« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
... But Mueller Won't Say He Threatened to Resign
FBI Director Mueller tried to remain discreet during today's hearing at the House Judiciary Committee when it came to the Comey-Gonzales showdown in 2004. Mueller confirmed that he had "serious concerns" about "an NSA program," as he termed it. Fears within the Justice Department that the program was illegal, he said,
affected the FBI in the sense that we received pieces of information from the NSA. ... My concern was to assure that whatever activity we undertook as the result of the information we received was done appropriately and legally. At some point in time, (Comey) expressed concern about the legality of it.
This legal doctrine is known as the "fruit of the poisoned tree." That is, Mueller's fear is that if the information he gets from NSA to launch investigations was collected illegally, then any resulting prosecution of potentially dangerous figures will be thrown out of court.
But one thing he wouldn't corroborate is his alleged threat to resign -- a big part of Comey's testimony.
"I would resist getting into that conversation," Mueller told Rep. Steve Cohen (D-NC).
Josh
Zachary
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN)
July 26, 2007 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
In light of the discussions presented here at TPM, can't one of the representatives order him to either answer the question or claim a privileged reason not to do so? It's not polite, but we're here to see what happens when Congress stops being polite, and starts getting real...or something like that
July 26, 2007 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I would resist getting into that conversation,"
Just as for Gonzales, doesn't Mueller have to say why he won't answer the question? Is he implicitly claiming executive privilege?
July 26, 2007 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you "resist" answering that question ? How could exec. priv. extend to him pondering his own resignation ?
July 26, 2007 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I would resist"
"Ok, let's see of a jail cell changes your mind."
July 26, 2007 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Mueller wouldn't say Comey was wrong about this either.
July 26, 2007 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"My concern was to assure that whatever activity we undertook as the result of the information we received was done appropriately and legally. At some point in time...."
I have to wonder if the data was accurate?
I have to wonder if a GOP list was created and that an asset, possibly of foreign nationality, dialed a list of people from Karachi and initiated investigations designed to derail investigations?
Poison Fruit??????????????
The checks and balances were also designed to allow FISA to avoid this problem.
Now imagine a newly minted agent from 13th St. getting a tip that there was an Al-Qaeda link to an individual, and based on that tip and lots of good intentions, initiates a fishing expedition.
Now of course at some point.. despite poisioning the waters with all confronted with a NSL and a prospect of themselves being subject to arrest.. for disclosing the NSL.. the newly minted agent dries off... and moves along... no FISA required.. better safe than sorry huh???
And then a second tip to a second agent.. whom is ignorant of the first inquiry.. and no FISA to say heh: Just how long does it take you guys to come to the realization that an exhaustive inquiry has been made...
NSA was duped and so was the DOJ because FISA was circumvented.
Now a real rotten bastard would of course... have an asset call a individual from a Karachi hotel/bar/brothel/internet cafe and tell the estranged wife of the target... don't worry I'll take care of it for you....
Or better yet?
Watch a cold wind blow upon an investigator of a independently vetted investigator.. watch ATF get chilled by FBI, watch CIA blow off DOJ, watch DOS send a message to ATF, watch Treasury and thew white house cause someone to miss a flight...
No accountability and a system less capable to deal with terror after 911 than before..
A cointel wet dream....
And do you really feel abuse originated at the lower levels???
No those people were victims as well....
July 26, 2007 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
didn't really deny it now did he? If it wasn't true, he would have.
July 26, 2007 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not be too hard on Mueller. He is in a tight spot, and he could be very helpful later in this long-running game, because he has, at least, some integrity, and answers, honestly, I feel.
July 26, 2007 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not be too hard on Mueller. He is in a tight spot, and he could be very helpful later in this long-running game, because he has, at least, some integrity, and answers, honestly, I feel.
July 26, 2007 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not be too hard on Mueller. He is in a tight spot, and he could be very helpful later in this long-running game, because he has, at least, some integrity, and answers, honestly, I feel.
July 26, 2007 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fruit-of-the-poisoned-tree doctrine results on that particular tainted evidence not being admissible. It doesn't result in an entire prosecution being 'thrown out of court'.
July 26, 2007 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should have demanded an answer or a legitimate reason not to answer.
No ifs, ands or buts.
July 26, 2007 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This gets as close as one needs to be. He could have said no. If the threat had not been made, anyone would have so answered. He simply remained silent. OK for now. We have no denial from Gonzo (just another program) and we have Comey's testimony. Mueller could be subpoenaed and forced to testify at an impeachment hearing for Gonzo's perjury. I think Gonzo would fold and resign first.
July 26, 2007 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is his discussion was with the President and he therefore feels it is a privileged conversation...his threat to resign if the program went forward without any semblence of legality that is. Now the question is, what was so bad that these guys didn't like it. My guess is it might have a been a program that was to be kept from the Congress.
July 27, 2007 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
..."To the extent that I follow through on the state of mind is a conversation."
Or, an action.
July 27, 2007 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink