them prosecuting the newspaper without prosecuting the government source. The latter case is much easier.

Didn't the article say there were other DoJ sources for the original article?

so deranged when dealing with criticism or opposition to your views

I can see that, whether or not the subject of the post is Israel, that every comments thread is gonna end up on the express bus to Crazytown.

Maybe I'm out of line here, but IMO you owe suppurating hemorrhoids, incomprehensibly big assholes, and nauseating turds a really big apology.

Nobody I know on my side of the fence thinks that your Democrat heros like Kookcenich and Madam Hairspray, Dianne Feinstein, are inherently evil. We really just think most of you, if you spent some time with what we called in college, "critical inquiry," yep, most of you would come around and see the light that big goobermint just breeds corruption and waste and can lead to totalitarian nightmares where the authorities decide that all of them innately evil ones need to be eliminated.

Yeah, well, that's because you folks are completely clueless berks, with not a whit of sentience about the real world around you.

Yes, we're all Eeeeeevvvuulll Incarnate (as Newt and company kept reminding us with the approved Republican Nomenclature™). Epithets like "Commie", "traitor", "seditious", and "Osama lover" spring to mind. Hell, even the more mundane "lib'rul". Cuts to the bone.

You, OTOH, are simply stoopid, seeing as you think we ought to be seeing the same hallucinations as you ("big goobermint just breeds corruption and waste and can lead to totalitarian nightmares") sans lysergides.

Sadly, there is no cure.

Cheers,

This may be a logical conclusion, but do Federal prosecutors normally inform a person being investigated by a grand jury that they are no longer a target by implying the will be subpoenaed, or is there a more formal process?

I don't know because I'm a state, not a federal prosecutor, but if I were Tamm's attorney and got that letter, I would say to the prosecutor "OK, you are implying that you will compel his testimony. Since we both know you can't force him to self-inculpate, I assume you plan to offer my client immunity?" I read up on immunity in federal grand juries in the DoJ handbook on-line before posting today, and it appears this is something they do fairly often - compel testimony with immunity to certain players to build evidence against others.

Do you think it is more likely that the DOJ is going to grant Tamm immunity or that a federal prosecutor is just making vague threats and hoping the defendant is unaware of the law?

The letter is to Tamm's attorney, not Tamm (though in this instance Tamm is also a federal prosecutor and well aware of the law).

I'm confused about what the prosecutor is doing here. It seems that after Tamm declined their first invitation to the grand jury (and refused to take a plea) they were locked in a stalemate. Perhaps DoJ was trying to build a case against him through other witnesses; seems that way from the Newsweek piece.

Perhaps when the prosecutor saw the Newsweek article (which may well be incriminating, no wonder Tamm's lawyers were against it!) he may have thought "well, now that he's decided to testify in the media, maybe he's changed his mind about the grand jury."

What I don't get is this talk about compelling him to testify. They can't do that without giving him immunity, which is why I wonder if they are thinking of moving on from Tamm.

My experience is that vague threats that play off of a person's lack of legal knowledge is law 101.

Police interrogators are known for that ("Confess everything and you can go home!"...not) but prosecutors generally don't speak to defendants, but to their attorneys, so that wouldn't work.

While I'm grateful that Tamm's actions brought this illegal program to light, I think he has exercised extremely poor judgment throughout this affair. Reading the article my jaw dropped several times over what I consider to be incomprehensibly reckless behavior on Tamm's part (especially given his professional experience).

If I were him I would have gone to someone like Russ Feingold or John Conyers and not the press. That's the way to out the program without criminal liability.

"President Clinton, however, has asked Congress to pass legislation that would give the Federal Bureau of Investigation the power to use "roving wiretaps" without a court order. The president also fought for sweeping legislation that is forcing the telephone industry to make its network more easily accessible to law enforcement wiretaps. Those initiatives have led ACLU officials to describe the Clinton White House as "the most wiretap-friendly administration in history."

Nadine Strossen, "No Safer, But a Little Less Free," Washington Post, September 2, 1996 pg A1

Thirteen years ago, President Clinton opened the door to warrantless wiretapping. It was George Bush who blew it into a Constitutional emergency. Everyone here struggles to right that mistake.

The remarkable thing about neocons, is their simple failure with all the opportunity in the world, to successfully enact any part of their agenda. You had the opportunity and blew it, that opportunity will not come again. That my frem, is what you will need to struggle with. Good luck with that.

Tyrants, Aristotle writes in the Politica, rule by fear and attempt to turn those who would expose them into criminals. One of the tactics for which the Bush years will long be known is its heavy-handed wielding of secrecy. This case demonstrates the technique perfectly. Tamm, exposing their criminal subversion of the FISA process, becomes a threat. It is therefore imperative that he be silenced and discredited. And this they pursue through a criminal investigation for breach of the secrecy rules through which they attempt to shield their crimes. Tamm had a serious fault–he treated his oath to uphold the Constitution and laws seriously. And that’s why for this and future generations, Tamm will be viewed as a hero while those persecuting him will be listed with the perennial dimwits who confuse fidelity to the leader with devotion to the law. - Scott Horton (12/15/08)

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/12/hbc-90004022

At the Justice web site, Tyrrell describes himself as a “dedicated public servant,” and he outlines the work his department has done. His group is the one that should have managed a probe into the Madoff affair and myriad other frauds and schemes that have damaged the nation’s finances. Instead, while white-collar crime prosecution all but came to a standstill, the resources of Tyrrell’s department were turned to attacking the administration’s political adversaries like Tamm. Perhaps Tyrrell is just a loyal Justice department functionary doing as instructed–but in doing so he is failing to exercise the independent discretion that used to be the hallmark of the Justice Department.

I hope that after January 20 Mr. Tyrrell will find some time to engage in actual law enforcement. Even better, perhaps he can focus his sights on the criminal conspiracy that led to the systematic circumvention of FISA. As it stands now, what he claims is an enforcement action is certainly viewed by many as another extreme effort to cover up the most criminal chapter in the history of the Justice Department. - Scott Horton (1/7/09)

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/01/hbc-90004144