take all necessary measures to obtain information to protect innocent American, and others, from deadly attack. I think this is a moral thing to do because to not protect the innocent when you have the ability to do so is a completely immoral act.

And be assured that this thread will be available for you to read again.


Say what? (5.00 / 0) (#34)
by Repack Rider on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 06:17:07 PM EST

I do not consider waterboarding torture.

Congratulations.

Identifying your problem is the first step toward dealing with it.


I asked you to define torture (none / 0) (#37)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 12:34:38 AM EST

and you gave us this:

No problem (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Repack Rider on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:33:31 PM EST
Anything you would not want me to do to you is torture.

By that logic we could not oppose the terrorists. We could not capture them. If we had any under detention we would have to let them go.

What you, squeak, et al, are doing is this.

When I use a word,' Repack said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said ppjakajim, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Repack, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

My apologies to Lewis Carroll.

To the Left everything is politics. Words and actions have no meaning outside the context of whatever political scenario you are pushing.

Remember. Four of your Demo leaders knew of the only two cases of waterboarding. None of them said a word.

Beyond actual sadness at your continuing support (none / 0) (#40)
by glanton on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 02:31:52 PM EST

for torture of any human being at all, I am also curious why it is you fix the number waterboarded at two?


Do you read?? (none / 0) (#41)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:05:25 PM EST

That is the information provided by the retired CIA employee.

Do you read newspapers or only blogs??


Well that settles it then! (5.00 / 0) (#43)
by glanton on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:33:04 PM EST

Clearly, there haven't been more than two people waterboarded.

That you continue to treat these people as even halfway credible is almost as comical as your support for torture is sad.


Like Will Rogers (1.00 / 0) (#44)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 10:29:32 PM EST

all I know is what I read in the newspapers...

;-)


: Congratulations (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Repack Rider on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:11:32 AM EST

all I know is what I read in the newspapers...
Identifying your problem is the first step toward dealing with it.

Torture Is UnAmerican (5.00 / 0) (#35)
by squeaky on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 12:14:45 AM EST

Calling my comments "un-American" is an obvious attempt to distort my position and shut me up. That, squeak, is an attempt at censorship.

YOu have obviously lost your mind.


squeak smears spontaneously (1.00 / 0) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 12:21:12 AM EST

Yes, but (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by squeaky on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:24:26 PM CST
In your wingnut world torture first then indict.

You should back to the start of the thread where I noted that we shouldn't be arresting people and you come up with the above piece of trash.

You smear squeak. That's all you know how to do.


Quoting You A Smear? (5.00 / 0) (#39)
by squeaky on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 02:08:21 PM EST

That is very Humpty Dumpty of you. Besides you cannot be smeared here because your reputation cannot be made any worse than by your own litany of misinformation, distortion and wingnut shilling evidenced by your history of comments at TL.


Squeak, you wrote what you wrote (1.00 / 0) (#42)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:06:49 PM EST

and your own words impeach you.

There is nothing you can say to make them go away.


Do you even realize (1.00 / 0) (#45)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 10:31:56 PM EST

that in your last charge that you prove my point??

No. I'm sure you don't.

Say good night squeak. You can't keep up anymore.


You're A Bad Joke (5.00 / 0) (#47)
by squeaky on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:16:23 PM EST

At best


Let's look (1.00 / 0) (#48)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 01:22:58 PM EST

Here was my comment:

Not to seem too technical (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:01:05 PM CST
but it is my understanding that something called "probable cause..... indictment....." and a few other things are required before anyone can be arrested.

Here was your response:

That's a real reasoned response you make.

Like I said, you can't keep up.


: Repeat Your BS (5.00 / 0) (#49)
by squeaky on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 02:46:07 PM EST

All you want. You only smear yourself. Your reputation here is as low as it could get, because of your relentless dishonesty. It has gotten so bad that even the other trolls distance themselves from you.

Admission of criminal activity (5.00 / 0) (#32)
by Pat Jack on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:57:46 PM EST

The perpetrators have admitted they destroyed evidence in a terrorist investigation.

why are you talking about probable cause?

You are unamerican and are trying to protect these persons who destroyed the terrorist evidence, they aided and abedded the 'terrorists'.

Yo, your ignorance is unamerican.


YO ! jimakappj (none / 0) (#52)
by Pat Jack on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:04:57 PM EST

The CIA has ADMITTED they DESTROYED the tapes.

What part of "admitted a felony violation of the USA Patriot Act" do you not understand?

Some person destroyed those tapes, that is ADMITTED !

What's your major malfunction. Focus, focus on the felony.

I know you must have a zillion ideas running around in your head, but this is important, this is not a joks.

A serious and egregious felony violation of the USA Patriot Act has been ADMITTED to !

Get a clue joker. Ignorance is no excuse for unamericanism.