« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Mueller: Comey Was Talking About "Much Discussed" NSA Program
It gets worse and worse for Alberto Gonzales. Today, the director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, dealt a serious blow to Gonzales's sworn Senate testimony on Tuesday, just hours after Senate Democrats called for a perjury investigation into the attorney general.
FBI Director Robert Mueller, under questioning from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), conceded that he and James Comey had concerns about the "much discussed" National Security Agency surveillance program. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday that Comey had legal objections to "other intelligence activities" than the "much-discussed" Terrorist Surveillance Program. For Gonzales to beat a perjury rap, he must maintain the distinction he created on Tuesday between the TSP and whatever it is Comey is alleged to have dissented from. In the span of a few short seconds, Mueller went a long way toward collapsing the difference.
It's true that Mueller doesn't come out and say the words "Terrorist Surveillance Program," but Lee's questioning left no doubt that Mueller was referring to precisely that program.
Lee: Did you have an understanding that the discussion was on TSP?Mueller: I had an understanding that the discussion was on a, uh, a, uh -- an NSA program, yes.
Lee: I guess we use "TSP," we use "warrantless wiretapping," so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?
Mueller: The discussion was on a National -- uh, NSA program that has been much discussed, yes.
Mueller was smiling when he finished saying that. You can bet Gonzales wasn't.
Josh
Zachary
Smart man, that Mueller. He ain't going to lie down in front of no gooper bus with broken brakes.
July 26, 2007 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess he didn't get the memo about Gonzalez-related amnesia. It's refreshing to hear testimony concerning the AG that doesn't contain the words "I don't recall".
Someone want to clarify the sort of privilege he's claiming when he says things like "I don't want to get into individual conversations"? I don't *think* attorney general conversations fall under attorney/client privilege, so what's he talking about (the Representative seemed to respect that answer as not being obstructive, so I'm assuming he's invoking something legitimate)?
July 26, 2007 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there's another program that this is all about, that Gonzales and Mueller are alluding to but aren't directly naming, something the gang of 8 didn't know about. The dissent probably was, in fact, about "other intelligence activities". This was something so illegal and so wrong that the half the DOJ was ready to resign over it and Gonzales would rather face purgery charges than reveal the distinction, in order to protect his bosses.
July 26, 2007 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There seems to be a parsing of the definition of "TSP." When Sheila Jackson Lee refers to the TSP, Mueller shys away from that, calling it the NSA program. In other words, a TSP, or terrorist serveillance program, would refer to a program that applies terrorists only.
However, if the administration is now using the NSA program against normal U.S. citizens (or even members of Congress), instead of terrorists only, Mueller would be lying if he referred to it as a terrorist surveillance program, especially if he knows it is being used for other purposes.
July 26, 2007 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
perhaps I should sign this post with "tinfoilhat" but I'm with rubberpants on this, sorta.
This [Tuesday's testimony] isn't the first time that AGAG as alluded to "this specific program" as opposed to another program(s) out there that we haven't heard of. I can't remember the time, but it was during a GOP Congress that he took great panes to say that "the specific program the President spoke of" is the program he was referring to. Leaving room for other programs out there.
btw. the quotation marks above are air-quotes, not hard quotes as I'm writing from memory.
July 26, 2007 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
p.s., the definition of TSP may also have something to do with Gonzo's parsing of the terms intelligence related activities / programs / TSP / warrantless wiretapping.
July 26, 2007 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that was pointed out in another comment thread is that Mueller seems to keep going back to this "I prefer not to talk about it" or "I'm not comfortable answering that question" Now I know the guy is the head of the FBI and all, but I find it to be disrespectful of congress to defer questions based on if it makes someone uncomfortable or not. If he doesn't want to answer the questions he should take the 5th or be compelled to talk.
July 26, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
of course mueller doesn't refer to the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" There was no such name for warrantless wiretapping until the story broke.
security code: screw, as in tightening of same. or screw the constitution, as we've often been told by these miscreants.
July 26, 2007 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT /but why is the woman behind Rep Lee toward the end of the clip wearing lingerie in the House ?...
goofy
July 26, 2007 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone want to clarify the sort of privilege he's claiming when he says things like "I don't want to get into individual conversations"? I don't *think* attorney general conversations fall under attorney/client privilege, so what's he talking about (the Representative seemed to respect that answer as not being obstructive, so I'm assuming he's invoking something legitimate)?
Posted by: Anna S.
Date: July 26, 2007 6:32 PM
It's a courtesy. He's simply respecting others by not naming them or putting words in their mouths. And perhaps protecting others from retaliations or other pressures. If he has -- or does -- testify in closed session, he will be more likely to name others and quote them.
In general, his caution is legitimate, as it concerns issues which may be legal, and are properly secret.
July 27, 2007 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that was pointed out in another comment thread is that Mueller seems to keep going back to this "I prefer not to talk about it" or "I'm not comfortable answering that question" Now I know the guy is the head of the FBI and all, but I find it to be disrespectful of congress to defer questions based on if it makes someone uncomfortable or not. If he doesn't want to answer the questions he should take the 5th or be compelled to talk.
Posted by: jackrabbit
Date: July 26, 2007 6:57 PM
Paranoid conspirabunkers will view anyone on the "Republican" side of these issues as hostile to the truth.
"I prefer not to talk about it," or, "I'm not comfortable answering that question" can be wholly legitimate. One cannot determine either way -- unless one forces conclusions by means of intellectual dishonesty because hostile -- without additional facts.
Certianly it's obvious that the questions ask are in a sensitive area rife with landmines: it is probable that there are legitimately secret issues entwined with the potentially illegal; distinguishing between them is a delicate issue, especially if one is (1) not trained in law, as is probably the fact with Mueller, and (2) cautious about violating laws against disclosure.
It is more reasonable to assume good faith, and to be otherwise objective and impartial, unless and until there is _evidence_ to the contrary; otherwise one risks making a cooperative witness into a hostile witness.
If only "Jake" the troll hadn't suddenly disappeared, having finally and conclusively lost the argument to defend anti-American lawlessness as legitimate: he could doubtless [like hell] 'splain it in a way conspirabunkers would "get".
July 27, 2007 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
JNagarya,
Our pet troll appears to keep to banker’s hours (or somewhat close to them). I am fully confident that He-who-knows-only-how-to-annoy will be back 'in the office' this morning.
And rest assured, he'll be armed with the latest GOP talking points.
On a side note, (actually concerning the topic of the post) I found it odd that Mr. Mueller referred to AGAG as 'Judge Gonzales' and not call him "Attorney General". Perhaps even he can't believe that Gonzo is the AG?
July 27, 2007 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
he word tattoo is aforementioned to has deuce star derivations- from the polynesian parole ta which way striking entity and the tahitian logos tatau mjhgjg77j which way to fish something . the chronicle of tattoo began finished 5000 years ago and is as diverse as the citizenry world health organization assume them . tattoos are created by inserting pied materials below the skins earth's surface . the ordinal tattoos probably were created by chance event . someone had a lowly wounding , and rubbed it with a give that was stormy with soot and ashes from the kindle . onetime the wound had healed , they byword that a bull's eye stayed for good . despite the societal sciences' thriving fascination with tattooing , and the big popularity of tattoos themselves , the pattern has not leftish a great deal of a past phonograph record . bronze get on in 1991 , a quintet one thousand year darkened tattooed homo the icing mankind successful the headlines of newspapers completely o'er the earth when his unmoving physical structure was revealed on a upland between oesterreich and italy . this is the scoop salt corpse of that full point ever so launch . the struggle bears 57 tattoos a foil on the at bottom of the leftish articulatio genus , sixer uncoiled lines 15 centimeters foresightful to a higher place the kidneys and numerous parallel of latitude lines on the ankles . the put of the tattoo marks suggests that they were likely applied for therapeutic reasons treatment of arthritis .
November 17, 2007 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink