MSNBC "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" - Transcript
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
With us now, as promised, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
Great thanks for your time tonight, Senator.
SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D), RHODE ISLAND: Good to be with you.
OLBERMANN: First, your thoughts on Mr. Gonzales endorsing this investigation. Do you think his approval is sincere here? Or is it a function of relief that the aim is no higher than the operatives at the interrogative level?
WHITEHOUSE: Well, at last, he and I agree on something. I think that this sends a pretty clear signal about how very far off base Vice President Cheney was with his remarks when a loyal Bushy like Attorney General Gonzales recognizes what every prosecutor plainly recognizes, which is that, in these circumstances, an investigation is completely unexceptional shows I think that its pretty much, you know, down the middle of the road here what Attorney General Holder is doing. That its not a reach of any kind, and that its very consistent with his sworn responsibilities as our chief law enforcement officer.
OLBERMANN: You wrote that there is substantial evidence of a back channel between Addington and Yoo. Mr. Yoo, of course, that is. Can you briefly identify those men and the significanceexplain the significance of the back channel?
WHITEHOUSE: David Addington was the legal counsel to Dick Cheney, to the office of the vice president, and John Yoo was the attorney over at the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice, who was the primary author of the opinions that cleared waterboarding and other torture techniques. And the fact of the back channel between them at least raises the possibility that the opinion by the Attorney Yoo was perhaps as bad as it was because of incompetence, perhaps as bad as it was because of ideology, but also perhaps as bad as it was because of instruction.
And if there was instruction from the White House about this, that raises the whole new set of potential investigative concerns. Were now no longer dealing with the question of a legitimate independent legal opinion upon which people relied in good faith. Were dealing with the example of the mob lawyer who writes the cover opinion to try to provide some shelter for the crime while hes in on it himself.
OLBERMANN: So iflet me just see if I can clarify this for my own understanding. If you had misled the Department of Justice and the CIA about what was legal and this was at the direction of Addington or at the direction of the vice president, all three men could wind up being prosecuted?
WHITEHOUSE: Well, if there was a conspiracy to commit torture, one of the predicate acts of the conspiracy, one of the acts that pulled the conspiracy together, could well have been instructions from the office of the vice president to Attorney Yoo, instructing him how to write the opinion. One could even imagine him saying, But wait a minute, I found a case on point that says that waterboarding is torture, we cant go there, and Addington saying, Hey, you know, are you on the team or are you not? Get with the program, this stuff is all going to be very classified, nobody will ever know.
Very long shot, Im not saying thats at all what happened. But until concerns like that are settled, the only responsible thing for a prosecutor to do is to go about the traditional practice of investigating the facts.
OLBERMANN: And you also said that as, in yourwearing your former prosecutors hatthat your suspicion has been raised by aggressive claims of executive privilege, by refusal to cooperate with inspectors general, and stories, that you say, cant and dont withstand scrutiny. Can you elaborate briefly on those points?
WHITEHOUSE: Well, if youif you dont have anything to hide, you dont often spend a great deal of time trying to hide it. Under the Bush administration, we saw extraordinary assertions of executive privilegealmost wild assertions of executive privilege to keep Congress from looking at materials within the executive branch of the government.
And you saw what I call the cover story. Youve heard it. You know it.
Itsthe al Qaeda guy was tougher than anybody Americas ever seen. We tried the FBI and the military interrogators on them but they were too constrained by Miranda and too amateurish to get anywhere. So, we had to bring in the tough experienced CIA interrogators and then they applied these tough but lawful techniques and then we got information that saved lives.
Well, pretty much every element of that story appears to be untrue. And so, when youve cobbled it altogether, theres kind of consciousness of guilt in putting together a phony story.
OLBERMANN: And if you dont have anything to hide, you dont spend a lot of time trying to hide it. Thats an excellent point.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democrat of Rhode Islandas always, great thanks for your time tonight, sir.
SHELDON: Thank you, Keith.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT