John Yoo vindicated

[Flummoxed Lummox]

The NY Times said Yoo actions were professional misconduct the actual report clears Yoo...but I wouldn't someone like FL to understand that.

The New York Times weren't the only ones saying Yoo engaged in professional misconduct.

The Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility concluded in a 261 page report dated July 29, 2009 that Yoo committed "intentional professional misconduct" when he "knowingly failed to provide a thorough, objective, and candid interpretation of the law" and recommended a referal to the Bar for disciplinary action. However, career Justice department lawyer David Margolis in a Memorandum dated January 5, 2010 countermanded the recommended referral. While Margolis was careful to avoid "an endorsement of the legal work" which he said was "flawed" and "contained errors more than minor" concluding that Yoo had exercised "poor judgment," still he did not find "professional misconduct" sufficient to authorize OPR "to refer its findings to the state bar disciplinary authorities."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#Office_of_professional_responsibility_report

The initial report did, in fact, say Yoo engaged in "professional misconduct." The final version simply said there wasn't enough evidence to recommend disbarment. Saying your legal conclusions were "flawed"; "contained errors more than minor"; and Yoo "exercised poor judgement" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for Yoo's legal skills. But I wouldn't expect anyone with your egregious reading comprehension skills to understand that.

[ben stein fan]

FL,

It wasn't the final report which was issued.  We have already been down this road.  The initial report was drafted by political appointees whose mission was to discredit Yoo.  The career attorney who isn't beholden to any politican said "NO" the report is wrong and based his report on facts.

If Yoo had committed professional misconduct then the California Bar would have brought up charges and the Justice Department would have opened a criminal investigation.  Neither of which happened.

[NCVol]

If O.J. Simpson had killed his wife, he'd be in jail....   If Bill Clinton had been guilty of a crime, he'd have been convicted by the Senate and removed from office....

BTW, you should at least bother to get YOUR facts right about the review.  The original review was done by career folks, and was largely complete and ready for release BEFORE BUSH LEFT OFFICE. Read the damn report by Margolis here for a full discussion of the timeline. 

So you're just wrong about whether the review was by career or political appointees (career have been in charge the whole time), but even if you're right, those political hacks as you seem to imply were appointed by BUSH, not Obama.  Furthermore, the political appointee most able to affect the outcome is the AG himself, appointed by Obama.  And what Obama's top appointee did was stand aside as Yoo and Bybee were "cleared" by the legal review which was beginning in 2009 under his control. 

In short, this theory that Obama political hacks colored the process and biased it against Yoo and Bybee is simply not supported by ANY EVIDENCE at all.  Nothing supports your theory.  It sounds good for clueless republican lemmings, but there is no support for it. 

[Just Win]

If O.J. Simpson had killed his wife, he'd be in jail....   If Bill Clinton had been guilty of a crime, he'd have been convicted by the Senate and removed from office....

BTW, you should at least bother to get YOUR facts right about the review.  The original review was done by career folks, and was largely complete and ready for release BEFORE BUSH LEFT OFFICE. Read the damn report by Margolis here for a full discussion of the timeline. 

So you're just wrong about whether the review was by career or political appointees (career have been in charge the whole time), but even if you're right, those political hacks as you seem to imply were appointed by BUSH, not Obama.  Furthermore, the political appointee most able to affect the outcome is the AG himself, appointed by Obama.  And what Obama's top appointee did was stand aside as Yoo and Bybee were "cleared" by the legal review which was beginning in 2009 under his control. 

In short, this theory that Obama political hacks colored the process and biased it against Yoo and Bybee is simply not supported by ANY EVIDENCE at all.  Nothing supports your theory.  It sounds good for clueless republican lemmings, but there is no support for it. 

Yoo is a true American hero. I am so thankful we had Americans like this working at Justice post 9/11.

[Just Win]

Guess this IS OKIYAR



Waterboarding: WWJD?

That is a great sketch with the exception of the Islamoterrorist murder not having a blindfold on.. Thanks for sharing it with us. It makes me proud of Special Ops forces. Those are some great Americans.

[LTC]

jbw...you are a despicable human being....

[Flummoxed Lummox]

FL,

It wasn't the final report which was issued.  We have already been down this road.  The initial report was drafted by political appointees whose mission was to discredit Yoo.  The career attorney who isn't beholden to any politican said "NO" the report is wrong and based his report on facts.

If Yoo had committed professional misconduct then the California Bar would have brought up charges and the Justice Department would have opened a criminal investigation.  Neither of which happened.

No . This is what you said: "the actual report clears Yoo."

The actual report stated there wasn't enough evidence to recommend disbarment. But the actual report was quite clear that Yoo was grossly incompetent. The only thing he was "cleared" of was that his professional misconduct (and yes that's what it was) did not rise to the level to refer its findings to the state bar for disciplinary actions. The report was scathing in its conclusions about Yoo's actions.

NC Vol beat me to the punch about your alleged "political appointees were out to discredit Yoo" piece of fiction. They people who concluded Yoo was guilty of professional misconduct were career appointees, representing a wide spectrum of political ideologies.

It's one thing to debate someone who doesn't share your political views. It's quite another to try to reason with a person who can't get basic facts straight, something you do regularly on this board.

[LTC]

It seems the OPR report may be is tainted.....it is a lot like letting the fox guard the hen house, isn't it?

CIA Now Reviewing OPR Report on Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury

Sheldon Whitehouse revealed raised during today’s Department of Justice oversight hearing that the CIA is now reviewing the results of the Office of Professional Responsibility report on John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Steven Bradbury’s role in authorizing torture.

Holder doesn’t find it problematic that someone like John Rizzo–who remains the Acting General Counsel at CIA and who made apparently false declarations to OLC in 2002 when it first approved torture–gets a chance to review the OPR report

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/17/cia-now-reviewing-opr-report-on-yoo-bybee-and-bradbury/

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/02/28/john-rizzos-letter/

[Just Win]

It seems the OPR report may be is tainted.....it is a lot like letting the fox guard the hen house, isn't it?


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/17/cia-now-reviewing-opr-report-on-yoo-bybee-and-bradbury/

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/02/28/john-rizzos-letter/

If Mr. Yoo broke the law then get with the ACLU and bring the charges. Otherwise stop making the board obsess about your hate for the security of our nation.

[Flummoxed Lummox]

If Mr. Yoo broke the law then get with the ACLU and bring the charges. Otherwise stop making the board obsess about your hate for the security of our nation.

You mean like your hate with everything Obama does?

You calling anyone out for being obsessed with something is comical.

This is your cue to post that silly projected deficit chart for the 752nd time.