Comments (123)

sailmaker wrote on May 16, 2007 1:45 PM:

Beside showing us what the NSA program was exactly, we need to be shown the amendments that the Bush folk reportedly made to the program to make it 'acceptably legal', or at least legal enough to get two sign offs from Ashcroft before he resigned.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 16, 2007 1:53 PM:

Didn't you always secretly suspect the Bush administration was attempting a de facto coup d'etat after 9/11? You could never say it out loud for fear of being labeled a conspiracy theorist but you knew something was really wrong.

Steve Garrett wrote on May 16, 2007 1:53 PM:

This just screams for an independent investigator. But unless I'm wrong the Attorney General has to sign off on any independent investigation and I'm pretty sure that Gonzo will refuse to do that. Not only that but the Whitehouse would put up classified information road blocks at every turn.

The American people deserve to know what the spy program really did those first few years but I will be surprised if we ever do.

bordersmuggler wrote on May 16, 2007 1:54 PM:

Warrantless surveillance? With the potential to be used against political opposition?

Shades of Watergate?

Karl Rove, what do you know about this?

Bearpaw wrote on May 16, 2007 1:54 PM:

A big ol' "Hell yeah" to the TPM reader, though it's not clear to me that the Prez *has* stopped violating the law.

icarusflies wrote on May 16, 2007 1:55 PM:

Hello??? Hello???
Does anyone else in the MSM understand the magnitude of this? And Lewinsky was worth an impeachment?!?

I couldn't agree with the anon reader's comments more. It was the program and it is the program. Get over Iraq already and restore and respect our Constitution.

Me thinks that there must be more than one person spied upon under this program, who would have standing to file a suit against the US. There must be a decent constitutional attorney out there who would be willing to push the envelope on this one.

God, i really despise these guys...

charles donnelly wrote on May 16, 2007 1:57 PM:

If Gonzales comes off bad compared to Ashcroft,we have a large problem.
Leahy and the boys should be nailing this guy, not just jabbering at him- he seems to enjoy that.

bjobotts wrote on May 16, 2007 1:57 PM:

I believe they were compiling lists with information from every citizen in the US and no information was private anymore including any business dealings, private negotiations of any type, or any affiliations. Nothing would be illegal for them to do including hacking computer systems used for voting.

mfi wrote on May 16, 2007 1:57 PM:

But didn't Justice have to re-authorize it every 45 days during the 2 years prior to March 2004? What made Ashcroft suddenly worried about the program? Did he finally see how it was run? There is much more to be dug up about this story...

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 1:57 PM:

And now it becomes so much clearer, and Comey filled in some key facts.

THE BACKDROP
Ashcroft had already clearly said no, after much deliberation.

An awareness of a possible en-masse resignations at DOJ was wafting around (as reportedly observed by Andy Card to Comey in the 11 pm meeting).

THE MOTIVATION
March 2004. Election year. GOP riding high as ruling party, strong on defense, lockstep discipline. An en-masse resignation over a civil liberties issue would make the GOP look real bad. It would also lead to questions about why the resignations occurred. And since it was an election year, Karl Rove had to be involved. Bringing up domestic wiretaps in an election year would have been devastating.

THE STRATEGY
Win at all costs, of course. Avoid the story by guerrilla, strong arm tactics.

r€nato wrote on May 16, 2007 1:58 PM:

what does this president have to do to deserve impeachment?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 16, 2007 1:58 PM:

J-A-C-K-B-O-O-T-E-D T-H-U-G-S

powkat wrote on May 16, 2007 2:02 PM:

Mrs. Panstreppon;
Indeed, I have been saying since the 2000 election that this is a coup d'etat. And it's not over yet. I fear that before they give up power (and leave themselves open to the criminal charges they will face when the truth comes out) they will do something outrageous like suspend elections for reasons of national security. And I do believe that those camps for 'immigration emergencies' are for us.

Tell me, am I paranoid?

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 2:02 PM:

"...What made Ashcroft suddenly worried about the program..."

What made him worried was that some change in the program was being proposed. A big change.

Maybe Karl asked for the ability to spy on Democrats? Who knows. But it was sinister enough to be odious for the DOJ not to want to sign, and the White House not to want to stick its neck out without a fall guy.

charles donnelly wrote on May 16, 2007 2:02 PM:

Did I break an insider computer rule by using my real name?

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 2:03 PM:

I would venture a guess that they collected the dirt on all of us. Then if anyone dare speak out they could threaten to make what they know public.

Do you remember evrything you have ever said, written or purchased electronically? They know a lot about us right now for sure.

I was speaking on the phone about drugs to a concerned parent whose child was dealing pot. She called me back a week later and said her phone was out of order for a couple of days while men worked on the lines outside. Since then their house has been raided by police and shot at by drive by shooters....

Joe wrote on May 16, 2007 2:05 PM:

Does anybody else think that maybe Card's bailing from the WH had something to do with this? Maybe Ashcroft's as well??

Jake Bryan wrote on May 16, 2007 2:05 PM:

I agree that the NSA bypassing of authorized search warrants and privacy protections is probably the single greatest abuse of power by Bush/Cheney and company. It's also probably the offense where it's most likely that evidence exists that Cheney had his finger in the pie; thus making it prime material for impeaching both Bush and Cheney.

robbie wrote on May 16, 2007 2:07 PM:

perhaps the thugs used the NSA to come up with embarrassing shit on everyone on both sides of the aisle,thus the patty cake with gonzo. he's laughing at them for a reason,not just because he's a fucking asshole.

uncle vester wrote on May 16, 2007 2:07 PM:

anon @2:02 PM

' "...What made Ashcroft suddenly worried about the program..."

What made him worried was that some change in the program was being proposed. A big change.'

I was thinking either that, or Ashcroft and Comey found something out that they hadn't known previously.

My .02

Voting Present wrote on May 16, 2007 2:08 PM:

The warrentless wiretap program is the primary grounds for impeachment, even ahead of war crimes, because the criminal-in-chief has admitted, in public, that he broke the law repeatedly. No further investigation is necessary. Legal GROUNDS for impeachment, conviction, and removal from office already exist in the public domain.

The public and congressional MAJORITY to impeach will be provided by the SUBSTANCE of the illegal wiretapping program. This substance hs yet to be placed in the public domain.

Some courageous person must make it public. All of it. EVERYTHING. Where is the one honest person who will save the republic?

Jimmmm wrote on May 16, 2007 2:08 PM:

You people won't be happy till the Washington Monument has an onion dome, and we're living under Sha'ria.

But if that does come to pass, it's nice to know that Monica Goodling will still have a job at DOJ.

RandyBastard wrote on May 16, 2007 2:10 PM:

MFI:

It's possible we're talking about two different programs here. They may have had to sign off on one of the programs every 45 days, but it's unclear if that is the program they wanted Ashcroft to sign off on that particular night.

TP has another article today about this:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/16/swire-on-gonzales/

Michele wrote on May 16, 2007 2:11 PM:

Again we are treated to a seriously delayed "mea culpa" (sorta) from administration officials. If this program was so odious, why did these people wait 3 YEARS to bring this to the attention of Congress and only then, in the context of an entirely different investigation? The "security concerns" excuse is bullshit, as we know they had no compunction against violating security laws in the Plame case. At what point, if any, does keeping your mouth shut when you know that laws of the land are being violated constitute treason?

History is going to look back at us severely, me thinks. We have betrayed our obligations to the Constitution by allowing these guys to rip it to shreds.

bordersmuggler wrote on May 16, 2007 2:12 PM:

Mr. P.

"Didn't you always secretly suspect the Bush administration was attempting a de facto coup d'etat after 9/11?"

In order to plan for something to occur after a certain event, don't you need to know beforehand that said event will in fact occur? Does not your statement imply that the Bush administration had foreknowledge about 9/11? If so, is that not treason? And is not treason the foremost condition for impeachment?

Michele wrote on May 16, 2007 2:13 PM:

Again we are treated to a seriously delayed "mea culpa" (sorta) from administration officials. If this program was so odious, why did these people wait 3 YEARS to bring this to the attention of Congress and only then, in the context of an entirely different investigation? The "security concerns" excuse is bullshit, as we know they had no compunction against violating security laws in the Plame case. At what point, if any, does keeping your mouth shut when you know that laws of the land are being violated constitute treason?

History is going to look back at us severely, me thinks. We have betrayed our obligations to the Constitution by allowing these guys to rip it to shreds.

djinn wrote on May 16, 2007 2:14 PM:

And what exactly separates us from the USSR and Sharia? Oh, yes, that's right! An independent judiciary!

