« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Comey Details White House Attempt to Force Approval of Secret Program
In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey detailed the desperate late night efforts by then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and White House chief of staff Andrew Card to get the Justice Department to approve a secret program -- the warrantless wiretapping program.
According to Comey's testimony this morning, only when faced with resignations by a number of Justice Department officials including Comey, his chief of staff, Ashcroft's chief of staff, Ashcroft himself and possibly Robert Mueller, the director of the FBI, did the White House agree to make changes to the program that would satisfy the requirements of the Justice Department to sign off on it (Comey refused to name the program, but it's apparent from the context and prior reports that this was the warrantless wiretapping program).
The events took place in March of 2004, when the program was in need of renewal by the Justice Department. When then-Attorney General John Ashcroft fell ill and was hospitalized, Comey became the acting-Attorney General.
The deadline for the Justice Department's providing its sign-off of the program was March 11th (the program required reauthorization every 45 days). On that day, Comey, then the acting AG, informed the White House that he "would not certify the legality" of the program.
According to Comey, he was on his way home when he got a call from Ashcroft's wife that Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card were on their way to the hospital*. Comey then rushed to the hospital (sirens blaring) to beat them there and thwart "an effort to overrule me."
After Comey arrived at the hospital with a group of senior Justice Department officials, Gonzales and Card arrived and walked up to Ashcroft, who was lying barely conscious on his hospital bed. "Gonzales began to explain why he was there, to seek his approval for a matter," Comey testified. But Ashcroft rebuffed Gonzales and told him that Comey was the attorney general now. "The two men turned and walked from the room," said Comey.
A "very upset" Andrew Card then called Comey and demanded that he come to the White House for a meeting at 11 PM that night.
After meeting with Justice Department officials at the Justice Deaprtment, Comey went to the White House with Ted Olson, then the Solicitor General to the White House. He brought Olson along, Comey said, because he wanted a witness for the meeting.
But Card didn't let Olson enter and Comey had a private discussion with Card. This discussion, Comey testified, was much "calmer." According to Comey, Card was concerned about reports that there were to be large numbers of resignations at Justice Department. Gonzales entered with Olson and the four had an apparently not very fruitful discussion.
The program was reauthorized without the signature of the attorney general. Because of that, Comey said, he prepared a letter of resignation. "I believed that I couldn't stay if the administration was going to engage in conduct that Justice Department said had no legal basis."
At this point, according to Comey, a number of senior Justice Department officials, including Ashcroft, were prepared to resign.
When Comey went in on that Friday, March 12th to give the White House its customary morning briefing, Comey said that the president pulled him aside. They had a 15 minute private meeting, the content of which Comey would not divulge. But Comey did suggest at the conclusion of that conversation that the president speak with FBI Director Mueller. And so that meeting followed. Following that meeting, Comey said that Mueller brought word that the Justice Department was to do whatever was "necessary" to make the program into one that the Justice Department could sign off on.
Comey said that it took two to three weeks for the Justice Department to do the analysis necessary to have the program approved. During that time, the program went on without Justice Department approval. But following the Justice Department's suggested changes, the Justice Department (either Ashcroft or Comey) did sign off on the program.
*Update: A commenter below rightly points out that, according to Comey, the call to Ashcroft's wife that Gonzales and Card were on their way to the hospital came from the president himself.
Update: Here's The New York Times' story last January first reporting word of Gonzales' bedside visit. Comey's, obviously, is a much fuller account.
Update: After hearing Comey's "shocking" account, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that it made him wonder anew how Gonzales could remain as the attorney general, since he evidently had so little respect for the rule of law.
Update: ThinkProgress has a transcript of Comey's testimony.
Comments (200)
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 15, 2007 11:43 AM:The Jose Padilla case aside, I have to admit that James Comey comes off as a good guy. Mrs. Ashcroft doesn't look too bad either.
MB wrote on May 15, 2007 11:47 AM:This is really amazing. Think - people as craven and political as Ashcroft and Comey were willing to resign in defense of the law. So christ, it must have been bad.
profmarcus wrote on May 15, 2007 11:47 AM:this is very scary stuff... you can only imagine what's taken place that we don't yet know about... you can only imagine what's going on right NOW that we don't know about... it's easy to see why george was so eager to put gonzo in the ag seat and why he's so loath to let him go...
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/
Robin Boerner wrote on May 15, 2007 11:48 AM:So Ashcroft was looking out for the integrity of the Constitution and Gonzales wanted to trash it even back then?
Is anyone left inside the Bush Administration with any moral compass?
C 92 wrote on May 15, 2007 11:51 AM:Mrs. P -
Did we ever figure out what those Australian documents filed in DC against Gonzales were about?
lysias wrote on May 15, 2007 11:51 AM:If we had had the equivalent of a Saturday Night Massacre in DOJ in March of 2004, I wonder if that would have affected the outcome of the election in November.
bobh wrote on May 15, 2007 11:52 AM:Um, no.
And my questin is 'When will people stop asking if there is anyone with integrity in the Administration left?
mbbsdphil wrote on May 15, 2007 11:53 AM:Amazing what White House officials will do when faced with the prospect of years in prison. Rushing to Ashcroft's hospital bed to get a barely conscious official to overturn a decision? Card, Gonzales, Bush and company serially trying to bully Comey into covering their ass?
Democrats had better take note. If they start thinking like a ring bearer - that they can use corrupt power without being corrupted - they make still elected. But because they will not have an adequate majority to rule.
If they fail to expose and end the corrupt abuses of power made commonplace by Mr. Bush, they will institutinalize and perpetuate them, and thus destroy their own party and the hopes of millions.
Jeff wrote on May 15, 2007 11:56 AM:One part you left out is that, as Comey understands it, it was only because of a phone call from the President to Mrs. Ashcroft that Card and Gonzales got in in the first place. Mrs. Ashcroft had banned all visits and all phone calls to her very ill husband. But she let Comey know about the impending visit, which she had allowed after a phone call about it, evidently from the President himself.
drational wrote on May 15, 2007 11:56 AM:Amazing testimony.
drational wrote on May 15, 2007 11:58 AM:By far the best yet. They clearly purged the good guys at the DOJ to install the dredges we are left with today.
Gonzales and Card came to the Hospital in the black of night to try to get a disoriented Ashcroft to sign off on an illegal Wiretapping scheme???
Odbasta wrote on May 15, 2007 12:01 PM:This is impeachment material.
I'll echo the sentiments above, and wonder again: what is happening right now in the JD that we don't know about? "Voter fraud" is probably just the tip of a very deep and still concealed iceberg.
These neocons truly don't subscribe to reality.
jeffgee wrote on May 15, 2007 12:02 PM:In the Bush administration, the compass always points to Rove.
giark65 wrote on May 15, 2007 12:02 PM:Is it anymore obvious that Bush is 'not' the decision maker?
Cheney opposed...that was apparent.
bobh wrote on May 15, 2007 12:02 PM:I'm almost sad they didn't get old Ashys sig that night.
Can you imagine them explaining his condition at the time of approval?
C 92 wrote on May 15, 2007 12:02 PM:Key phrase:
"...During that time, the program went on without Justice Department approval..." Which meant it was illegal.
Go back and examine the record, particularly Gonzales' testimony. Any assertion that the "program" was legal and authorized (and there were many) is now inoperative. The only authorization "during that time" would have been the White House's - and that buck has gotta stop somewhere.
uncle vester wrote on May 15, 2007 12:05 PM:"At this point, according to Comey, a number of senior Justice Department officials, including Ashcroft, were prepared to resign."
Jesus, I step away from my computer for five minutes and miss this? They were all going to resign?? Even Ashcroft? Good God.
Ashcroft is now slightly less bad in my estimation.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 15, 2007 12:06 PM:C 92@May 15, 2007 11:51 AM
You mean the UCC financing statement filed with the District of Columbia Recorder of Deeds on 11/8/06? No, but I have the UCC statement in a PDF file and would be happy to provide to anyone who is interested in it.
From the UCC filing:
Debtor:
Phillip Richard Morton
80 Sunshine Road
Wolvi Australia 4570
Tel: 44754867081
Tax I.D.: 404728981
There is a bunch of stuff about the collateral which I don't have the time to re-type at the moment.
I suppose we could just call Phillip Morton and ask what this is all about.
This stuff with Comey is really something, isn't it?
Jefty Prather wrote on May 15, 2007 12:07 PM:If this is not enough for the entire Sentate to stand and demand his resignation, I am not sure what is. My God, how did we get in this bad a shape. How long will it take us to recover.
Steve5117 wrote on May 15, 2007 12:12 PM:I think tomorrow I'll put a can of air freshener on my desk, and if anyone asks why it is there I'll tell them it is there because it is time to clear the air.
Can anybody sent a few cans to 1600?
klip wrote on May 15, 2007 12:12 PM:And today 56 Harvard Law School grads from the Class of 1982 took out a 1/4 page ad. in the WashPost consisting of an open letter to their fellow grad, Alberto Gonzales. The letter takes him to task for subverting our liberties and destroying the integrity of the DOJ. Obviously, Gonzales' classmates are very concerned with all he has done as one of King George's most loyal lackeys.
Allsburg wrote on May 15, 2007 12:13 PM:Wow. All I can say is, wow.
Anonymous wrote on May 15, 2007 12:15 PM:Nancy, tell us again why you took impeachment off the table?
Bearpaw wrote on May 15, 2007 12:16 PM:You know things have gotten really bad when shit comes out that makes Ashcroft look good.
PTF wrote on May 15, 2007 12:22 PM:Remember those quaint days back in January 2001 when Alberto Gonzales was berating the just departed Clinton staffers for stealing doorknobs?
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf
Alberto went into such detail, too.
A wonder for a man who can't remember a darned thing!
Crust wrote on May 15, 2007 12:24 PM:Ashcroft threatened to resign!?! That's big.
pat wrote on May 15, 2007 12:25 PM:What bush and co has done is undermined who we are as a country ,while at the same time they have pulled the Biggest Heist in the History of the World not only our money but they have ripped Off The Ulimate Prize's Power and Control how addicting it must be to gwbush . We have watched him place his people in all the most important places in our Government in order to succeed.
C 92 wrote on May 15, 2007 12:26 PM:I don't believe we will ever unravel the puzzle at least not in my lifetime ,maybe my grandchildren's time but by then it will be late to bring anyone to justice.
So let me get this straight... Card and Gonzales were discussing a top secret, codeword classified program in a DC hospital? Was this hospital room in a SCIF?
Considering that Ashcroft had abducated his AG powers, while ill, I would doubt he was placed in such a facility. Card and Gonzales may have violated terms of their security clearances.
And Mrs. P - indeed, it is ABSOLUTELY mind boggling.
georgia wrote on May 15, 2007 12:27 PM:Who were the only four people who expressed their disapporoval of Comey's position? According to COmey's testimony, it was: Alberto Gonzales, Andrew Card, Dick Cheney, and David Addington.
The worst part of this is that Gonzo went on to become the AG. HE should be impeached.
drational wrote on May 15, 2007 12:35 PM:HOSPITALGATE
brianm0122 wrote on May 15, 2007 12:38 PM:I thought Pelosi's plan in regard to impeachment made some sense. Don't impeach, tie the Admins hands with scandal, and drag through the mud 'til election time. Keep the scandals in the headlines constantly, while keeping them from doing any more damage.
It may be too late.
crush
anon wrote on May 15, 2007 12:41 PM:I'd just like to point out that while we KNOW the surveillance program we've been discussing was (is?) illegal--we still don't know Jack about the program itself. Just saying.
klyde wrote on May 15, 2007 12:41 PM:Can they impeach Abu G now?
biggerbox wrote on May 15, 2007 12:42 PM:Wow. It's hard to imagine that the original program was even more heinous and un-American than the one we have.
It's also clear they had no desire to actually do something that was legal; one doesn't expect that a seriously ill man in a hospital bed is competent to determine the legality of a program with myriad technological and Constitutional complexities. What mattered was the 'form' of DOJ approval, not the actual substance.
I imagine that even Law-and-Order Ashcroft was disgusted by such a debased stunt. It's hardly 'faithfully executing' the office of the President when you send underlings to harass a sick man in bed.
So, since they were operating the program when even the DOJ didn't think it was legal, can we impeach them now? Please?
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 15, 2007 12:43 PM:C 92@May 15, 2007 11:51 AM
Odd time for you to be asking me about a UCC financial statement filed by an Australian against AG Gonzales in his official capacity.
But I'm going to go with your flow and post the stuff about the collateral.
Doc: 2006152342
Date: 11/08/2006
Filed & Recorded in Official Records of WASH DC RECORDER OF DEEDS LARRY TODD
Debtor and Secured Party:
Phillip Richard Morton
80 Sunshine Road
Wolvi Australia 4570
Tel: 44754867081
Tax I.D.: 404728981
Additional Debtor:
Alberto R. Gonzales
2301 C Avenue
Washington 20250
Collateral: Collateral already subject to a security interest in another jurisdiction, consisting of security agreement, PRLM-070282-SA and the exemption account capable of set-off of public debts, held either as credits or in monetary units of the country where the debt is initiated, for pre-paid property (real included, goods and/or services, known as #404728981, entrusted to the secured party herein above named as a transmitting utility authorized to exchange dollar for dollar property from the account for public debts as per instructions of the creditor, named as bailor attached addendum.
Additional Collateral: Oath of Office of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales (virtual) demonstrating commitment to perform and fulfill obligation to Bailor/one of the people of substance protected by the Supercedeas Bond; (2)UCC Financing Statement of Secured Party/Bailee filed in Washington DC on November 9, AD2006 11:00am reflecting private agreement to serve Bailee on behalf of Bailor, #404728981; (3)secured interest on the Birth Certificate and Tax File Number of creditor/secured party reflected on certified copy of UCC-1 financing statement (pending), filed in Washington DC on November 9, AD2006 in the mandate for compliance with Revised Article 9 requiring filing in the state in which the 'debtor' resides;
I still don't have a clue.
Mad Dog Rackham wrote on May 15, 2007 12:45 PM:Mr. Blank asked "Nancy, tell us again why you took impeachment off the table?"
I took my coffee off the table this morning. Doesn't mean I didn't put it back on the table later.
Pelosi's statement was to keep the Democrats from being portrayed as "vengeful" during the election. Not only are the elections over, but, hey, we won. We should be working on Pelosi to start drafting the articles, not beating her up over past (successful) electoral tactics.
ewastud wrote on May 15, 2007 12:46 PM:My strong hunch is that this "warrantless wiretapping" program the Gonzo and the WH were so determined to put into place was not intended to catch "terrorists," but rather to get dirt on their political enemies - mostly Democrats. We have seen the WH exposed more than ever recently about their blatant and ruthless politicization of everything in the government. If the taps were actually against suspected "terrorists," as claimed, there would have been no reason to avoid the scrutiny and accountability of the courts. No, BushCo was after information on people they knew no court would approve tapping their phone. It is the only logical explanation I can think of.
Steve5117 wrote on May 15, 2007 12:48 PM:CNN news flash....Jerry Falwell rushed to hospital...
"Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord", watch out Pat.
If you are in DC and see lightening, DUCK.
Michele Manion wrote on May 15, 2007 12:52 PM:Patiently waiting to see how long it will take MSM to recognize the significance of this story. So far nothing on CNN, MSNBC, etc. Maybe they're waiting for Drudge's lede, but he's fixated on ABC developing a show using the GEICO caveman (and on GWB holding a "steady" 33% approval rating while Congress slips to 29%). Gotta have our priorities straight.
ES wrote on May 15, 2007 12:55 PM:If Senator Schumer is that outraged, then it's time for him to stop sputtering and get some of his House buddies to open impeachment proceedings against Gonzalez. Gonzo clearly is not going to resign, he will have to be forced out. Comey's testimony may be the nail in the coffin that's been missing. All the better that it directly implicates President Bush in a sordid, nauseating scenario. Stop pooping around and get the job done, already. Impeach Gonzalez.
hector wrote on May 15, 2007 12:58 PM:Falwell found unresponsive
Lynchburg News & Advance
May 15, 2007
BREAKING NEWS
The Rev. Jerry Falwell arrived at Lynchburg General Hospital today around noon after being found unresponsive in his office. Ron Godwin, the executive vice president of Liberty University, confirmed that Falwell was found unconscious in his office after missing an appointment this morning.
citizen Able wrote on May 15, 2007 12:59 PM:http://newsadvance.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=LNA/MGArticle/LNA_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173351208443&path=
Bearpaw,
My thoughts exactly.
Ashcroft is looking like a paragon of virtue compared to this lot.
Vulture Breath wrote on May 15, 2007 1:01 PM:I'm waiting for this to appear on Drudge so that the MSM can pick it up.
[.....crickets....]
Dewey wrote on May 15, 2007 1:02 PM:I cannot not get the SJC stream link to work no matter how I go about it. Anyone else having issues?
Tortoise wrote on May 15, 2007 1:03 PM:The statutory requirement question is interesting, isn't it? I'd be prepared to bet that although the WH might not have an absolute need for the AG to sign off (maybe under the Unitary Exective theory), other parties - such as the telecom companies - might have been exposed to serious legal jeopardy.
osama_been_forgotten wrote on May 15, 2007 1:03 PM:One wonders (really) how Ashcroft ended up in the hospital in the first place.
Jay M wrote on May 15, 2007 1:04 PM:Gonzales and Card at Ashcroft's bedside. Brings new meaning to the sobriquet, "ambulance chasers." I wonder if anyone will ask whether senior Democratic leaders were targeted under the unwarranted wiretap program--Rove's talking points from 2005 on have included baseless suggestions that the loyal opposition is treasonous. Is this why they were in such a hurry? And was the FISA court made aware of any/all of the unwarranted wiretaps? I know one FISA judge resigned--was the FISA judge who approved the practice a "loyal Bushie?" Were they spying on Democrats?
draftedin68 wrote on May 15, 2007 1:04 PM:.
Hmmmmm....
Seriously ill...
in hospital...
"please sign here"...
Holy shit! Was Duhhbya taking advice from Newt?
.
Ian wrote on May 15, 2007 1:05 PM:I think if you read between the lines of Whitehouse's questions and Comey's response that they are moving quickly for asking for a Special Prosecutor. This really has to be finessed, because the DOJ would be the ones responsible for choosing such prosecutor, so the Dems have to apply so much pressure to actually make it an Independent one, rather than a whitewash. How were the thugs able to move so fast on such a non-crime as Whitewater?
Dem-agog wrote on May 15, 2007 1:07 PM:With just a few hearings completed we clearly have violations of the Hatch Act, violations of FISA law, violations of the Obstruction of Justice statute and possible RICO violations.
I hope that the testimony gathered at these hearings will (soon!) move it to more formal criminal proceedings.
Allan in CT wrote on May 15, 2007 1:09 PM:This is all very frightening. What is remarkable is that there were some willing to say no, at least to the worst of the abuses. I have been very discouraged about the abuse of civil liberties. However, if even the fired Republican US Attorneys speak out, there is still some hope that we can survive the remaining 615 days as a democratic republic. Still there do not yet appear enough senators or congressmen willing to impeach. In the end, it will be up to enough Republicans in Congress who can join the Democrats to impeach. It may be too soon for them, and then it will be too late for them.
Deep down, I believe our form of government will survive, at least in the short run. But when the next Republican is president, in the next generation, and memory of these times is lost, the abuses may be worse. Let's hope that most will remember.
Crust wrote on May 15, 2007 1:13 PM:Meanwhile, the top headline under a Google News Search for "Gonzales" is "Gonzales Challenges Congress to Work With Justice Department".
Our MSM just doesn't get it. Somehow they see this story as yet another horse race story, is Gonzales going to stay or not and is he talking tough or not.
Impartial justice and the rule of law aren't so important anymore apparently.
Long Memory wrote on May 15, 2007 1:15 PM:They shoulda sent Newt Gingrich. He has experience dealing with people laid up in the hospital.
Tom Hilton wrote on May 15, 2007 1:19 PM:Comey's just confirming what the NYT reported back at the beginning of last year: http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index?m=2141
molly wrote on May 15, 2007 1:19 PM:Read some time ago that Andy Card was a good friend with Bush 1..anybody else read that? would explain why this hospital visit seemed almost life threatening according to testimony on FDL from emptywheel. Everybody knows Bush 1 has a reputation for enemies getting dead. Could it be that Bush the lesser is living the age old tradition of rebeling against his father's viciousness and it's his handlers that are the true murderers?
Vulture Breath wrote on May 15, 2007 1:19 PM:Comey wasn't wearing a flag pin in his lapel. Evidence that he hates America.
uncle vester wrote on May 15, 2007 1:20 PM:C 92-
"So let me get this straight... Card and Gonzales were discussing a top secret, codeword classified program in a DC hospital? Was this hospital room in a SCIF?"
Good catch!
Anonymous wrote on May 15, 2007 1:21 PM:"...Gonzales and Card at Ashcroft's bedside..."
Don't overlook the fact that Karl Rove sent them.
elrapierwit wrote on May 15, 2007 1:23 PM:Imagine a man barely conscious and unable to think being asked to overule his Deputy AG. Even though Ashcroft was in an entirely limited cognitive zone he knew better than to embroil himself in something he was clueless about.
GWBush is an awful man to call a spouse for permission for his lackeys to see him. I suppose the only reason Mrs. Ashcroft did so, was that she beleived it would imperil her husband's job if she failed to give permission.
Ashcroft however understand the enormity and resign after he re-gained his health. He understood nothing was worth losing his life or his integrity for, as he only had God to answer to.
I may not agree with his religious principles entirely but one thing is for certain, he has a moral compass that allows him to have far greater integrity than the bunch of Regents grads he hired into the DOJ.
This is such a sad story and it is unbelievable how it will not receive news coverage...other than Olberman.
OMG..the code word is poison....as in the fruit of the poison tree is all rotten.
The DOJ is completely rotten as it is nothing but the fruit of the poisoned WH tree.
hector wrote on May 15, 2007 1:26 PM:Mrs Panstreppon,
Phillip Morton the Australian linked to hedge fund...
anon wrote on May 15, 2007 1:33 PM:http://www.hedgefunder.net/hedge-fund/69541.html
...I think if you read between the lines of Whitehouse's questions and Comey's response that they are moving quickly for asking for a Special Prosecutor...
I don't see how that's going to work. I can kinda see the DoJ appointing someone to report back in, oh, 2025 but I can't see them appointing a credible prosecutor and giving them a workable brief. If Congress has something along the lines of a SP in mind, what do they expect? I don't see it.
parrot wrote on May 15, 2007 1:35 PM:Hypocrisy, thy name is legion. I'm not sensing much respect for the rule of law by the folks "running" the US government. Instead, what we see is browbeating and politics treated as law. This is the kind of thing. I would be very interested to see what portions of the secret program that Comey felt were not legal. As a nation, we should get to the bottom of this soon...or continue a free fall without an end?
copper as in geez!
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 15, 2007 1:36 PM:hector@May 15, 2007 01:26 PM
The HedgeFunder website does not appear to have anything about Phillip Morton on it. Do you have anything else about Morton?
If the Phillip R. Morton who filed the UCC financing statement on AG Gonzales is a hedge fund investor, the UCC filing just got a whole lot more interesting.
Anonymous wrote on May 15, 2007 1:38 PM:Hedge fund to me screams "Carlyle Group!"
Which in turn screams "extraordinary rendition!"
And the government of PM Howard is overly Bush sympathetic -- so let's see more evidence...
Anonymous wrote on May 15, 2007 1:41 PM:Reports that Jerry Falwell has died...73 years old. Probably heart related.
drmoore wrote on May 15, 2007 1:44 PM:Security code: credit---as in credit to Ashcroft and Comey (did I really just say that?). This makes Watergate look about as scandalous (or scandaless)as the speaker of the house getting raked over the coals about a book deal (who was that guy from Texas, Jim Wright?). This is WORSE than a Clancy novel, cause it's real!
Michael O'Neill wrote on May 15, 2007 1:47 PM:At 12:46 ewastud suggests a pivotal point, and I wonder why it has not been a more central issue in discussion.
Clearly the wiretapping program has nothing whatsoever to do with "terrorism," whatever that word has come to mean. A cabal that recognizes no limits on its desire for power suddenly abides by the rules of the game and forsakes a potent weapon like this?
Oh, please.
br wrote on May 15, 2007 1:49 PM:There's a Phillip Morton who writes on this web site. Not a high-end news vehicle, at first inspection at least, seems more to rewrite press releases. In fact, the name strikes me as possibly a pen name (with two L's).
http://www.investorsoffshore.com/asp/story/storyinv.asp?storyname=27277
SVL wrote on May 15, 2007 1:52 PM:Did Mrs. Ashcroft, nurses and hospital desk staff violate a no visitors ban? Or at the least, are in violation of typical hospital visiting hours, usually over at 8 p.m.? How is it such a sick John Ashcroft had so many people coming and going around him after hours demanding his participation while he was under "patient" status? A sitting duck in other words, for anything, helpless and available even though this status certainly wasn't free of charge? Not even any protective Secret Service personnel in the hall to deflect interference in Ashcroft's healing process? C'mon! How many people would have to be complicit in this invasion of patient privacy?
Long Memory wrote on May 15, 2007 1:53 PM:I just recalled that at one point some wag said "John Ashcroft is the worst Attorney General this country has seen since Janet Reno."
That was a long time ago now, wasn't it?
Heckuva job, Fredo.
Anonymous wrote on May 15, 2007 1:58 PM:Wasn't this scene played out in the 'Godfather'?
They should apply the same RICO laws to this 'family'.
gcs wrote on May 15, 2007 2:00 PM:When John Ashcroft is the most principled guy in the room you know we're in serious trouble.
logorrhea wrote on May 15, 2007 2:05 PM:As others have stated, I've always believed that the primary purpose of the warrantless wiretapping program was to spy on Dems and other political opponents. I also think that they got the goods on the Swift Boaters and extorted them into critizing Kerry, especially the guys who had previously campaigned for him. What else could explain their 180 degree switch from praising Kerry during his Senatorial run to smearing him in 2004?
Yeah, I know this is tin foil hat territory, but there is literally nothing that Rove and the administration wouldn't do to hold on to power.
SC: poison
Michele Manion wrote on May 15, 2007 2:11 PM:"Comey's just confirming what the NYT reported back at the beginning of last year: http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index?m=2141"
True, but the significance of this story is that Comey's testimony today was given in the context of the US attorney purge investigation and it corroborates a pattern of political strong-arming from the WH aimed at obstructing how the DOJ enforced the rule of law. When the NYT first reported the story the full significance of Gonzalez's role in the politicization of the DOJ could not be fully comprehended. We are starting to get it now (although I suspect it's much worse than we can even imagine at this point). That's why this story is important--not because it's new information, because it is an important piece of the puzzle that shouldn't be overlooked.
RW wrote on May 15, 2007 2:13 PM:I think these new revelations of the WH and its Counsel's office is going to lead ti another ball of string that once pulled will begin to unravel and reveal more of what Col Wilkerson described as a cabal in the WH.
Make no mistake this cabal needed to have legal grounding to engineer its objectives, which appear to be nothing else but "PERMANENT PARTY MAJORITY".
This is what the DoJ purge was about ultimately. This is what the Abramoff corruption is about. why wouldn't warrantless wiretaps be about anything else?
elrapierwit wrote on May 15, 2007 2:23 PM:RW
I agree.
This entire scandal wherever it pops up, homeland security, NSC, DOJ, Abramoff, terror alerts etc..has only one core theme and driving objective...permanent GOP majority in DC...by any means necessary.
lysias wrote on May 15, 2007 2:23 PM:They sought a permanent party majority, and the result will be permanent minority status, if not the extinction of the party.
Speaking of SCIF's and security violations, by the way, what was Lynne Cheney doing in the White House bunker early in the morning of 9/11?
georgia wrote on May 15, 2007 2:24 PM:The "statutory requirement" question was raised by Arlen Specter. Apparently there was none.
The problem seems to be that they had gone to the Attorney General to attest to the constitutionality of the program. He could not, yet "they" approved the program anyway. This was the basis for Comey's and Mueller's planned resignations. (How did he know that night that they had approved the program? He planned to resign the next day.)
Why would he resign? It could only be that the Department of Justice and the FBI were being ordered to do things that were unconstitutional, and neither Comey nor Mueller would accept the ultimate resonsibility for the actions as heads of their respective departments.
Next question...what changed over the course of the prior 45 days that put the program in question?
anon wrote on May 15, 2007 2:28 PM:I hate to be a broken record but...if we know the surveillance program was (or is?) is illegal then why don't we know more (or anything really) about it? Is there some rule that says that superdupertopsecret stuff stay secret even if it's illegal? Is there some reason the Dems can't break this down? I know, I know, I've watched Gonzales "gum" everything to death and, yes, I'm sure the administration doesn't want people to know about the program and, of course, it's all top secret but...it's illegal. Seems to me that a big whopping case of illegal would take precedent over various other concerns. The Dems can't hold closed door meetings and/or investigate? Comey, unless I misreading him, was basically begging the question, no?
NCBlueneck wrote on May 15, 2007 2:28 PM:Maybe "impeachment is off the table" because the "Terrorist Surveilance Program" got the good on Pelosi? You know, to rise to that level of power, you are going to associate with (however innocently) some real unsavory characters, and take money from same (however unknowingly). This is the worst "Constitutional Crisis" that I am aware of for the United States. Blackmail makes the most sense to me as to the reason Dumbya has not faced impeachment yet. What's it going to take, Nancy?
* Theft of TWO elections? nope
* Entering into an illegal war of agression under fraudulent circumstances? nope
* Torture? nope
* Black prison sites? nope
* Illegal wiretapping? nope
* Assuming the powers of Congress and violating the separation of powers with signing statements? guess again
* Voiding Habeus Corpus? wrong again, buck-o
* Politicizing the DOJ? Nancy yawns...
* The theft of billions of dollars for Iraq? Nancy stares blankly...
* Gross mismanagement and cronyism? Piffle!
Where the hell is the blue dress?! What I would give for a White House sex scandal! Oh yeah, the MSM wouldn't cover that, would they? We are sooo screwed!
Code word: porter
Like what the Repigs turned re-porters into.
just john wrote on May 15, 2007 2:30 PM:It took me a couple hours for this to sink in, but this is the perfect ammo for any future time Gonzales complains about being questioned.
This story tells us how Gonzales feels an Attorney General should be treated!
anon wrote on May 15, 2007 2:32 PM:...This story tells us how Gonzales feels an Attorney General should be treated!...
Good point!
ViniloSuave wrote on May 15, 2007 2:35 PM:In the light of all this darkness, we should give serious consideration to Mad Dog Rackham's [today at 12:45] final sentence. Indeed we should.
Caligirl wrote on May 15, 2007 2:35 PM:Just looked for possible meaning for PRLM in the UCC above. I am no sleuth so this could be totally off track but here is a language identification system: Automatic language identification of telephone speech messages using phoneme recognition and N-gram modeling
Generally, system performance was directly
related to system complexity, with PRLM-P and PPR performing best. On 45
second test utterances, average two language, closed-set, forced-choice
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=389377
classification performance reached 94.5% correct. The best 10 language,
closed-set, forced-choice performance was 79.2% correct
SC potato
Ms. P you have a hot potato.
georgia wrote on May 15, 2007 2:37 PM:I suspect the "program" Comey was referring to was NOT the NSA wiretapping program that was authorized every 45 days.
I can't see what would have changed over that short period of time that would have prompted even Ashcroft to be willing to submit his resignation, especially because, unlike Comey, Ashcroft had signed off on the NSA program before.
Anonymous wrote on May 15, 2007 2:39 PM:AP is reporting that Ashcroft was at George Washington University Hospital. Surely neither Gonzales nor Card nor Comey was cleared to talk about secure compartimentalized classifed information program in an unswept hospital room...
citizen Able wrote on May 15, 2007 2:43 PM:ewastud's hunch that the warrantless wiretapping's intended target was (is?) the White House's political enemies - Democrats doesn't go far enough. Include government whistleblowers and (our favorite) muckraking journalists in the list and you'll be closer to the truth.
It's been what--a year and six months--two years? There hasn't yet been an adequate explanation why they wouldn't follow the FISA law.
Expect the worst of this lot and you're still likely to underestimate how bad it really is.
thomas wrote on May 15, 2007 2:44 PM:to echo drmoore above. This makes the Nixon crew look minor league. Oops, I forgot, this is many of the same (Cheney, Rummy, etc) with time to pracitce and make perfect.
H8Generation wrote on May 15, 2007 2:49 PM:As of 9/11/01 Bush declared, "Henceforth I shall be called 'King in Chief.'"
*right* makes might right?
georgia wrote on May 15, 2007 2:49 PM:ok, I went back and read the NYT article. Maybe it was the same program, but I still don't get what changed.
CCK wrote on May 15, 2007 2:50 PM:If they had diverted even a tenth of the energy they apparently put into lying, cheating, and stealing and instead used that for good-faith governing and policy, they would have had a permanent majority, or at least an extended one.
nuncamas wrote on May 15, 2007 2:53 PM:I would think it probably was at least as important to spy on/get the goods on the Republicans as well, even good little supporters. Keeps 'em in line, y'know?
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 15, 2007 2:54 PM:To me, this part of Comey's story illustrates how far Comey thought the WH would to go:
"...I went out in the hallway. Spoke to Director Mueller by phone. He was on his way. I handed the phone to the head of the security detail and Director Mueller instructed the FBI agents present not to allow me to be removed from the room under any circumstances. And I went back in the room."
Comey thought the White House would order him to be removed from Ashcroft's hospital room by force.
Jeez.
Michael Stevens wrote on May 15, 2007 2:54 PM:I'm never one to throw the "impeachment card". I haven't yet agreed with any of the calls for Bush's impeachment, largely because there hasn't been enough of a smoking gun violation of the law.
But this seems to be a smoking gun, premeditated, purposeful violation of law. The President was told the program was illegal. His AG and Deputy AG were prepared to resign in protest, yet he still went forward with the program, albeit for only two weeks.
If someone breaks another law for "only two weeks", they're still guilty.
caligirl wrote on May 15, 2007 3:00 PM:Don't know if this is even close to the ballpark on the UCC paper but here goes:
More on what the PRLM system does:
"of words and phrases is adversely affected
if the text is not diacritized before it is sent
to the synthesis engine. An obvious approach
to dealing with this issue is to use a commercial
diacritizer as a pre-processing step for
both recognition and synthesis. However
Kirchhoff et al [11] have found that commercial
Language identification is an important
component of a bilingual conversational
system that would be able to switch seamlessly
between Arabic and English. Zissman [13]
compared the performance of four approaches
for automatic language identification of
speech utterances: Gaussian Mixture Model
(GMM) classification; single-language Phone
Recognition followed by language-dependent,
interpolated n-gram Language Modelling
(PRLM); parallel PRLM, which uses multiple
single-language phone recognizers, each
trained in a different language; and languagedependent
Parallel Phone Recognition (PPR).
He found that the parallel PRLM gave the best
results. An approach based on parallel PRLM
(Figure 2) has been developed using the TIMIT
English database and the MSA Arabic
West Point database from the Linguistic Data
Consortium (LDC).
Hello
"
http://www.cepis-upgrade.net/issues/2004/3/up5-3Mosaic.pdf
SteveW wrote on May 15, 2007 3:02 PM:When all of this broke months ago, John Kerry sent out a letter to supports saying he wouldn't doubt his campaign was eavdropped on during the 2004 election.
I believe it's been confirmed Christiane Amanpour was one of the individuals who was party to a conversation in "data sweep" in 2004. Her husband just happened to be an advisor to Kerry, albeit a horrible one (Jaimie Rubin) at the time.
jedermann wrote on May 15, 2007 3:04 PM:This is a renewal procedure. What changed, if anything, from the previous renewal or the initial approval? Why were all these people suddenly so alert and willing to resign this time around?
georgia wrote on May 15, 2007 3:07 PM:something that will play into this story is the fact that the day the program was reauthorized with AG approval was March 11, 2004, the same day that there were train bombings in Madrid
georgia wrote on May 15, 2007 3:07 PM:something that will play into this story is the fact that the day the program was reauthorized with AG approval was March 11, 2004, the same day that there were train bombings in Madrid
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 15, 2007 3:10 PM:caligirl@May 15, 2007 03:00 PM
Thanks. The problem is that PRLM can stand for a number of things - property rights and land managmemt is one, Pacific rim land management is another.
I would think that security agreement identified as PRLM-070282-SA could be specifically linked to a government entity, either here or in Australia.
Anonymous wrote on May 15, 2007 3:10 PM:Caligirl:
Interesting to have Gonzales involved in something that might be related to speech recognition technology, considering the wiretap angle.
Was DOJ setting up its own rogue intelligence collecting capability?
C 92 wrote on May 15, 2007 3:14 PM:Mrs. P:
The document references Gonzales, but the address listed is 2301 C Street, NW, which is the US State Department. I would guess it has something to do with an international agreement of some nature that State has its prints on.
Blue Patriot wrote on May 15, 2007 3:16 PM:You know, I'd like to do something nice for Ashcroft. Does anyone know if www.1-800-AnnointingOils.com has a nice selection?
Crisco. HAha...
I think the point about the illegality of the program in the interim between the '04 expiration and the DoJ's recertification is going to sink these rats.
asdf wrote on May 15, 2007 3:21 PM:Notable in Comey's testimony its vivid, specific detail of events. He knew where he was on what date, who was there and the time of day.
But no one since has any memory whatsoever. If Republicans had shame, this is the moment they'd feel it. But alas....
The Oracle wrote on May 15, 2007 3:21 PM:So, once Gonzales became Attorney General, did he quietly revert this domestic spying program back to what he (and the neo-cons) wanted, the more intrusive and illegal version that Comey wouldn't sign off on?
JM wrote on May 15, 2007 3:22 PM:This is government by TV show. "I saw once where they did this on Law & Order."
Because on Law & Order, the ends justify the means, as long as you wince a little about it.
lysias wrote on May 15, 2007 3:23 PM:One of the senators asked Comey what had changed to prompt him and Ashcroft to refuse to continue to certify the NSA program(s). He said that a new head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, had just come on board and reexamined the legality of the program(s) and determined that it/they lacked legal basis.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 15, 2007 3:23 PM:C 92@May 15, 2007 03:14 PM
I agree but how did Gonzales get in the middle of it?
Based on the language in the UCC filing, I wonder if Phillip Morton's lawyer mistakenly thought he had to file the UCC statement in DC:
"...mandate for compliance with Revised Article 9 requiring filing in the state in which the 'debtor' resides;"
When I first searched for info about the UCC filing, I found some indication that Phillip Morton might be an architect.
Are we building anything of significance in Australia? Embassy, prison, snoop shop...
Gary Farber wrote on May 15, 2007 3:30 PM:"After meeting with Justice Department officials at the Justice Deaprtment, Comey went to the White House with Ted Olson, then the Solicitor General to the White House."
Weird wording, at best: Olson was Solicitor General of the United States, which is to say, third-ranking official of the Justice Department. He wasn't "Solicitor General to the White House," which is a title that makes no sense.
logorrhea wrote on May 15, 2007 3:39 PM:The Oracle at 3:21. Great question.
Michele Manion wrote on May 15, 2007 3:40 PM:Finally hits CNN.com.
arejay wrote on May 15, 2007 3:41 PM:I'm with georgia and jedermann; something happened to make what the WH expected to be a routine renewal of the program a matter worth resigning over for Comey et al. Did they gain a better sense of exactly how the program was being conducted? Did they get a glimpse of what they thought were inappropriate targets for wiretapping? Or was it just a long-term process of realization, after the immediate 9/11 shiver wore off? What happened?
And Michael Stevens, I too used to be level-headed and pragmatic and opposed to impeachment. I now think impeachment's the only pragmatic choice for the survival of our constitutional system. Exactly how we get there politically is the question, which is why I've always been fine with Pelosi's public position on it -- I've never doubted that she'd bow to broad-based public pressure. But the result would have to be more than just a party-line vote that left things unchanged for posterity: if you shoot at the king, you'd better damn well kill the king. This does seem to bring us closer to the political bull's eye -- if the Dems (and the media!) recognize it for what it is.
Oracle wrote on May 15, 2007 3:42 PM:The more I read about this story the angrier I become at the NYT for spiking it before the election. What has the paper of record become?
arejay wrote on May 15, 2007 3:44 PM:And yes, Oracle @ 3:21, great question indeed.
arejay wrote on May 15, 2007 3:47 PM:Or to posit one more hypothetical answer to my question, did Comey's principled objection give Ashcroft second thoughts, which he subsequently overcame (eg, in light of the Madrid bombing)?
goldberry wrote on May 15, 2007 3:53 PM:I need a reality check: from what I understand, the president sent his droogs over to John Ashcroft while he was in the hospital suffering from pancreatitis so he could sign off on an illegal wiretapping scheme, thereby making it "legal". And in response, Comey called in the Feds to guard Ashcroft and headed off Gonzales and Card. Then Comey meets with Card at the White House but takes Ted Olsen along as a witness presumably to cover his ass.
And some of my friends still think this is a perfectly acceptable way to run a country. I have been accused of irrational paranoia and being insufficiently deferential to the office of the president.
So, am I losing my mind or is there something seriously wrong here? I mean, is it as bad as I imagined?
Oddly enough, the security code is "fear". Sounds apt.
georgia wrote on May 15, 2007 3:54 PM:lysias, thanks for the Jack Goldsmith info.
The more I look into it, the more I see that lots went on during February 2004. It was revealed that the FBI was monitoring antiwar protestors. (here's one article: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20040218_leavitt.html)
I guess that's what prompted Comey and Mueller to require the terrorism to be made PRIOR TO the surveillance.
Lot's of Feb 2004 links here: http://www.bordc.org/news/archives-feb2004.php
tbhull wrote on May 15, 2007 3:55 PM:After given all the process he is due, Gonzales needs to swing from the gallows until the buzzards pick the most rotten carrion from this insufferable midget clean.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 15, 2007 3:55 PM:What do we know about Jack Goldsmith, WH counsel?
anon wrote on May 15, 2007 3:57 PM:...Ted Olsen along as a witness...
I think Comey jumped the Godfather movies with that move. Wow.
terry wrote on May 15, 2007 3:58 PM:Since there are factions within factions...it does not necessarily mean Ashcroft/Comey were suddenly standing up for our laws. It may just mean they were trying to protect some of "their" faction.
Erika Olsen wrote on May 15, 2007 4:00 PM:Now after many years of pooh-poohing the thoughts and or ranting claims that the WH had something to do with 9/11, i'm starting to re-think that. Nah ... they wouldn't ... would they? Do anything to stay in power? Like engineering a terrorist act? Nah ... hmmmmm
JEP wrote on May 15, 2007 4:02 PM:"The events took place in March of 2004, when the program was in need of renewal by the Justice Department."
Considering the date of this sickbed request, just prior to the heavy political season ahead, one might assume it had more to do with spying of political opponents than spying on Al Quaeda.
Wonder where Rove was in all this? Seems pretty political, considering the timing.
Anonymous wrote on May 15, 2007 4:03 PM:Ahem. If Ashcroft and Comey were such bastions of virtue (for Repubs, that is), then how is it that word of this delightful story did not come out at a more apropos time, say during the Gonzalez confirmation hearings?
Rule of law my ass. Cover their ass is their only rule of law.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 15, 2007 4:03 PM:Oops! What do know about AAG Jack Goldsmith (OLC)?
JEP wrote on May 15, 2007 4:06 PM:"Do anything to stay in power? Like engineering a terrorist act? Nah ... hmmmmm"
They didn't have to engineer it, they just had to pretend it wasn't happening and also make sure Congress didn't know what was happening...
Anyone see the LATimes opinion this morning calling ALL Dems crazy because so many of us suspect that the Bushies callously ignored 9-11 wornings in order to enable the terrorists, and thereby boost Bush's already failing poll numbers?
Sam Sara wrote on May 15, 2007 4:13 PM:Wednesday, May 5, 2004 Posted: 6:10 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attorney General John Ashcroft was in GUARDED CONDITION after having his gallbladder removed, his doctor said Tuesday.
Truer words were never spoken.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/ashcroft/
Anonymous wrote on May 15, 2007 4:15 PM:JEP: Wasn't Comey still assistant AG during part of Gonzales first year at the DOJ? Ok, let me take a stab at the reasoning here. Let's say that Comey says what he knows. If he does it before AGAG's confirmation hearings, somebody is going to ask for his resignation. So, a *fired* Comey goes before the confirmation committee and gets tagged with a "disgruntled former DOJ employee". They'll say he was passed over in favor of AG for AG and he's bitter and angry. This is all revenge. We've seen this story before. PLUS, Comey doesn't get to supervise Fitzgerald or find a reliably honest one to do it for him after he's finally forced out.
georgia wrote on May 15, 2007 4:16 PM:If he testifies before he reigns, they ask for his resignation. Same story as before. Same outcome . Plus, the Bushies might have threatened to blacklist him like they did with the other US Attorneys.
No, unfortunately, revelations like this had to wait until the patriotic fervor died down before they were to be believed. Revealing them earlier wouldn't have changed a damn thing and could have sped up the Bushification of the DOJ.
We know Goldsmith offered his resignation the following June
lysias wrote on May 15, 2007 4:16 PM:Jack Goldsmith was also responsible for the disavowal of the Bybee/Yoo torture memo.
terry wrote on May 15, 2007 4:17 PM:Erika and JEP,
Anonymous wrote on May 15, 2007 4:21 PM:Not too hard for fbi/cia to engineer a terrorist act. As we learn more about the recent 6 bungler terrorists from florida (?), I think we will find a bunch of immature kids having fantasies in their paintball amusement park. Then, the fbi informant came along and put flesh on their bones. Gave them focus, organization, direction, training, contacts, weapons. Abracadabra! A viable terrorist group. Then the WH and fbi have a nice reason to show america what a good job the bushies are doing and why we need more of the same. 9/11 conspiracy sounds more likely in this context.
Anon @ 4:15pm: I see your reasoning, but it looks very 20/20-ish to me.
Not to mention that it does not take into account why Ashcroft could not have spoken up at Fredo's confirmation hearing. Ashcroft is a good xtian, you know.
I refuse to see Comey and Ashcroft as even marginal heroes.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 15, 2007 4:22 PM:Got it!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2004
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL JACK GOLDSMITH TO STEP DOWN
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Attorney General John Ashcroft today announced the resignation of Jack L. Goldsmith III, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. Goldsmith’s resignation is effective July 30, 2004; he intends to return to academia.
“I have been proud to serve this Nation in the critical work in which you and your Administration are engaged,” Goldsmith wrote in his formal resignation letter to President George W. Bush. Goldsmith reiterated that sentiment in his letter to Attorney General Ashcroft, writing, “Thank you for the opportunity to take part in that critical work.”
“Jack Goldsmith brought a brilliant legal mind, unwavering focus, and great loyalty to the job of providing me and the Department wise counsel,” said Ashcroft. “His contributions to the Department have served us - and the American people - well. I thank him for his service, and wish him well as he returns to private life.”
Prior to being nominated to his current post by President Bush in April 2003, Mr. Goldsmith served as Special Counsel to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense. At the time of his nomination, he had accepted a position at the University of Virginia Law School, and had been on leave from the University of Chicago Law School. He earned his first bachelor's degree from Washington & Lee University and a second bachelor's degree from Oxford University. Mr. Goldsmith received his master's degree also from Oxford University and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He went on to earn his Diploma in Private International Law from The Hague Academy of International Law.
georgia wrote on May 15, 2007 4:23 PM:From a newsweek article, regarding Goldsmith:
"They had no idea. Goldsmith was actually the opposite of what his detractors imagined. For nine months, from October 2003 to June 2004, he had been the central figure in a secret but intense rebellion of a small coterie of Bush administration lawyers. Their insurrection, described to NEWSWEEK by current and former administration officials who did not wish to be identified discussing confidential deliberations, is one of the most significant and intriguing untold stories of the war on terror.
These Justice Department lawyers, backed by their intrepid boss Comey, had stood up to the hard-liners, centered in the office of the vice president, who wanted to give the president virtually unlimited powers in the war on terror. Demanding that the White House stop using what they saw as farfetched rationales for riding rough-shod over the law and the Constitution, Goldsmith and the others fought to bring government spying and interrogation methods within the law. They did so at their peril; ostracized, some were denied promotions, while others left for more comfortable climes in private law firms and academia. Some went so far as to line up private lawyers in 2004, anticipating that the president's eavesdropping program would draw scrutiny from Congress, if not prosecutors. These government attorneys did not always succeed, but their efforts went a long way toward vindicating the principle of a nation of laws and not men."
- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11079547/site/newsweek/
petewsh61 wrote on May 15, 2007 4:32 PM:Today at UMASS students occupied an administration building to protest the granting of an honorary degree to Andrew Card.
On this very day we find out the how low Card can go.
Any UMASS administration reading this, what do you say now?
Does he still meet UMASS's ethical standards.
busboy33 wrote on May 15, 2007 4:38 PM:The worst thing is, when I cite facts like this meeting to my Repub friends to explain my disgust with W, they roll their eyes. Its just too damn unbelievable -- the hospital fight with Ashcroft, the FBI, WH counsel, etc. is like a bad Saturday afternoon movie.
jdw wrote on May 15, 2007 4:47 PM:Besides, if it were true, it would be on Fox news. Since they haven't reported it, it must be liberal propaganda.
Of all the over-the-top, "Holy shit!" moments of the entire Gonzo-Gate scandal, this had to be the most wacky one yet.
arejay wrote on May 15, 2007 4:56 PM:Thought I remembered this: New Yorker article, in which Jack Goldsmith figures prominently, about the losing battle fought in the administration by that vanishing breed, the principled conservatives. Great piece by Jane Mayer, focusing mainly on the fight with Torture Yoo over, well, torture:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/27/060227fa_fact?printable=true
(eek, security code "fear" again...)
Oracle wrote on May 15, 2007 5:00 PM:Most interesting part of Comey's narration is the way Gonzo and Card greeted Ashcroft -- on a "get well" visit no less.
Best quote of the day was from tony snow: "Because he had an appendectomy, his brain didn't work?" Snow said of Ashcroft.
Um, Tony, appendectomy does not = lap chole. And um, yeah, postop in the ICU your brain often isn't working. That's why they call it the intensive care unit. Especially if you are delirious. Why by the sounds of it (I tried to orient him to time and place) Ashcroft was. OTOH, lets see the intrepid reporting of the MSM coverage tonight....
Most interesting speculation? I think Comey's testimony was scheduled to deliver a message to Monica about they treated Ashcroft.
Anonymous wrote on May 15, 2007 5:21 PM:@ Oracle 5:00 PM
'...I think Comey's testimony was scheduled to deliver a message to Monica about they treated Ashcroft..."
Very good observation. Monica came in as a true believer - and an Ashcroft admirer since 1997 (at least). Comey's testimony certainly showed how the White House was ready to throttle Ashcroft tp get what they wanted but also revealed how low the the man's opinion was of the Administration's activities at that point.
My guess is that when Gonzales came in, Monica got too wrapped up in the criminality (which is not to say that she wasn't a bad actor, 'cause she was) and couldn't extricate herself.
Certainly her Patron's experience at the hands of Bushco would indicate the fate awaiting a 33-year-old from York County, PA with no experience other than her service to the criminal regime.
Agent86 wrote on May 15, 2007 5:43 PM:To: ewastud
At: May 15, 2007 12:46PM
You said: ~~~ My strong hunch is that this "warrantless wiretapping" program the Gonzo and the WH were so determined to put into place was not intended to catch "terrorists," but rather to get dirt on their political enemies - mostly Democrats. ~~~
Good point, but I think it is far worse. The program would probably also reveal extremely private corporate data, including all oil company and shipping information, all tenders for all projects and work, including details of the bids, all banking and personnel data, all tax and medical data and all plans and current and historical records of everyone communicating to, from and within the US. Once you have that data, you can start controlling in a very big way.
But the scope of this intended program might have been even worse: It is possible it could have effected key insertions into contract terms, personnel data or financial figures and into any data transfer in any company, government agency or any private communication from anyone to anyone at any time.
Once they get this power, there is no move that anyone can make (and no purchase, no sale, no association and assembly) without the knowledge and illicit actions of the parties in control of this program.
This isn't just about Democrats. This is about Total Information Awareness and control. Of everything. I can imagine, sick as he was, Ashcroft would rather perish than sign onto such an abomination.
We need to hear from Ashcroft. Now.
And, at this point, one has to ask: Could Andy Card ever get renditioned? He knows far too much, and perhaps some of this was related to *foreigners* during that period of uber-illegality. It may have been a busy period. Frantic, even?
And To: Mrs Panstreppon
At: May 15, 2007 12:43 PM
That document might be a transfer document to cover, say, the movement of a prisoner and his effects from the US to Australia, and this move also required posting bond, and such bond required a person's personal responsibility and guarantee. It is one way by which nations protect themselves from possible future antipathies about sensitive matters when governments change. The Australian, Morton, might be working as agent for and on behalf of some other entity, such as the Australian government.
KPF wrote on May 15, 2007 5:50 PM:Can we get full video of the hearing anywhere?
pat wrote on May 15, 2007 6:19 PM:Does any of this mean anything yet? Don't we also need a specific provable instance of an illegal warrantless wiretap on a specific individual?
Michael Stevens wrote on May 15, 2007 6:21 PM:Is there any word on when Goodling is scheduled to testify? If it's not schedule by now, I suspect we may not see her until after the Memorial Day holiday.
Both the acting AG and DC court have approved the grant of immunity, so we can only be waiting on the Judiciary Committee to schedule a time.
jdw wrote on May 15, 2007 6:57 PM:One gets the feeling that Mr. Goldsmith will be making a visit to Congress soon.
I wouldn't say that "all" of the administration chickens are going to be coming home to roost. But it's likely that many are going to be getting much more serious looks.
SPENCER ADAMS wrote on May 15, 2007 7:13 PM:I find this comment by Card so hilarious:"We just went there to wish him well."
Just listening to the NPR coverage just turns my stomach.
Tim wrote on May 15, 2007 7:25 PM:Anybody know who Patrick Filbin (sp) is?
Maybe one approach to getting Gonzolles removed would be to have him di-barred.
Respect for the rule of law and a million other ethical compromises should at least get his license to be suspended. Then he can no longer be an attorney, and hence, attorney general.
Via wrote on May 15, 2007 7:25 PM:And the really sad thing is that probably no MSM station will even bother to report this other than probably Keith Olbermann. Fat, dumb and happy Murkins.
georgia wrote on May 15, 2007 7:27 PM:It's "Philbin". He's mentioned on page 4 of teh newsweek article I cited above:
Steve T. wrote on May 15, 2007 7:40 PM:"There was one catch: the secret program had to be reapproved by the attorney general every 45 days. It was Goldsmith's job to advise the A.G. on the legality of the program. In March 2004, John Ashcroft was in the hospital with a serious pancreatic condition. At Justice, Comey, Ashcroft's No. 2, was acting as attorney general. The grandson of an Irish cop and a former U.S. attorney from Manhattan, Comey, 45, is a straight arrow. (It was Comey who appointed his friend—the equally straitlaced and dogged Patrick Fitzgerald—to be the special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame leak-investigation case.) Goldsmith raised with Comey serious questions about the secret eavesdropping program, according to two sources familiar with the episode. He was joined by a former OLC lawyer, Patrick Philbin, who had become national-security aide to the deputy attorney general. Comey backed them up. The White House was told: no reauthorization."
"Nancy, tell us again why you took impeachment off the table?"
Anon, I think Nancy would be quite happy to have impeachment back on the table, but clearly she cannot be the one to put it there.
Impeachment could not conceivably stop with Bush, as Cheney is even deeper in this shit than Bush is. It's both or neither, and if both are removed, who winds up being president? Nancy Pelosi.
She dare not give the Goops a chance to accuse her of trying to sneak into the Oval Office through a constitutional back door. So of course she has to stay quiet. Public pressure for impeachment will have to grow so great that even her power as Speaker obviously cannot stop it. Only then will she be able to "bow to the will of the people" and, with a great pro forma show of reluctance, let herself be carried in triumph into the White House.
Of course, if that happens, all bets are off for 2008.
caligirl wrote on May 15, 2007 8:55 PM:agent86@5:43
"That document might be a transfer document to cover, say, the movement of a prisoner and his effects from the US to Australia, and this move also required posting bond, and such bond required a person's personal responsibility and guarantee. It is one way by which nations protect themselves from possible future antipathies about sensitive matters when governments change. The Australian, Morton, might be working as agent for and on behalf of some other entity, such as the Australian government.
Posted by: Agent86
Date: May 15, 2007 05:43 PM
Michael Stevens wrote on May 15, 2007 9:03 PM:would there possibly be more of these docs should anyone care to look? Or is this just an error by someone?
Slate.com's Dahlia Lithwick just posted an excellent article summing up today's Comney testimony.
An excerpt:
"Alberto Gonzales truly is the gift that keeps on giving. Only a handful of reporters are on hand at what should have been a rerun of Comey's devastating House testimony two weeks ago. But we are treated to Grey's Anatomy meets The West Wing.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., is so aggrieved by Comey's revelations that he looks like he might cry. He frets that Schumer took too much time questioning the witness and then grouses that his Republican colleagues haven't shown up, leaving him alone (and "lonely") with seven (grinning) Democrats."
http://www.slate.com/id/2166213/
JustAGirl wrote on May 15, 2007 9:04 PM:I assume that all Washington insiders know what has happened - that Bush was illegally spying on Democrats and others, that elections were stolen, etc. - they know all that we do not know and it is worse than we imagine.
However, they can't just blurt it out and be taken seriously. They need to tease it out through a process, like these hearings, that gives it independent (not partisan) legitimacy, reveals facts, and, quite frankly, protects Americans from a Fembot-style meltdown when they realize exactly what this lawless cabal of Bush's thugs, criminals and gangsters have been doing. When they realize exactly how unchecked their criminal activities have been. When they realize exactly how much damage and mayhem has been done. It's almost like coming to the realization that America has been raped. Not just raped - gang raped, gleefully and without remorse.
In theory, it could create anarchy - as the facade of government that we all believe in is utterly destroyed and people say to hell with any form of government whatsoever. They all join heavily armed local militias and move to the hills like in some horrible apocalypse movie. That will be the end of democracy.
The task now is to remove the cancer without destroying the host. And the cancer is virulent, tenacious and pervasive.
Anonymous wrote on May 15, 2007 9:13 PM:Caligirl:
The Aussie docs were found in the DC Registrar of Deeds office -- www.taxpayerservicecenter.com
Oftentimes the Deeds office serves as a register of record, in addition to property records.
The Gonzales-Aussie doc is the only thing in there with his name on it.
Anonymous wrote on May 15, 2007 9:22 PM:Here's the NPR story:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10192754
dw @ 06:57 PM references
Caligirl wrote on May 15, 2007 9:38 PM:The Gonzales-Aussie doc is the only thing in there with his name on it.
Posted by:
Date: May 15, 2007 09:13 PM
Thanks.
sc; meat. The smell of rotten meat is permeating the White House.
georgia wrote on May 15, 2007 9:54 PM:From the NPR story:
"One senator called it some of the most dramatic testimony he's heard in 25 years as a legislator."
S Lyons wrote on May 15, 2007 11:22 PM:It's unfortunate that the hearing was not televised. Few of us saw it. I hope the committee gets the video posted soon.
To georgia and others who asked "what changed" about "the program" that made them suddenly believe it was illegal: I remember reading, but I can't remember where, that Comey was not informed of "the program" for a long time after it was already implemented. Comey said in later testimony that his reluctance to sign was prompted by Goldsmith's evaluation of its legality, which Comey had requested, and that it took a while because Goldsmith was new to the office.
We don't know whether Comey had been pushing Ashcroft on this for months, maybe even through several reauthorizations, and it was just this stroke of luck that he was acting AG on the renewal date (and Ashcroft was smart enough not to try to overrule the acting AG), or whether it wasn't until there was a written opinion from the OLC that Ashcroft started to care whether what they were doing was illegal, in that it might have consequences for him.
I also believe that I read somewhere that "the program" was adjusted again when Gonzo took over.
PS. I really want video of this first part of Comey's testimony. I missed the good bits.
Codeword: crime. Say-no-more!
Agent86 wrote on May 15, 2007 11:24 PM:To: caligirl
At: May 15, 2007 08:55PM
You asked: ~~~ would there possibly be more of these docs should anyone care to look? Or is this just an error by someone? ~~~
An error is always a possibility, and this administration seems to thrive on its probabilities. Though the particular instrument and the transaction, itself, are probably *uniquities*, there are probably more of this type of document to facilitate, say, international prisoner movements.
It is probably old-hat to you that one does data-mining by *key word search*, for *tombstone information*, for example. But others might like to know and dig too. So will the stakeholders.
Now, referring to Mrs Panstreppon's document at May 15, 2007 12:43 PM: To find a doc like this, one would have to try, for examples:
1) *PLRM-(any 6-digit numeral, but recommend you start it with a zero)-SA*. Then again, by starting with *070*, followed by any 3-digit numeral.
2) Any 9-digit numeral, but recommend you first start it with *404*.
3) *Supercedeas Bond* and//or *Supercedeas* and//or *supercedeas*.
4) *UCC Financing Statement* and//or *UCC financing statement*.
5) *UCC-1 financing statement * and//or again, with capitalized words, as #4 in this list. The *-1* looks fascinating. *Number Ones* always are. This *uniquity* might just be the first incidence of this genre of transaction and documentation. In which case, one could search for a *UCC-2 financing statement* and strike a Bingo: Another transfer of another person or type of cargo. Or type of transaction.
6) Both *PLRM* and *SA* independently, but these will probably not produce, by themselves.
The search could start, say, in the US Treasury (Department of the Treasury). An enquiry about this could have been sent off to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the document was sent to SEC as a routine information, for one place that might not think to hide it so well. Some banks might carry files for this transfer and will enter *PRLM-070282-SA * or any set in the list above, but this transfer could have been done by diplomatic pouch, in which case, try State. State Department will have dibs on most diplomatic pouches. If they possess a doc ID #, they might not be informed of its uniquity. They never are, these days. In which case, they will not be apprised of its importance or singularity. In which case, they will have its expensing and related correspondence more accessible.
A military force might also be in possession of such sequences in the list. CIA might, but it is not trusted. CIA stung Bush badly 21-22 years ago. CIA failed to apprise of the weak oil market and a few other things before the crude price crash. Bush got caught. So did Houston. So did OPEC and the USSR. CIA is despised. It might not have anything.
Gonzales had to *expense* this somehow. So his supporting documents for recompense may well include a copy of this. (You would be amazed.) Unfortunately, the DoJ is already the handler for much of this sort of communication and expensing and has been for years. That data is already *in-house*. The DoJ has been THE major data-center of the government for a long time. However, in this instance, Gonzales might have expensed this to the government of Australia. After all, they are the receivers of the *cargo* (whatever that might be), and they might be the shippers, too, and thus footing the whole bill, including Gonzales's portion. In which case, that will be a place to search, for sure. Gonzales will be forced to use their numbers and labels. And Gonzales would, in this instance, be acting as a *foreign agent*.
In any large organization, a branch office will have a BMO, Branch Manual of Operations. These will cover routine processing requirements for various forms and instruments.
In these things, we have to think outside that box. Oh, and always rely on error. That we can count on.
eyeball wrote on May 15, 2007 11:33 PM:I'm also irritated beyond measure that this incredible episode was not televised live on CNN, c-span etc. ... are they really so clueless as to miss the meaning of this? this is astonishing -- that ashcroft was ready to quit or die before signing that shit. ashcroft! gonzo and card trying to get the drooling comatose ashcroft to sign something as an end-run while bush hangs by the phone waiting ... . what sick, sick people. thank god the times and post have awakened to this -- this has got to spread -- this is insane. we must rid our nation of these crooks.
Michael Stevens wrote on May 15, 2007 11:49 PM:I read somewhere that C-Span ran an internet exclusive live video feed during the festivities. I'm not at all sure of this, because it is not indicated in the C-Span schedule for this morning.
I've just scoured the C-Span site and they have not yet placed an archived video on the site. I suspect the video will be posted to this page if C-Span ever gets around to it.
http://www.c-span.org/special/attorneys.asp
C-Span typically reruns very important hearings late at night. However there's no rerun scheduled at this time.
If there was a live internet feed, someone must have grabbed it.
kavh wrote on May 16, 2007 12:27 AM:C-Span did a live (audio-only) stream of the SJC hearing w/Comey this mornning. I found it at the URL below. C-Span does these live streams for almost all scheduled committee hearings. I listened to Comey's testimony.
Of interest: Specter's insistence that even though DOJ refused to certify the program as legal, the President did nothing "illegal." I suspect that since the Prez invoked exec privilege, then the issue is constitutionality, so needs adjudication by the Supremes, not the AG.
kavh wrote on May 16, 2007 12:28 AM:C-Span did a live (audio-only) stream of the SJC hearing w/Comey this mornning. I found it at the URL below. C-Span does these live streams for almost all scheduled committee hearings. I listened to Comey's testimony.
Of interest: Specter's insistence that even though DOJ refused to certify the program as legal, the President did nothing "illegal." I suspect that since the Prez invoked exec privilege, then the issue is constitutionality, so needs adjudication by the Supremes, not the AG.
The C-SPAN Site is CAPITOL HEARINGS:
kavh wrote on May 16, 2007 12:35 AM:http://www.capitolhearings.org/
Next scheduled SJC meeting that will be streamed on-line is Thursday May 17 at 10AM EST.
Several items of biz are on agenda. The final one is "possible authorization of subpoenas in the connection with investigation into the replacement of U.S. attorneys."
To listen, go to: C-SPAN CAPITOL HEARINGS at http://www.capitolhearings.org/
Michael Stevens wrote on May 16, 2007 12:43 AM:Ok, now this is making a bit more sense.
In reading through the Firedoglake Liveblog, the only live video feed was run by the Senate JC itself.
C-Span never ran any of the video and the Senate Judiciary doesn't have archives of the video on their site (yet).
I did find this MP3 audio recording of the hearing.
(copy and paste or click on my name below)
http://www.netrootsmass.net/extras/Senate_Committee_Hearings/20070515-Preserving_Prosecutorial_Independence.mp3
I still REALLY want to see the video, especially the part with Spector. It was so deliciously described by Slate'.com's Dahlia Lithwick.
S Lyons wrote on May 16, 2007 12:51 AM:Hurrah! Found the video on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxHjWYA50Ds
It's just the Schumer part, but that's the meat of it. Just watched it; it is riveting. They're both so calm, but their voices are cracking with emotion.
eyeball wrote on May 16, 2007 1:26 AM:thanks to all you for finding it and so forth -- great work. this needs to go vital bigtime. this is the closest thing to a Dean moment yet. sickening scene and bush is the orchestrator! netroots have to push this hard. the whole thing has just sunk in and man this is bad. ashcroft will have to issue a statement, as will Card, as will mueller. more testimony -- hell, mueller might even accept an invite to sjc. woof. the house is on fire now.
kavh wrote on May 16, 2007 1:36 AM:S.Lyons, Thanks! Alas, the PoliticsTV snip available on youtube is only 20 minutes of the 90+ minutes of testimony.
Unfortunately Senators Whitehouse & Feinstein's questioning are not included on the PoliticsTV vid. They were stunning also.
Whitehouse made the hugely insightful (and useful) contribution of getting on the record that Sampson and Gonzo both used identical language when defining what was "inappropriate" political intrusion into DOJ/USAtty matters.
The definition or "standard" they use Precisely Follows the legal definition of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE! No senator or pundit has made this connection publicly. In Comey's (and obviously, Whitehouse's) legal opinion, this standard is itself INAPPROPRIATE TO USE because it "sets the bar" for DOJ conduct far too low.
The narrow, hair-splitting of what type of political partisanship games Gonzo (and his former Chief of Staff, Sampson, et al.) played may be just inside the lines of qualifying (or not) as obstruction of justice; but it is clear that they are fully aware of how close to the fire they are.
Perhaps this indicates that the crime Monica is/was afraid of self-incriminating, is obstruction of justice? Additional crimes she may have sought immunization from?
eyeball wrote on May 16, 2007 2:00 AM:kavh, if i follow, then obstruction also came at the meeting in the white house where they all met with rove etc. to get their bullshit story straight before the earlier round of testimomy.
ewastud wrote on May 16, 2007 3:18 AM:What BushCo has been doing with the warrantless wiretap program is same thing Nixon did and got busted for, but BushCo is trying to create some semblance of legitimacy for an activity that is really a profound abuse of power and totally illegitimate. Thanks for your comments, Agent 86 and others. I did see that BushCo is likely to be using th opacity of their warrantless wiretap program for more than just opposition research on Democrats, although I had not considered some of the other nefarious potential abuses you did.
As far as we know, BushCo could very well be engaging in these other illegal and devious activities. Without any accountability or transparency, anything possible and their imaginations may be limitless on how to abuse that power for their own enrichment and aggrandizement of power.
Ducky wrote on May 16, 2007 3:36 AM:I have questioned this administration from its origin. Unfortunately, I have not had the time previously to research, listen, read the comments and/or opinions of others until now. It is all bit overwhelming frankly. I would like to express my gratitude to all the individuals that are following this administration so closely and for such a long time. I appreciate your time, efforts and knowledge. Also, I thank the community for tolerating my inexperience and comments that are lacking in substance. I appreciate your patience as I learn the dos and don'ts. Constructive advice is welcomed.
Rick wrote on May 16, 2007 5:26 AM:Comey's testimony brought to mind another criminal administration that tried to force DOJ to do something that honorable men resisted and resigned...the Saturday Night Massacre. Nixon ordered Elliott Richardson, the Attorney General, to fire Archibald Cox, the Special Prosecutor, in an effort to thwart the Watergate investigation. Richardson refused and resigned. Nixon then ordered the Deputy AG, William Ruckelshaus, to fire Cox....he refused and resigned. Nixon then ordered Solicitor General Bork to fire Cox...and he did. The ensuing fire storm was memorable.
There are honorable Rebublicans ( James Comey and Pat Fitzgerald to name two), but none that support Bush, Cheney, Rove or Gonzales. Those supporters are loyal Republicans, not loyal Americans.
Read Chris Hedges' AMERICAN FASCISTS .... the Bushies are indeed the Fourth Reich.
PJ White wrote on May 16, 2007 7:16 AM:Apologizing in advance if this has been asked and answered (didn't read all the posts), but is the video of this hearing available anywhere? I would dearly love to see it.
sc: clean. Why won't these bastards just come clean?
JNagarya wrote on May 16, 2007 8:44 AM:"The Jose Padilla case aside, I have to admit that James Comey comes off as a good guy. Mrs. Ashcroft doesn't look too bad either.
"Posted by: Mrs Panstreppon
Date: May 15, 2007 11:43 AM"
Hell (pun noted but unintended), though terrorized by bare Boobs of Liberty, Asscrafty apparently is insufficiently anti-Christ to appear almost human. Which means I'm shocked that the daily Crisco cross has its superstition-intended effect.
Or maybe it's just because he was ill so didn't realize he was passing up an opportunity to sign off on another 45 days of violating the Constitution and laws.
Cde word=shame. Coincidence? Or conspiracy? You decide.
JNagarya wrote on May 16, 2007 9:07 AM:"Nancy, tell us again why you took impeachment off the table?
"Posted by:
Date: May 15, 2007 12:15 PM"
You have two options:
2. Dumbly, like a political neophyte, attack Pelosi, third in line for the presidency, for not being so stupid as to show lust for the office by initiating impeachment -- which would also be, under the circumstances, a conflict of interest; or
3. _THINK_.
S Lyons wrote on May 16, 2007 9:17 AM:Asscrafty apparently is insufficiently anti-Christ to appear almost human.
Posted by: JNagarya
Date: May 16, 2007 08:44 AM
One of the funniest quotes from Comey went something like, "I told the Attorney General that he had displayed a strength I had not seen previously."
JNagarya wrote on May 16, 2007 9:32 AM:"the Supercedeas bond" --
Supersedeas Lat.: You shall forbear. A writ commanding a "stay of proceedings." The purpose of such a writ is to maintain the status quo that existed before the entry of a judgment or decree of the court below. 183 P. 2d 275, 277. Gifis, at 465.
security code = this.
JNagarya wrote on May 16, 2007 9:38 AM:"My strong hunch is that this "warrantless wiretapping" program the Gonzo and the WH were so determined to put into place was not intended to catch "terrorists," but rather to get dirt on their political enemies - mostly Democrats. We have seen the WH exposed more than ever recently about their blatant and ruthless politicization of everything in the government. If the taps were actually against suspected "terrorists," as claimed, there would have been no reason to avoid the scrutiny and accountability of the courts. No, BushCo was after information on people they knew no court would approve tapping their phone. It is the only logical explanation I can think of.
"Posted by: ewastud
Date: May 15, 2007 12:46 PM"
It's a perfectly legitmate two-part explanation:
1. Nothing is illegal in politics. Everything they do is politics. Nothing they do is illegal.
And:
2. Everyone not them is a "turr'ist".
See how simple reality is? Why complicate it with conspiracy theories and hypotheticals, such as "applicable laws"?
security code = hope
JNagarya wrote on May 16, 2007 9:44 AM:"I think if you read between the lines of Whitehouse's questions and Comey's response that they are moving quickly for asking for a Special Prosecutor. This really has to be finessed, because the DOJ would be the ones responsible for choosing such prosecutor, so the Dems have to apply so much pressure to actually make it an Independent one, rather than a whitewash. How were the thugs able to move so fast on such a non-crime as Whitewater?
"Posted by: Ian
Date: May 15, 2007 01:05 PM"
Congress has Constitutional authority/obligation to perform oversight, which sometimes requires investigation. Congress has subpoena power. Congress can appoint its own Special Prosecutor.
Which means they still have to finesse it, as not all members of Congress are Democrats. Yet.
security word = amount
JNagarya wrote on May 16, 2007 9:49 AM:"This is all very frightening. What is remarkable is that there were some willing to say no, at least to the worst of the abuses. I have been very discouraged about the abuse of civil liberties. However, if even the fired Republican US Attorneys speak out, there is still some hope that we can survive the remaining 615 days as a democratic republic.
"Posted by: Allan in CT
Date: May 15, 2007 01:09 PM"
In fact, we have the fired prosecutors to thank for speaking out (and note how there was no smearing in response?): that is what first broke the case open.
security code = shame As in, Bush's undercover ID, as in "shamefull.
JNagarya wrote on May 16, 2007 10:13 AM:""After meeting with Justice Department officials at the Justice Deaprtment, Comey went to the White House with Ted Olson, then the Solicitor General to the White House."
"Weird wording, at best: Olson was Solicitor General of the United States, which is to say, third-ranking official of the Justice Department. He wasn't "Solicitor General to the White House," which is a title that makes no sense.
"Posted by: Gary Farber
Date: May 15, 2007 03:30 PM"
Ted Olson is "Arkansas Project" during Clinton Admin. He is also "Federalist Society".
security code = bell. As in, connecting the dots rings a bell.
Both neo-con[artists] and "Federalist Society" have negative designs on Constitution and country.
aterrificjob wrote on May 16, 2007 10:43 AM:I saw the whole hearing, because FDL posted that Comey was appearing. Comey was brought in to be the "good guy" - and he testified that Ashcroft was also a "good guy" when it counted. BUT. Ashcroft had signed off on illegal wiretapping how many times before - the program had been going on for months. So Ashcroft signed off. A new lawyer on board at DoJ who decided that the program was not legal should not have made this whole disaster. Ashcroft should have refused to sign off at any time. Period.
georgia wrote on May 16, 2007 10:43 AM:all the press coverage seems to be missing the Cheney-Addington comment
aterrificjob wrote on May 16, 2007 10:43 AM:I saw the whole hearing, because FDL posted that Comey was appearing. Comey was brought in to be the "good guy" - and he testified that Ashcroft was also a "good guy" when it counted. BUT.Let's not run away from the facts. Ashcroft had presumably signed off on illegal wiretapping how many times before? - the program had been going on for months. So Ashcroft signed off. A new lawyer on board at DoJ who decided that the program was not legal should not have made this whole disaster. Ashcroft should have refused to sign off at any time. Period.
AJ wrote on May 16, 2007 11:44 AM:It turns out that Andrew Card is receiving an honorary degree at UMass graduate commencement despite the revelations above and his overall role in harming this country and Iraq. Though I'm actually an undergraduate and graduating a day later, hundreds of undergraduates like me are irate that our board of trustees would grant an honor to the dishonorable.
Thank you, Mr. Card and UMass, for cheapening what should be one of the happiest days of my life, my family's lives, and the lives of almost everyone else attending commencement this year.
http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7235
SmallPotatoes wrote on May 16, 2007 11:45 AM:The reason that Ashcroft may have signed on before and then not wanted to sign on later is because of "mission creep." The program was initially about terrorism and then became about political intelligence and getting the goods on various groups that disagreed with the policies of the Junta. This is a huge mess and will either end up as a constitutional crisis or the official ending of the republic. Where is Gore Vidal when we need him?
some dude named steevo wrote on May 16, 2007 12:08 PM:Andrew Card was on The Daily Show a few weeks ago. Too bad Jon Stewart didn't get to ask him about this incident...
Cream City wrote on May 16, 2007 12:33 PM:Scrolled through the above, don't see this -- sorry if I missed it. But:
Was the document also fraudulently dated?
It needs to be asked -- of Comey, of Ashcroft? -- why Ashcroft was given a document to sign on a day when, as he said, he wasn't AG. So what good would his sig have done on that day?
So was the document fraudulently dated -- perhaps back to day when illegal covert activities began?
Vulture Breath wrote on May 16, 2007 2:22 PM:Isn't it a little weird that the one detail Comey is fuzzy on is whether it was the President himself, or just somebody else at the White House, who made the call to Mrs. Ashcroft telling her that Gonzo and Card were on their way to the hospital?
99 wrote on May 16, 2007 7:46 PM:I'm certainly glad you had cameras rolling for this hearing, but I'm very alarmed by C-SPAN's failure to cover this hearing. Does anybody know why this didn't happen? I mean, it looks exactly as if those in the know knew this was going to be exposed at this hearing; Schumer starting in on it directly, not stumbling onto this line of questioning. This means to me that C-SPAN knew what it would be covering if it covered it. Shouldn't somebody be screaming bloody murder about this glaring omission? Or am I just being hysterical?
ERS wrote on May 18, 2007 11:43 AM:So what? Policy makers tried to get authorization for a program they thought was vital to protecting national security while other officials had concerns.
Is anyone really so naive to think that policy makers of all stripes and shades dont try to push their agenda? Is that not what they are put in office to do?
Public officials try to use rules and procedures to advance their agenda. Shocking notion, isn't it?
This is a typical storm in a tea cup following the standard mock scandal formula: Create an intriguing myth and feed it with investigations and hearings to stir up the impression of some malfeasance and demand a resignation. Schumer is just another vacuous, grandstanding politician trying to score a few cheap points with the Democratic base but he knows he would not have the guts to stop the wiretaps because he would not want to explain why his politics prevented us from stopping the next group of hijackers from committing mass murder.
R A wrote on May 18, 2007 2:39 PM:"Isn't it a little weird that the one detail Comey is fuzzy on is whether it was the President himself, or just somebody else at the White House, who made the call to Mrs. Ashcroft telling her that Gonzo and Card were on their way to the hospital?"
Not really, Comey isn't being fuzzy on the details, he's being honest. He was told by someone else that the call was from Bush, but he wasn't involved in the call, therefore under oath he can't say it was from Bush since that would be hearsay. Wow a honest lawyer, and an ethical one.
Now if they call Mrs. Ashcroft and ask her if the call was from the President then the the feces will impact the rotating impeller.
As for discussing the the operation in unsecured building, I believe it was mention that the hall and floor had been cleared and a command center was next door. So likely the hospital area was electronically secure, still it's things like this that make CI officer get ulcers. More disturbing was that Gonzales and Card discussed this information in front of Mrs. Ashcroft, they made no effort to secure the room, and didn't check the room. Unless Mrs. Ashcroft is cleared to handle code word material that is serious.
As someone pointed the problem with the wiretaps was likely 'mission creep' it happens all the time. I believe the FBI used the Patriot Act wide powers once to secure information on case of pedophile, I can see that and have hard time arguing against it, later the Patriot Act was used in RICO case, that is mission creep. It's insidious.
Or maybe Goldsmith (?) was worried about something else, perhaps a lack of oversight and climate of rubberstamping anything labeled national security?
Both Comey and Goldsmith are described as ethical men and believers in the 'ideals' of America, maybe that's all that's needed to be a danger to certain members of the Bush Administration, to believe in the Constitution.
cognitorex wrote on May 19, 2007 4:54 PM:.
Sato wrote onA blog poster named Rooh made an interesting observation in his Salon Letters' commentary.
He asked...if Comey was the Acting AG, what were Gonzalez and Card going to do (to make his signature legal if obtained)...backdate it?
A clear exposition about the legal status between Comey and Ashcroft might be quite interesting and meaningful.
Had Ashcroft previously and officially signed a document delaring Comey Acting AG or was Comey Acting AG by dint of Ashcroft's legal status of being legally incapacitated? Or, if not, was Comey elevated when Ashcroft was a.) put 'under' for the operation and b.) alternately legally incapacitated by dint of being on a mind altering drug regimen?
( I was baby sat by a Top Secret security qualified NCO when I took drugs for a knee operation in my NSA related Army days which is one of two reasons why Roooh's comment piqued my interest.)
Reason one is reasonably obvious. Was Attorney General, in said hospital, legally capable of carrying out the duties of his office?
If not, which seems almost certain, what did Gonzales and Card think they could legally accomplish by persuing his signature? His signature would have had no force in law and any spying program so authorized would not have a legal sign-off by the Justice Department.
Reason two for my pique is that, apparently, a higher up in the administration set these two top officials off, not only to seek acquiesence from a bed ridden man, but to accomplish a mission that had no legal quotient.
This aspect is what sincerely disturbs me. This administration has such an ingrained penchant for ignoring and circumventing domestic law, international law and constitutional law that they proceeded to initiate a tawdry mission which could in no way have an operative or legal conclusion.
Emanating from Bush and Cheney, this now institutionalized blindness and disregard for ethical and moral behavior is chilling.
--Craig Johnson--