Friday, March 14, 2014

CIA Lawyer's Nomination Approved

The top CIA lawyer at the heart of a clash between the agency and its political overseers has been replaced, after senators lifted a block on confirming his successor. Senator Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat, said on Thursday that he released a procedural obstacle he had placed on the CIA’s nominee for its next general counsel, Caroline Krass.

[...]

Krass had already cleared the Senate committee, but Udall put her on hold to gain leverage for the committee in its struggle for access to CIA documents.

  Guardian
Yeah, so they still don’t have the docs. Why change stance?
While [Robert] Eatinger [the outgoing atty] was never going to be the agency’s permanent general counsel, he is now the first explicit casualty in the row between the CIA and its Senate overseers.
What’s the angle in ditching him now?
"I released my hold on Caroline Krass’s nomination today and voted for her to help change the direction of the agency,” Udall said in a statement on Thursday.
Still not making sense. If she could “help change the direction of the agency” now, why couldn’t she do that when Udall put a hold on her nomination?
In a statement, CIA director John Brennan said was “extremely pleased” that the Senate had confirmed Krass .
Now it gets really curious. Or maybe I’m just really thick.

Marcy Wheeler has a post today that comments on Eatinger via Jack Goldsmith:
Eatinger didn’t refer this case when CIA first started worrying about possible violations of Federal law (nor, as far as we know, did Stephen Preston make a referral in 2010 when documents started disappearing from the server). He didn’t refer the case after CIA’s initial “investigative, protective, or intelligence activity” — at that point, Brennan still wanted CIA to continue its “investigative, protective, or intelligence activity” itself.

It was only after CIA got referred for its “investigative, protective, or intelligence activity” that Eatinger decided the matter had reached what Goldsmith claims is a very low bar for referral.

[...]

Eatinger let things get far beyond the “low bar” before he referred the issue to DOJ.
  Empty Wheel
I can’t decide if that helps clarify my questions or just muddies them. Maybe it has no impact at all. I have the feeling (and it may be way off mark) that they are getting Eatinger out of the current picture because leaving him there would provide an obstacle to what the Senate committee is after. But then, why would John Brennan be "extremely pleased"? *

* UPDATE:  http://youwillanyway2.blogspot.com/2014/03/more-info-on-eatinger.html

No comments: