« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Tom DeLay Briefed on Warrantless Surveillance in March '04
Here's something that comes to us via very-alert DailyKos diarist drational. The day after Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card ran to John Ashcroft's hospital room to have him overrule acting attorney general James Comey's determination that the administration's warrantless surveillance program was illegal, the White House gave a briefing on the super-secret program to none other than Tom DeLay.
Practically no members of Congress knew about the surveillance. The White House typically limited Congressional notification about the program to the bipartisan political leadership of the House and Senate and the heads of the Congressional intelligence committees -- the so-called Gang of Eight. DeLay, then the top House Republican, has no intelligence experience, and just the day before, at the White House, House Speaker Dennis Hastert received a briefing about the program, making DeLay's presence the next day redundant. The second-ranking House Democrat in 2004, then-whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland, didn't receive a similar briefing.
"It sounds like a political decision on the part of the White House, rather than one driven by legal imperatives or Congressional norms," says Steven Aftergood, an intelligence expert with the Federation of American Scientists. "The obvious speculation is that they judged that they had a political fight on their hands and wanted to enlist him on their side."
One possibility is that the White House feared that news of the hospital visit would leak out, prompting reporters to learn about the legally controversial surveillance program. A related possibility is that the White House specifically feared that the Democrats on the Gang of Eight, informed in some vague sense about Comey's objections to the surveillance, might have begun to raise private objections; leak themselves; or use other issues as a proxy fight against the secret program. In either case, it would make sense to bring The Hammer, who in March, 2004 was still powerful, on board to protect the White House.
There's no legal or Congressional requirement that only the Gang of Eight need to be briefed on such top-secret intelligence programs -- in fact, insufficient Congressional oversight was a main objection to the Terrorist Surveillance Program when Bush unveiled it in 2005. The trouble here is "it looks like a selective choice to brief political allies rather than a representative cross-section of congressional leaders," says Aftergood. Still, given that legal scholars consider the warrantless surveillance efforts to be constitutionally dubious, "it's probably the least offensive thing they've done regarding this program," he adds.
Bonus fun fact: the only other non-Gang-of-Eight members of Congress briefed on the warrantless surveillance were the heads of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, on December 4, 2001. That's right, Democrat Daniel Inouye and... Republican Ted Stevens.
Update: This post originally misstated that Inouye and Stevens were, in 2001, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, when in fact they helmed the defense appropriations subcommittee. Thanks to reader GB for pointing out my error, which I regret.
Okay... so if they were telling other republicans about this program, can they really claim executive privilege on any of it???
August 15, 2007 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The September issue of the Atlantic reveals that the White House had its own Congressional Affairs personnel seated in Tom DeLay's offices.
Surely that's gotta figure in here.
August 15, 2007 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
They were spying on political opponents, R's & D's alike, as well as bushies to ensure their loyalty.
August 15, 2007 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, you did say that all the leaders of the two chambers were briefed. And even though DeLay wasn't a member of the "gang of eight" he WAS House majority leader, right?
Now, the fact that he was probably more partisan than Rove himself, and still he was briefed ALONE on the program, raises some eyebrows.
I'd like to know whether Rove was cleared to review the NSA intelligence information that was gathered.
August 15, 2007 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, lets get crackin'
Time to search the tubes to find out what DeLay was saying both BEFORE and AFTER his briefing. See what "guidance" Karl Rove gave him, as far as keeping this whole thing secret.
August 15, 2007 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
When will we winnow, when will we wax. Will we EVER be free of this madness?
August 15, 2007 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I share the feelings of all of you that the Bush administration and certain others have tried to circumvent the constitution and set up a defacto government. The behavior for all of this is well established and is ongoing daily.
Unfortunately, this is not going to change because we have a Congress where the members are dedicated to the "party" first, not the welfare of the country.
The proof is in the current behavior of both legislative branches, with some democrats reaching across party lines to give the Bush administration "just one more chance" and the republicans towing the party line, protecting the administration at every turn.
The Supreme Court isn't innocent, either.
Given the current offering of presidential candidates, we are to the point that having a national elections for president and for congress that are nothing more than a window dressing for the rest of the world. And, for that, most of the American people as well.
Americans are rightly fed up with their government. If these past six plus years have shown and produced anything, it's just how CORRUPT our government is and just how LOW politicians will go to get, and stay, elected.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
August 15, 2007 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you say is true Dennis. I say we force the powers that be to write a law that it will henseforth be illegal for a lawyer to hold any public office. Retroactive 100 years.
August 15, 2007 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post by Memory on August 15, 2007 at 12:35 PM
"..say we force the powers that be to write a law that it will henseforth [sic] be illegal for a lawyer to hold any public office. Retroactive 100 years."
Memory, the problem isn't lawyers. In fact, I would argue that that problem is the lack of good lawyers. To wit - Bush isn't a lawyer, Cheney isn't a lawyer, Condi isn't a lawyer, Gonzo just might be a lawyer (but it's hard to tell), Rove isn't a lawyer (does he even hold an undergraduate degree?). Many of the subordinates are lawyers, but the folks squatting at the top of this spiderweb of corruption don't know the law and don't care.
August 15, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post by Memory on August 15, 2007 at 12:35 PM
"..say we force the powers that be to write a law that it will henseforth [sic] be illegal for a lawyer to hold any public office. Retroactive 100 years."
Memory, the problem isn't lawyers. In fact, I would argue that that problem is the lack of good lawyers. To wit - Bush isn't a lawyer, Cheney isn't a lawyer, Condi isn't a lawyer, Gonzo just might be a lawyer (but it's hard to tell), Rove isn't a lawyer (does he even hold an undergraduate degree?). Many of the subordinates are lawyers, but the folks squatting at the top of this spiderweb of corruption don't know the law and don't care.
August 15, 2007 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I must be dense, because my initial reaponse to this, both here and at DKos was 'Yeah, so?' I dunno, so they briefed him after they briefed the Gang. So they wanted political support. It's not like he didn't have the clearance to know. After all, if Hastert hadn't been around, he would have been one of the Gang.
I suppose its interesting, but I still don't see any 'there' there.
August 15, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am wondering if the next president will alter the Bush administration's "terror surveillance laws" to rectify the butchering of the constitution? Hillary? Obama? Rudy? Mitt?
August 15, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any one know whether the Delay briefing was after Jay Rockefeller sent his note to Cheney? Maybe that was what prompted breifing Delay - they were afraid Rockefeller would go public with his concerns. How I wish he had.
SC: smell, as in to high heaven
August 15, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
emptywheel at The Next Hurrah, posted on this three weeks ago with a great analysis, and I was remiss in not pointing this out in my dKos Diary. My miss of the postings on TNH was not intentional. Spencer, please acknowledge emptywheel's excellent work.
August 15, 2007 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
My first thought was that Delay could use the program for his own personal advantage against his political and legal opponents. He could wiretap Ronnie Earle's office for example.
August 15, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes-- clearly the whole "executive privilege" argument is considerably weaker if they were briefing members of congress other than the "gang of 8."
August 15, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
As emptywheel points out at TNH, Congress itself had already expressed reservations about the legality of the Program, in the form of the letter from Rockefeller to Cheney, which occurred just after the July 17, 2003 briefing. Emptywheel suggests the March 10 and 11 meetings might have been testing the water for pushing legislation to make the program legal in the event of non-authorization by DOJ. It seems to me this would have been difficult to do in one day.....
August 15, 2007 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether or not Rove was cleared to handle this information, I find it very difficult indeed to believe that DeLay was.
August 15, 2007 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember, there was also that NSA data (redacted names of U.S. persons in intercepted communications) that was provided to Bolton that the executive branch refused to give to the Senate Foreign Affair Committee holding a confirmation hearing for Bolton.
When in the first term was that info provided to Bolton, does anybody remember?
August 15, 2007 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
the problem is certainly corrupt politicians, but I don't see it as having much to do with politicians who are lawyers. If anything, the problem is that we have an MBA president who doesn't really understand the Constitution and who is pretty much a puppet to nonlawyer Dick Cheney and college dropout Karl Rove. The only lawyer in all this is AGAG, whose corruption stems in part from his inability to act like a lawyer and stand up for justice, the Constitution and the American way. My personal opinion is that Bush, Cheney and Rove don't really understand what "rule of law" means and have mistakenly confused it with power and politics.
August 15, 2007 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
za:
DeLay wasn't House majority leader, he was majority whip. He knew that he was too polarizing to be leader. He also knew that all the other R's were afraid of him - which he found to be ideal for whip.
I don't know that DeLay being briefed is controversial, just interesting - it shows how the White House and Republican leadership reacted to a potential problem.
August 15, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Addington and John Yoo, for example, are lawyers, and lawyers who I believe understand perfectly well what they are doing.
August 15, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
za:
Sorry - he was majority leader. My bad!
August 15, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Living in MO I think there was a whole other reason for bringing DeLay into the WH for the so called "briefing". Ashcroft is a very, very strong Evangelical (had himself anointed in Oil for God's blessings when he became AG) and the WH knew that DeLay knew how to talk to "these" people because he professes very strongly to be one of them. They wanted to see if there was anyway through their faith belief that they could get Ashcroft to sign on. That's why they got DeLay involved so quickly. Comey is not "one of them". Ashcroft and DeLay are fanatic about their belief and God's law is above our law. That also accounts for the urgency of seeing DeLay. Just sayin...in MO you get a big dose of these guys...Ashcroft is from MO. Just saying...
August 15, 2007 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
As drational notes, DeLay's special briefing was mentioned on The Next Hurrah pretty much as soon as attention was drawn (once again) to that briefing list. I'm just surprised that no-one's run with it.
It was a one-off to someone outside the G/8 or Defense Appropriations. Which implies special circumstances. And I'd like to know just what kind of clearance he held at the time, and the clearance he held during his time as Maj. Leader.
August 15, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect, and in character, no?
http://www.light-to-dark.com/canonization.html
The mob shares it all with it's comrades, lieutenants, and bosses. Now that's national security Al Capone would adore.
September 26, 2007 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink