Politically Incorrect. The flap over Jamie Gorelick underscores a commission faction’s real agenda.

NRO ^ | April 20, 2004, 8:38 a.m. | By Andrew C. McCarthy

[.cnI redruM]

The uproar over 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick's very simple and very blatant conflict of interest appears, predictably, to be quelling. The New York Times, quoting an anonymous commission member, reliably concluded not that her 1995 memorandum was a smoking gun of intelligence lapse, but rather that John Ashcroft had "politicized" the proceedings by bringing it up. This after commission Republicans curiously leapt to Gorelick's defense, first warning us to stay out of their business (Chairman Kean), and then slandering as "baloney" (John Lehman) and "garbage" (Slade Gorton) good-faith criticism of a delegitimizing process in which a key witness is also a commissioner actively steering the direction of the panel's public hearings and final report.

Meanwhile, Gorelick's allies from the old Clinton war room mobilized as they always so skillfully do. With the help of compliant media friends, they've managed to dissect the obvious into a maze of miniature, obscure, and disingenuous legalisms that take so much airtime to untangle any hope for clarity is lost. The talking points are out: "So, you must also be saying that Justice Scalia should recuse himself from the case involving Vice President Cheney?" "Wasn't this 'wall' really in effect since the 1970s?" "Didn't the 1995 Gorelick memo simply codify existing law?" "Don't many of the commissioners have some involvement in facts the commission is examining?"

The people who ask these questions know full well that they are misleading. Gorelick's conflict has nothing remotely to do with having a social relationship with litigant in a matter in which she is otherwise uninvolved. What was in effect since the 1970s was FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), not the wall Gorelick and others placed between criminal and intelligence investigators in 1995. Far from codifying (flawed) existing law, Gorelick's memo itself explicitly says the barriers it was erecting went "beyond what is legally required." And some of the other commissioners have some tangential involvement in the facts (e.g., some of them, while in Congress, voted on measures that have come up in the hearings), but only Gorelick was mired in the salient issue of intelligence failure.

But the babble over these arcane points will probably provide Gorelick just the cloudy cover she needs to hang on. And even if the strategy falters, she has yet another ace in the hole.

To see why this is so, one need only go to the commission's website, where valuable information about the panel's rules and make-up is found. The commission advertises itself as "bipartisan" and "independent." It further showcases that it has carefully considered the matter of conflicts and developed guidelines for resolving them. Upon close reading, however, these guidelines are woefully inadequate and undermine the notion that the commission is actually bipartisan in all-important particulars.

First, the conflict guidelines fail to anticipate what has happened here. The commission's main reason for existing is to examine comprehensively the nation's state of preparedness prior to the attacks. This, by definition, implicates what our national counterterrorism structure was, and whether it led to intelligence breakdowns that hindered any chance we might have had to prevent the suicide hijackings. Gorelick's conflict lies in the fact that she was a principal designer of the obstruction to competent intelligence analysis that was still intact on 9/11. That is, her involvement is basic. If this were a trial, and you were the lawyer tasked to prove the architecture of U.S. counterterrorism policy leading up to the hijacking attacks, she would not be a throw-in; she would be one of your most essential witnesses.

The commission's recusal rules, however, do not comprehend so fundamental a conflict of interest. They don't conceive that there could be any big-ticket item — like intelligence failure itself — so central to the investigation that a commissioner's involvement in it must be disqualifying lest the panel is to be reduced to a kangaroo court conducting a made-for-TV show trial. Instead, the rules assume that the investigation may be atomized into innumerable parts, none any more probative than any other. Under this nutty all-issues-are-created-equal approach, the part about the erection of structural barriers that prevented information about the hijackers from being pooled by investigators is no more significant than, say, the part about the security of airplane cockpit doors.

Having thus removed any sense of the commission's cumulative purpose, and, indeed, any commonsense prioritizing of the investigation's parts, the rules call for commissioners to recuse themselves only if a particular part involves either "work they performed in prior government service" or matters in which they have a financial interest. Bizarrely, even close personal connections to a witness do not disqualify a commissioner from examining that witness; the commissioner is merely advised that she "should not play a primary role in the commission interview of that person." Under these rules, Sammy the Bull would have qualified to be a commissioner on a panel investigating the Gambino Family as long he recused himself from the parts about his own murders and made sure to let the one of his capos have the "primary role" when it came time to interview John Gotti.

But hold on a second, you say, what about that thing about "the work they performed while in government service"? — since the wall separating intelligence and criminal investigators was work Gorelick performed in government service, and that's the issue the 9/11 Commission is really all about, shouldn't that be interpreted to mean she must be disqualified as a commissioner? And even if that's not the only way to construe that recusal provision, wouldn't it make sense for some objective authority figure to say: "we have a manifest conflict here that the recusal rules didn't anticipate but which has to be disqualifying if the commission's findings are to be free of taint?"

The answer to both those questions is: Yes...in theory. The recusal rules do make provision for gray areas and unanticipated conflict situations. It is here, however, that bipartisanship takes a holiday.

Under the commission's rules, "[q]uestions about the application of these [recusal] principles in specific cases will be resolved by the Commission's General Counsel." Now, those who set up the commission took great pains to ensure its membership was an even split of Republicans and Democrats; and the commission's staff, too, is a studiously bipartisan mix. But, alas, there is only one general counsel, and he is — surprise! — a Democrat who, like Gorelick, was a high-ranking Clinton operative. Their careers, in fact, are a study in overlap.

The general counsel is Daniel Marcus, and, as the commission's website details, his Democratic roots run deep, and prominent. In the Carter adminstration, he was a lawyer for executive-branch agencies, including a term as general counsel of the Agriculture Department. After that, Marcus was for many years, until 1998, a partner — and ultimately part of the management committee — at the Washington law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. That is the firm at which Gorelick became a partner in 2003. Marcus had left the firm by then, in 1998 to be precise. That was when, during the high pitch of the impeachment scandal, President Clinton made him senior counsel in the White House Counsel's Office — an entity, you may recall, whose sense of the defensible when it came to behavior by public officials was somewhat elastic.

By the next year, 1999, Clinton had survived. The Reno Justice Department, however, had experienced the turnover of high-level officials that is common in a two-term administration. Gorelick, for example, had left after three years as deputy attorney general in mid-1997 (to become vice chair at Fannie Mae). To fill some of the voids, Clinton dispatched none other than Daniel Marcus to Justice, where he served until the end of the administration, eventually as Reno's associate attorney general. Both the wall and Clinton's law-enforcement-first approach to terrorism continued to be fully in effect throughout that time — which was, of course, the interim between the bombings of our two embassies in east Africa and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.

I would not hold my breath waiting for Marcus to tell Gorelick that her conflict is disqualifying. The politics of this commission don't line up that way, and increasingly it appears that politics is a lot of what this is all about.

Analyzing the intelligence failures attendant to 9/11 is a twofold process. First, the counterterror system designed during the Clinton administration, which was at the helm for eight years while we were under attack by militant Islam, was a prescription for disaster: reducing counterterrorism to a strict law enforcement matter, putting the Justice Department in charge of it, and institutionalizing, as official government policy, a wall that forbade criminal and intelligence investigators from pooling information. Second, that counterterror system was largely maintained by the Bush administration during the eight-month run-up to the attacks. As to the latter, Bush officials have been aggressively questioned for actions they took, or failed to take, between January and September 2001, including the failure to tear down Gorelick's wall prior to 9/11. This is entirely appropriate. Indeed, it is essential if the commission is to be at all a useful exercise in helping us avoid future 9/11s.

But for a sizable faction of the commission, that exercise is not what this is about. It is, instead, about myopic focus on the eight Bush months as if the preceding eight Clinton years had never happened. The fact that Gorelick was chosen by Minority Leader Tom Daschle to be on the commission threw down a gauntlet. It said: It's perfectly fine to appoint to the commission someone who was in the thick of the Clinton counterterror strategy because we're not interested in exploring that. Yes, even three years after his Oval Office exit, the frantic efforts to shape Clinton's legacy proceed apace.

But the 9/11 attacks are an inseparable part of that legacy. The politicizing and the conflict shenanigans won't change that. Given the way the wind is blowing, though, maybe it would be better just to stop complaining. Maybe, far from removing Gorelick, it's better to let her be the very face of the 9/11 Commission. That way, when what is threatening to be a skewed revisionist history is published as the commission's final report, there won't be a lot of mystery about why.

[.cnI redruM]

When is their final report due out? My prediction is 31Oct04.

[steve8714]

Headline "MORE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE, COMMISSION CONCLUDES 'WALL' NOT A PROBLEM"

[theDentist]

The Commission report is turned over to the WH in July. The WH then reviews it and it is published sometime later. If the WH is smart, they wil get it out asap and let the storm rage during the late summer. By the time the election comes along it'll not be in the headlines. We already know the Dems are going to abuse whatever it says. Why let them do it weeks before the election?

[Solamente]

Did anyone catch Andrew McCarthy on Mark Levin's radio show?

Apparently, there are other Clinton Era documents that need to be de-classified.

[RippleFire]

bump

[TomGuy]

Posted in another thread:

Even Clinton staffers know the truth

But according to former Clinton staffers, it's doubtful Gorelick will budge. "She's on that commission for a reason, and it isn't because of her brilliant legal mind," says a former DNC and Clinton White House staffer. "She's there to make sure Bush and his team look as bad as possible and to protect the Clintons and Reno."

Even Clinton staffers know the truth

But according to former Clinton staffers, it's doubtful Gorelick will budge. "She's on that commission for a reason, and it isn't because of her brilliant legal mind," says a former DNC and Clinton White House staffer. "She's there to make sure Bush and his team look as bad as possible and to protect the Clintons and Reno."

[el_texicano]

Wall not a problem???

This line begs a cartoon to go with it.

[Badeye]

The commissions refusal to remove Gorelick makes any "final report" irrelevant.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The smart move would be to immediately release it. Give the Commission a hotfoot before they leave town (if bureaucrats can be said to ever leave Washington).

[cynicom]

Where are the diehard "republicans" here on FR???? Where is the cheerleading squad for "republicans" Kean, Hatch etc etc????

[jocko12]

The commission is one big JOKE.

[.cnI redruM]

Probably back at home making SPECTRE for Senate buttons.

[massadvj]

If this were a trial, and you were the lawyer tasked to prove the architecture of U.S. counterterrorism policy leading up to the hijacking attacks, she would not be a throw-in; she would be one of your most essential witnesses.

If this were a trial, Gorelick being on the panel would be akin to having the defendant act as a judge.

This commission has been a joke from the start. They have let themselves be used as propagandists to sell a book, and as a megaphone for the Democrap party in clearly-orchestrated bad political theater.

The question is, will the sheeple see it for what it is? Or will they go peacefully into that pasture baying the lamestream media refrain: Bush id baaaaaad... Bush is baaaaaaad.

[.cnI redruM]

Oh yes, and let's not forget the oh, so very well-scripted Jersey Girls. Those three twits remind me of Madame LaFarge knitting her shrouds.

[cynicom]

Bush the "compassionate conservative" is pictured in Washington Times today with "socialist" Arlen specter.

The conservative running against Specter gets the back of Bushes hand.

[RedEyeJack]

Agree... This should be the new talking point.

The commission has had its nose rubbed in the partisanship of some members with Gorelick's refusal to step down and the inability of the other members to take action. We have a bunch of Republicans on that committee who just want to be something (Commission members?) rather than do something (find out solutions to make sure the problems uncovered are resolved). The Democrats have members (Ben Vineste and Gorelick) that really want to do something (i.e., protect their patrons in the Clinton Administration and place as much blame - we are all responsible but GWB more so) as possible on the current administration.

Forest Gump time... Irrelevant is as irrelevant does

[maxter]

You know, this is kind of off subject but if things were so serious and focused on Bin Laden and we were under threat of attack when administrations changed in 01, how come we don't hear about the mischief making that took place when the new administration took over and had to deal with such as vandaling the keyboards, overturned furniture, etc. If the focus was so much on Bin Laden and the security of this nation, why was all this nonsense taking place? Somebody needs to ask and answer that question. Of course we all know the answer already. It was President Bush's fault. (Sarcasm)

[Lady Jag]

TROOMP

[VadeRetro]

Maybe, far from removing Gorelick, it's better to let her be the very face of the 9/11 Commission. That way, when what is threatening to be a skewed revisionist history is published as the commission's final report, there won't be a lot of mystery about why.

Obviously the way to go. Call it "the Gorelick Commission."

[Baynative]

Scan the list. Look at the people who surrounded Bill and Hil. The Clinton's life has never been about anything more than twisting the law foor their own benefit. The Clinton legacy can be summed up in one word: LOOPHOLES

Sid Blumenthal
David Kendall
David Boies
Lanny Davis
Rahm Imanuel
Susan Estrich
Harold Ickes
Bernard Nussbaum
Abbe Lowell
Bruce Lindsey
John Podesta
Web Hubbel
"Mack" McLarty
Vernon Jordan
Ruth Bader-Ginzberg
Richard Ben-Veniste
Jamie Gorelick
Beth Nolan
Janet Reno...and many, many more.

It is also interesting to note that as we watch the 9/11 commission waste millions of dollars on a political sham, FReepers have uncovered far more factual analytical and FACTUAL evidence FOR FREE!

[Badeye]

I won't argue your point, it can't be dismissed.

However, I will say any attempt to go after the Clinton's using the conflict of Jamie Gorelick will result in what any attack against them brings.

Further claims of "victimhood" for both the Impeached One and his power mad wife. Thats counter productive at this point in my opinion.

The fact remains the 9/11 Commission now has less credibility than any of the other six or seven other "hearings" on this matter. From Ben Vista's rank partisanship, to Bob Kerry's dirty mouth, to Gorelicks active participation in gelding further our intellence capabilities, the 9/11 Commission is less credible than the old Warren Commission....which nobody believes.

[Just mythoughts]

"Apparently, there are other Clinton Era documents that need to be de-classified."


All bits and pieces of "INTEL" from the day the Clintons took office would have to be evaluated to learn the "specific" reason that triggered this "MEMO".

Gorelick did not come up with this "MEMO" all by herself. Somebody at the White House needed this "MEMO" in place and I believe it has Hillry's fingerprints allllllll over it.

The idea that Bill Clinton was not concerned with "INTEL" is quite convenient cover, cause somebody within that White HOuse was monitoring it very carefully.

Ashcroft outting MZ. Gorelick with this "ONE" memo seems like a shot across the bow. Obviously, MZ. Gorelick believes that she has things well under control she didn't even flinch and nor did any of "The Commission".

[Baynative]

I'm with ya. The dems have painted the republicans into a corner with political correctness and obsessive charges of victimization.

The odd side is that the democrat party is sapping most of it's energy with it's obsession over protecting Clinton and rewriting history.

It seems that no matter what issue comes up or what candidate steps forward -somehow - it always ends up being about Clinton. I think it will be years, maybe decades before their party can get out from under that cloud and find something that is actually productive to apply themselves to.

They are absorbed in "Power through Deception".

[KC Burke]

...would have to be evaluated to learn the "specific" reason that triggered this "MEMO".

Would you like your Communist Chinese "Bank Roll" egg roll with Hot and Sour Soup or Egg Drop?

[Cobra64]

Mark Levin's radio show

I didn't know Mark Levin had a radio show. When he's a guest on Hannity, I really enjoy what he has to say.

Do you know what Levin's website address is?

[Badeye]

"It seems that no matter what issue comes up or what candidate steps forward -somehow - it always ends up being about Clinton. I think it will be years, maybe decades before their party can get out from under that cloud and find something that is actually productive to apply themselves to."

The simple fact is the Democratic Party seriously damaged itself by insisting Clinton remain in office during Impeachment. They blew decades of claiming the "moral highground" to keep an adulterous, perjurous, man with massive character flaws in office.

Had the Democrats done "the right thing" ala the GOP and Nixon, Gore would have won the 2000 election (shudder). Its no accident the Democrats have lost every single election cycle since the day Clinton was Impeached.

This is why I have no interest in "reinvestigating the Clinton's" as many hard core types would dearly love. At this time in history, Bill Clinton is a walking punch line, his wife is a walking advertisment for whats wrong with the NOW crowd. The only thing that can save either of them from receeding into history's dustbin is if the GOP makes them "victims" once more.

I believe the Clintonian Era of Personal Destruction has ended as a viable political strategy....and again, every election since Impeachment has resulted in gains for the GOP on all levels of government. Whats amusing is the leadership within the DNC still "doesn't get it". They should be running away from the Clintonites, ala Susan Estrich.

I figure this is the last election cycle where the Clintonites have any real influence over the party. Bush gets reelected by a significant margin, and the GOP picks up even more seats in the House and Senate....and it will dawn on even the most die hard Clinton supporter that its time to change leadership, tactics, and rhetoric.

[ought-six]

The Commission was intended to be a fact-finding measure. Instead, it turned into an inquisitional trial. But, maybe that's what the radical Left on the panel (especially Gorelick and that neanderthal Ben-Veniste) had intended all along.

[.cnI redruM]

Democrats cannot be trusted with adult responsibility. Gorelick, Bin Veniste, and Retread of The Decade Bob Kerrey prove that abundantly.

[Baynative]

"I figure this is the last election cycle where the Clintonites have any real influence over the party. Bush gets reelected by a significant margin, and the GOP picks up even more seats in the House and Senate....and it will dawn on even the most die hard Clinton supporter that its time to change leadership, tactics, and rhetoric. "

From your lips to God's ears.

Their presence at the top of the DNC is destuctive for our entire nation...

[douglas1]

and isnt it funny that all this talk about the commission being to political comes after the administration starts to defend itself, and the old blame game is now going to be curtailed every bit of this hearing is being manipulated by the dems.

[Badeye]

"Their presence at the top of the DNC is destuctive for our entire nation..."

I think its clear its been very damaging to Democrats since 1998. And it has been destructive to the entire nation if for no other reason than rational debate was supplanted by the ravings of Carville and Begala, for two examples.

Until now.

At this moment, post 9/11, the usual tactics are turning away millions of voters from the Democrats. They are seeing decreased new membership, while the GOP sees membership rise. They've seen the lowest percentage of voters identifying themselves as "liberal" (or the new liberal term, progressive) for the last three years.

The most significant comment to come from last Tuesday's Presidential press conference was the last answer Bush gave. "....the whole world knows I mean what I say...." being the key phrase.

Contrast that with the Democrats, who are putting forth a candidate that actually said "I voted for it, before I voted against it".

If you are a Bush supporter (as I obviously am) you couldn't script this any better. The "Contrast" has always served Bush well. Kerry keeps making the same mistakes he has always made, saying exactly the wrong thing, at exactly the wrong time.

Its no accident Kerry's 19 year history in the Senate shows he's been on the wrong side of history for every major event during the time frame. From unilateral nuclear disarmament, to the first Gulf War, from taxation to Grenada and Panama, to now, Kerry's only consistency has been backing the wrong horse in the wrong race on the wrong day for the wrong reasons.

If you want a second term for Bush, you just couldn't pick a better candidate. Kerry, in my opinion, is far more vulnerable than Dean would have ever been. Kerry has a track record on being wrong on national issues. Dean didn't have that kind of record thats proving very valuable to the Bush campaign, and will do so for the next six months.

Just wait til he's forced to give up all his military records, including his evals...and his wife's tax returns......(grin)

[wildbill]

Why do Reps supinely allow the Dems to run all over them in cases like this and the Judiciary flap about the Miranda affair?

Why are three Re[ublicans obtusely defending Gorelick? If the shoe were on the other foot, the Dems would be all over them like slavering wolves.

[oyez]

Clinton knew.

[KC Burke]

Republican members of Congress warned of the weakness of such a commission as it was assembled.

Those warnings were given little fair coverage and what coverage they got was made to look politically defensive.

If you remember, secret strategy memo's of the Democrat members of the Intelligence Committee were found (and swept under the carpet by the press) which outlined just how this committee and other inquiries would be utilized as a Democrat election year campaign ploy and smear.

The current Democrat Party is the creature of leftist criminals. Zell Miller and a few others aside, these Democrats are about seizing political power irrespective of the fate of the nation.

[zip]

ping

[japaneseghost]

YOU MUST READ ABOUT HER CONNECTIONS TO THE FALL OF THE SHAH OF IRAN:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1098016/posts.htm"

[japaneseghost]

YOU MUST READ ABOUT HER CONNECTIONS TO THE FALL OF THE SHAH OF IRAN:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1098016/posts.htm

[japaneseghost]

Sorry, my HTML skills are atrocious. Please cut and paste.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1098016/posts

[MHGinTN]

The wall protected clinton's goons while they soaked foreign influences for graft for clinton and the dnc. But the wall also made it near impossible for one intel group to share viatl terrorism data with another intel group. America got what it deserved for elected and re-electing a sleazy democrat of the lowest moral values. May God have mercy on US, we are ripe for more of the same with the dnc sacrificing anything and everything to get back into power. But what can one expect from a political party that gladly sacrifices millions of unborn babies to the dnc mantra of a woman's right to choose a serial killer? With the dnc, dead Americans (in Manhattan or Iraq) is business as usual.

[Gritty]

BTTT

[Solamente]

http://www.wabcradio.com/showdj.asp?DJID=12009

He doesn't have a website, but the link will take you to the station's site!

[calcowgirl]

Ping... In case you didn't see.
I had missed this one (and I just added keywords)

[backhoe]

Click the pix:

[calcowgirl]

Yep... I have ALL of your stuff bookmarked! :-)
(I didn't see your post on that thread... sorry if I duped).

BTW... You're Awesome!
Thanks for tracking this stuff... it is so helpful... and MUCH appreciated!

[backhoe]

[Lancey Howard]

bttt