Jimmmm, you missed your calling in life. The Soviet Union depended on blind loyalists like you.

tbhull wrote on May 16, 2007 2:20 PM:

This is the issue that could sink this administration if Congress has the principle to take it on in an uncompromising, vigorous head-strong manner. However, these blatantly unconstitutional warrantless wiretaps are intoxicating to whoever is is in power, which could be the dems in '08. My point is they may let this most important constitutional issues disappear while wasting time on this pretty pudding candy dandy of a US Attorney firing fiasco. Issues such as this make the libertarian party momre attractive and perhaps viable. Someone needs to reign in and stop the US military's domestic spying efforts.

Tim wrote on May 16, 2007 2:20 PM:

One point that seems to have been overlooked is that Gonzales and Card were trying to convince someone who at the time had no authority to sign off on the program (having delegated authority as AG to Comey) to approve it. Thus, unless Gonzales' envelope also contained an order withdrawing the delegation to Comey, it seems that Ashcroft's signature would not have had any legal import anyway. But I guess for the administration the appearance of authority was enough, despite the realities of the situation.

drsteveb wrote on May 16, 2007 2:24 PM:

What was new? Ashcroft and Comey had been okay with the program for two years. Why the objection at that time all of sudden, after years of it being okay by them?

Michele wrote on May 16, 2007 2:24 PM:

Again we are treated to a seriously delayed "mea culpa" (sorta) from administration officials. If this program was so odious, why did these people wait 3 YEARS to bring this to the attention of Congress and only then, in the context of an entirely different investigation? The "security concerns" excuse is bullshit, as we know they had no compunction against violating security laws in the Plame case. At what point, if any, does keeping your mouth shut when you know that laws of the land are being violated constitute treason?

History is going to look back at us severely, me thinks. We have betrayed our obligations to the Constitution by allowing these guys to rip it to shreds.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 2:25 PM:

"...What made Ashcroft suddenly worried about the program..."

SCHUMER: How about Jack Goldsmith, the head of the Office of Legal Counsel? Did he opine on the legality?

COMEY: Yes. He had done a substantial amount of work on that issue. And it was largely OLC, the Office of Legal Counsel’s work, that I was relying upon in drawing my — in making my decision.

Interesting read: http://thinkprogress.org/comey-testimony/

This should also not be overlooked:
COMEY: Thursday, March 11th, was the morning of the Madrid train bombings.

SCHUMER: And so, obviously, people were very concerned with all of that.

COMEY: Yes. It was a very busy day in the counterterrorism aspect.

SCHUMER: Yet, even in light of that, you still felt so strongly that you drafted a letter of resignation.

COMEY: Yes.

SCHUMER: OK.

I believe that what Comey is implying is that this program had "nothing", or very little to do with preventing terrorism.

Bush LIPS sink ships. wrote on May 16, 2007 2:26 PM:

it seems that Ashcroft's signature would not have had any legal import anyway

Ashcroft's signature was at premium value for this criminal organisation, if you could get it.

(dress...)

Michele wrote on May 16, 2007 2:26 PM:

Again we are treated to a seriously delayed "mea culpa" (sorta) from administration officials. If this program was so odious, why did these people wait 3 YEARS to bring this to the attention of Congress and only then, in the context of an entirely different investigation? The "security concerns" excuse is bullshit, as we know they had no compunction against violating security laws in the Plame case. At what point, if any, does keeping your mouth shut when you know that laws of the land are being violated constitute treason?

History is going to look back at us severely, me thinks. We have betrayed our obligations to the Constitution by allowing these guys to rip it to shreds.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 16, 2007 2:27 PM:

bordersmuggler@May 16, 2007 02:12 PM

No, I was not implying that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of 9/11. I meant that after 9/11, the Bush administration realized that it had a golden opportunity to strengthen its control over the government under the guise of fighting terrorism.

I'll never forget that fucking four-eyed little weasel, Ari Fleischer, telling me that I should be careful about what I say. When I heard that, I wanted to give Ari Fleischer a swift hard kick in his balls to remind him who was paying his salary.

As far as 9/11 goes, I don't know who was behind it because I don't have enough independent information to come to a conclusion. I'm still trying to figure out where Mohammed Atta learned to speak English.

The 9/11 Commission specifically told us that Atta first learned German in Cairo in 1992 and then he became fluent in German. But the 9/11 Commission never told us where Atta learned to speak English.

Who the fuck cares if Atta was fluent in German? Atta supposedly was fluent enough in English to take flying lessons and read American newspapers. When and where did Atta learn English? The Commission never told us.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 16, 2007 2:27 PM:

bordersmuggler@May 16, 2007 02:12 PM

No, I was not implying that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of 9/11. I meant that after 9/11, the Bush administration realized that it had a golden opportunity to strengthen its control over the government under the guise of fighting terrorism.

I'll never forget that fucking four-eyed little weasel, Ari Fleischer, telling me that I should be careful about what I say. When I heard that, I wanted to give Ari Fleischer a swift hard kick in his balls to remind him who was paying his salary.

As far as 9/11 goes, I don't know who was behind it because I don't have enough independent information to come to a conclusion. I'm still trying to figure out where Mohammed Atta learned to speak English.

The 9/11 Commission specifically told us that Atta first learned German in Cairo in 1992 and then he became fluent in German. But the 9/11 Commission never told us where Atta learned to speak English.

Who the fuck cares if Atta was fluent in German? Atta supposedly was fluent enough in English to take flying lessons and read American newspapers. When and where did Atta learn English?

Julie wrote on May 16, 2007 2:30 PM:

Any chance that Wolfowitz's threat to fuck with those who might fuck with him had it's roots in information collected on World Bank people under this illegal wiretapping program?

Scared Stiff wrote on May 16, 2007 2:31 PM:

So like... why not subpoena Ashcroft and ask him?

ebmck wrote on May 16, 2007 2:33 PM:

I'm not sure what's more upsetting -- that the White House has been conspiring to gut the Justice Dept. or that what's going on now makes me long for John Ashcroft. Just HOW BAD DOES IT HAVE TO BE for me to wish that he was back at Justice!!???

bordersmuggler wrote on May 16, 2007 2:33 PM:

Mrs. P. hit it on the nail. The plan for domestic surveillance was prepared before 9/11, and it was implemented immediately afterward. By anyone's logic, 9/11 then was not a random event. It was the launch point for the grand strategy.

Is not complicity with an enemy in an attack on American soil a definition of TREASON?

MarkC wrote on May 16, 2007 2:34 PM:

This passage points out that while it has to do with national security it also has to do with civil liberties. For that reason we need to have a public debate about whether or not the program errs to much on one side, and so we need to know what was happening:

"We have a right to know what went on then. We publicize the rules under which the government can obtain physical search warrants, and don’t consider revealing those rules to endanger security; there’s no reason we can’t do the same for electronic searches."

Absolutely!

Walrus88 wrote on May 16, 2007 2:36 PM:

The implicatiosn here are so enormous as to boggle the mind. With Ashcroft no longer in the picture does anyone realistically think that Gonzalez developed a spine and respected Ashcroft's position. Unlikely. The truth is that now that the VP has a compliant judiciary arm, the illegal wiretapping of American citizens (you and me and the democratic adversaries) are occuring without limitations. The whole lot of them will be the subject of grainy History Channel footage. If we make it that far.

Pastor Doodah wrote on May 16, 2007 2:37 PM:

It's spooky how much of this is like deja vu all over again. Of course, everything this crowd does puts Nixon's efforts into the shade.

bobh wrote on May 16, 2007 2:38 PM:

this is how craven the bushco is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u2ITs4yIAE

ann wrote on May 16, 2007 2:40 PM:

RandyBastard is probably right. Was it Hayden who, when testifying, would not say whether there were other programs that had not been brought to light? Spying on political opponents seems the one thing that would make some loyal bushies run for cover, after Watergate.

-m- wrote on May 16, 2007 2:44 PM:

Am I the only one having trouble with the repeated speculation that these programs keep surviving because there's some shadowy threat of blackmail and 'they've got the goods' on every politician in Washington who could do something to stop them and that's why certain Reps and Senators vote a certain way.

I'm supposed to believe that's what is stopping quicker, more urgent examination of these constitutional crises?

brianm0122 wrote on May 16, 2007 2:45 PM:

Comey doesn't seem too sure the call came from the President himself, but is sure that it came from the White House. Could it have been the Vice-President? The Cheney/Addington cabal certainly had an interest in covering their butts legally. Maybe it was Cheney who called Mrs. Ashcroft.

I wonder if they went to the hospital, and were refused admittance before Mrs. Ashcroft got the call. This has Cheneys M.O. all over it.

dm wrote on May 16, 2007 2:46 PM:

It is interesting that Comey is unwilling to label the program either legal or illegal. He seems to suggest that the program was not violating any statute (and so not obviously illegal) but was also not supported by any statute or any clearly identifiable inherent or textual constitutional executive power. This would necessarily imply that while the President may not have been acting illegally, he was knowingly acting extra-constitutionally, a violation of his oath of office. Thoughts?

RW wrote on May 16, 2007 2:46 PM:

The timing leverage by Ashcroft is without question a bomb to the Administration and also the knowledge and freedom that his term would be up after the election either way. He figured the WH would not lite the fuse so he had the cards.

The issue goes beyond the hollywood dramatics and to the issue of what or who the program was surveillance's targets and the intel gained.

Of all things this WH Administration is it is political, partisan and even more than party partisan, Bushie-NeoCon partisan, than it is competent. So the value of the intel has to be political....no different than what we knew of Nixon's crew.

Obviously Ashcroft was getting some intel because he was making his own warnings announcments but evidentally they might have learned of the political nature of the intel and said no more.

The issue is how is the Congress going to find out about these programs.

BTW: Having Gonzales as the AG precludes any Fitzgerald as special counsel and unless the Congress decides to impeach him and actively remove him the Bushies are playing full tilt the power political game. They have no shame and I suspect they have warehouses to hide.

That leads me to the final thought. When...not if...when this is over there is going to be another Church style investigation and possibly why having the best Democrat in the WH to facilitate this ordeal. When this comes out where are the Bushies going to hide? Argentina, Mexico, Saudi Arabia?

Blowin in the [wind] code word

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 16, 2007 2:48 PM:

bordersmuggler@May 16, 2007 02:33 PM

I did not say @May 16, 2007 02:27 PM that the domestic spying program was hatched before 9/11. I said that, after 9/11, the Bush administration realized it could do things that it could not do before in the name of fighting terrorism.

A lot of people were willing to give up their civil rights after 9/11 because they thought that the government had to do everything it could to keep Americans safe and the Bush administration took advantage of them.

There may very well have been a domestic spying plan floating around before 9/11. I'm sure there are all sorts of plans that have to do with national emergencies but that doesn't mean they were created with 9/11 in mind.

Of course, there is always Operation Northwoods to point to as an example of what some people in the government will do to advance an agenda, isn't there?

The Oracle wrote on May 16, 2007 2:50 PM:

Unlike the previous "rubber-stamp" Republican congresses, Comey and Ashcroft decided not to "rubber-stamp" a Gonzales/Bush/Cheney domestic spying program that apparently didn't pass their (or the DOJ's) smell test.

Furthermore, from a carefully-worded response of Comey's yesterday, I got the impression that another reason they were leery of signing-off on this Gonzales/Bush/Cheney domestic spying program was that DOJ officials were being denied knowledge of the full extent of the domestic spying program. In other words, how could they judge the legality or illegality of the program without having a complete picture of the program?

This reminds me of a similar incident. A division of the DOJ was asked to investigate something recently in the Bush administration, but members of this oversight section were denied the necessary security clearances, thus putting a stop to the investigation. (Can't remember all the details, but do remember this).

bordersmuggler wrote on May 16, 2007 2:53 PM:

Mrs. P.

"I meant that after 9/11, the Bush administration realized that it had a golden opportunity to strengthen its control over the government under the guise of fighting terrorism."

Understanding now the extent of the deviousness of this administration, do you honestly feel that the "golden opportunity" you speak of occurred as a mere coincidence?

Mooser wrote on May 16, 2007 2:54 PM:

Scariest of all is: These people are not spying on you to find out what you are doing wrong, they are spying to find out what you are doing right!!

And that is a whole lot worse.

heh wrote on May 16, 2007 2:55 PM:

I recall hearing a click on my phone alot. I live in the bay area and there are public service announcements talking about what ATT has done in the court case brought by citizens over this.

If we don't impeach this guy over this secret government, we're well on our way to a bannana republic.

say it isn't so

anon, too wrote on May 16, 2007 2:57 PM:

Probably more damning to the administration than the substance of the warrantless wiretap program would be the release of information on who was the subject of the warrantless wiretaps. I think that may be what caused Ashcroft, Comey and others in the DoJ to get so riled up. And if the program was exposed, there would be calls for Congressional investigation of the "who."

But remember, Ashcroft had no authority while he was in the hospital. If he had signed the document, it would have been no more valid than if it had been signed by Britney Spears.

Gonzoles and Card had to know that.

They went to the hospital to get his signature anyway. That means that they were prepared to lie about the circumstances under which the signature/authorization was granted. There is no other conclusion to reach under this set of facts.

kis wrote on May 16, 2007 2:59 PM:

Where did all the REAL conservatives go?

Between the spending, incompetence, and govt overreach, Bush should be thrown out from the right...

C 92 wrote on May 16, 2007 3:02 PM:

Comey described the program being "re-authorized" even without Ashcroft's or Comey's signature.

What I want to know is WHAT OTHER STEPS WERE INVOLVED IN REAUTHORIZATION? Who else needed to (and did) sign off to get this done? And what became of the reauthorization papers?

So much has been focused on Comey's refusal to be a cog in the reauthorization wheel, but I'd really like to know that the whole wheel looks like.

Steve5117 wrote on May 16, 2007 3:02 PM:

Bush Plan A:

Keep troops over there until necessaty to bring them home to enforce martial law.

DoD is restricting access to you tube from battle field and infor going to soldiers.

Troops take control, elections and civil liberties suspended, Chaney annointed King....

You really don't think the repugs will keep an idiot in charge, do you?

Sojourner wrote on May 16, 2007 3:03 PM:

"...the President of the United States engaged in a prolonged and willful effort to violate the law, until senior members of his own administration forced him to stop. That’s the Congressional investigation that we ought to be having."

Agreed!

I just would like to understand why it is that our elected representatives are doing little or nothing about this... If they have any decency or belief in American principles, this is outrageous!

I live in Texas. John Cornyn and Kaye Bailey Hutchison, do you still continue to stand by this maniac who has been foisted on our country? I strongly ask that you take a hard line with him and what he has been doing, and stop toeing the party line. This is no longer about Democrats or Republicans. It is about our United States and its Constitution -- and I am prepared to defend it.

Senators, the ball is in your court!

mo2 wrote on May 16, 2007 3:04 PM:

Mrs. P said "Bush administration realized that it had a golden opportunity to strengthen its control over the government under the guise of fighting terrorism. "

However, the realization that control of the government could be seized under the guise of fighting a war against any enemy (real or imaginary) occurred before 9-11-2001.

It is hard to say that it was realized twice by the same people. And 9-11 just happened to occur.

Mooser wrote on May 16, 2007 3:06 PM:

DoD is restricting access to you tube from battle field and infor going to soldiers.

Which will give them quite a chance to tell the soldiers about the "crisis" on the home front, and, my, how eager the troops will be for glory after Iraq.
Freikorps here we come, 'again'!

Mooser wrote on May 16, 2007 3:06 PM:

DoD is restricting access to you tube from battle field and infor going to soldiers.

Which will give them quite a chance to tell the soldiers about the "crisis" on the home front, and, my, how eager the troops will be for glory after Iraq.
Freikorps here we come, 'again'!

resipsaloquitur wrote on May 16, 2007 3:06 PM:

Gonzales was sworn in as AG on February 3, 2005. Why didn't Comey come forward when Gonzales at his confirmation hearing?? It's like George Tenet all over again.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 16, 2007 3:09 PM:

bordersmuggler@May 16, 2007 02:53 PM

Do I think 9/11 could have been planned and executed by someone other than Osama bin Laden? Yes, but that's about all I will say. A lot of people stood to gain financially and otherwise from a 9/11.

FPN wrote on May 16, 2007 3:11 PM:

I have a hunch this also leads toward not just spying on potentially "bad" Americans, but Democrats. Maybe there's something more to that Christiane Amanpour's phone being bugged that Andrea Mitchell mentioned. Don't forget, her husband Jamie Rubin was advising Kerry.

Michele wrote on May 16, 2007 3:13 PM:

Multiple posts.

Sorry about the repeat posts. Seems to be happening to a couple of us.

b wrote on May 16, 2007 3:20 PM:

Folks:

This Comey talk is NOT about the NSA eavesdropping program. He never say NSA or Pentagon - It is "a program."

The FBI Director Mueller was deaply involved here - he is at Adshcroft's bed, threatens to resign and convinces Bush to change the program.

Nobody from the NSA or its head office, the Pentagon, was involved. The program involved was NOT a NSA program but a FBI program.

Gonzales, under oath, said there was no conflict over the NSA program but over other "operational issues".

This was an FBI program, by definition a domestic program.

You are getting misleaded with the NSA trail.

Please don't screw up on this one.

Sources and links to prove the above here:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2007/05/why_was_fbi_dir.html

Bitty wrote on May 16, 2007 3:28 PM:

I think the justice department must have known that the Bush administration was spying on political opponents. Was Christianne Amapour one of those that that was under survellience? Her husband, James Rubin was a former official in the Clinton administration State Department. Rubin had just re-emerged in 2004 -- as a foreign policy advisor to John Kerry. Do husbands and wives use the same telephones and computers? Was Ashcroft aware of this and aware of Karl Rove abusing this program?

Monzie wrote on May 16, 2007 3:33 PM:

Among the horrors:

If this is not impeachable, then what is?

And what is to be done about it when the dust settles?

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 3:34 PM:

Why don't yhey ask Ashcroft? He will tell the truth before congress. I don't see him as a lying SOB like AGG.

pat wrote on May 16, 2007 3:36 PM:

MrsP,

Yes,I can't agree more with you. Something sinister was going on before 9-11-01 and then I believe 9-11 became the Cream De Cream to take over ,but what......

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 3:41 PM:

A small but shining silver lining in this ugly cloud is that Republicans, even John Ashcroft, were willing to say 'thus far and no farther' at a certain point. And I think that if, as some suggest, the Bush administration tries to pull out all the stops and throw us all into concentration camps, a whole lot of other folks who would have to go along, would say 'NO!!'

salesanalyst wrote on May 16, 2007 3:46 PM:

Amazing stuff, isn't it. What gets me is that once again it could be that Bush was completely unaware of what was legal and what was illegal. And he's completely surrounded by people who'll do anything to get their way, regardless of our system of government, laws, and the Constitution.

The efforts by Gonzales and Card Thursday night obviously were to get Ashcroft to sign off on some program considered illegal from DOJ's point of view. It has been implied that it was Bush who called Mrs. Ashcroft, but we don't know that. I suspect it could as easily have been Cheney. He'd be so much more likely to be distrusted by Mrs. Ashcroft and his chief of staff who then called Comey. Could it have been that Bush was out of the loop that Thursday night and it was an effort from Cheney, Addington, Card and Gonzales to get a last minute signature? Was there a meeting at the WH before the confrontation at the hospital that night, and where was Bush?

It wasn't until Monday morning, when Comey and Mueller meet PRIVATELY with the president, no doubt directly conveying to him their grave concerns, that Bush "do(es) the right thing" and instructs Justice to do what it needs to do to make the program legal. Why the sudden change of heart? It wasn't like this was an issue that suddenly just popped up. Would political concerns about mass DOJ resignations be sufficient? Or could it be that Bush, surrounded by people who might not want him to explore the technical legalities of the program in question, conveniently left out much of the substance of the DOJ concerns? Maybe it wasn't until Monday morning when Comey and Mueller had one-on-ones with Bush that he finally saw the light.

I'm definitely not trying to get Bush off the hook here, but just speculating somewhat down alternative paths. I'll guess Bush has had the wool pulled over his eyes thousands of times by smarter, more craven operators in the past 6 years.

This episode just screams out for serious investigation.

crowmessenger wrote on May 16, 2007 3:49 PM:

Dennis kucinich, wants to impeach Cheney so we should support him. The impeachment trial would really dig into what has been going on in the worst presidency of my lifetime. Nixon at least opened up China; What has Bush done other than destroy the reputation of this country. I can't think of one thing that he has done to improve anything...It even looks like the cold war may be coming back with poodle dog Rice licking Bush's boots then pushing his policies without question. What if Russia installed an ABM system in Mexico and stationed troops in Cuba again. Alberto and Wolfi another two peas in a pod...they have special privileges and are above us ordinary folks when it comes to obeying the law...will the nightmare ever end.

The Crow knows

Steven Bobker wrote on May 16, 2007 3:54 PM:

I think you can safely assume that my old buds at Never Say Anything routinely listen to just about everything that is sent via any electriocal or electronic media. It would be a change if they didn't anymore.

The data is all there. The questions are really who abstracts and searches for what and what do they do with those reports.

I'm getting the sick feeling that NSA rolled over and did what amounts to oppo research for Karl and crew.

There are folks there who I suspect would literally die before admitting to any of that. So maybe a RICO charge and jail time where they can think about their loyalty to the NSA and their bosses there who have precious little loyalty to them.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 4:16 PM:

@ "B" -

EXACTLY.

We're talking about a secret hereto undisclosed FBI program.

The FBI is a unit of the DOJ. Comey virtually gave it away -- he said he and Muller had talked extensively about the program.

The White House was asking the FBI to do something that was illegal. Why else would DOJ have to proffer approval, other than the FBI is a unit of DOJ?

And the FBI is a domestic organization. It's got the domestic goods on everyone.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 4:16 PM:

@ "B" -

EXACTLY.

We're talking about a secret hereto undisclosed FBI program.

The FBI is a unit of the DOJ. Comey virtually gave it away -- he said he and Muller had talked extensively about the program.

The White House was asking the FBI to do something that was illegal. Why else would DOJ have to proffer approval, other than the FBI is a unit of DOJ?

And the FBI is a domestic organization. It's got the domestic goods on everyone.

loki wrote on May 16, 2007 4:29 PM:

Not only did they conduct an illegal wire tap program but I believe they interfered with the investigation of the program which would constitute obstruction of justice. The also exposed a covert CIA agent working with anti-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The president and vice president have the authority to declassify information but they have a legal oblication to do so responsibly. Just as people with appropriate security clearance have access to classified information, they also have legal oblication to handle that information responsibly. Exposing Valerie Plame's identity, jeopardizing her work, her former network and her former coworkers is pretty clearly a case of treason. The fact that all that came from this case was a charge of perjury and a couple of charges of obstruction of justice for a disposable political lacky like Libby seem to indicate additional obstruction of justice charges that could be traced to Chenney and Rove. And the entire Gonzogate scandal is all about obstruction of justice. I have heard a lot of bushies try to dismiss it as a non-scandal since no evidence of a crime has been produced. The crime is obstruction of justice is the crime and the evidence hasn't come out yet because Gonzo and MC Rove are interfering with the investigation which is another yet another case of obstruction of justice.

Given the rampant corruption of the current administration and the fact that our voting system is so flawed and succeptable to tampering, I was amazed that the democrats not only got a majority in the house but also the senate. Maybe the price the democrats paid for their new found majority was an absolute sworn agreement to keep impeachment off the table? Even worse, it's almost like the democrats and republicans are playing a horrible game of good cop/bad cop with the american people.

shipwreckedcrew wrote on May 16, 2007 4:31 PM:

This is the dumbest post yet.

Comey said the program was reviewed anew by the newly appointed Assistant AG for Legal Policy, with that review getting underway in Nov. 2003.

The program had been certified by Ashcroft every 45 days since it was started just after 9/11 -- more than 2 1/2 years. Every 45 days for 2 1/2 years means it was certified by Ashcroft 19 or 20 times before the controversy arose in March 2004.

When the Office of Legal Policy took a position in March 2004 that the implementation of the policy had some problems, Comey testified that he and Ashcroft agreed that it needed to be changed before it could be certified again. Then Ashcroft went into the hospital. That led to the episode in the hospital room.

As has been pointed out on other blogs, Comey never said whether Gonzalez (then WH Counsel) or Card were told that Ashcroft's view on the program had changed following the new analysis for the DOJ Office of Legal Policy. Its quite possible they didn't understand why a program that Ashcroft approved 19 or 20 times was suddenly being rejected by Comey in his acting role.

And, when the Pres. intervened, and it was decided that the program could be amended in ways that would satisfy the OLP's concerns, those changes were made and the program was again certified by DOJ.

loki wrote on May 16, 2007 4:32 PM:

"Date: May 16, 2007 01:58 PM

Mrs. Panstreppon;
Indeed, I have been saying since the 2000 election that this is a coup d'etat. And it's not over yet. I fear that before they give up power (and leave themselves open to the criminal charges they will face when the truth comes out) they will do something outrageous like suspend elections for reasons of national security. And I do believe that those camps for 'immigration emergencies' are for us.

Tell me, am I paranoid?"

I have an uneasy feeling that the 08 elections aren't going to happen either but I fear the reason for it is going to something much worse. An outbreak of avian flu on the scale of spanish flu at the turn of the century would make for one hell of an October surprise that could make martial law necessary and a national election impossible. If the avian flu virus developes into something that can spread efficiently from person to person then it will be most devestating in densely populated areas which also seem to have large concentrations of democratically minded people. I've heard many in the administration say that history will be the judge of both the Bush administration's policies and the Iraq war. I don't see how either could be judged favorably unless wipe out most of the population except the most loyal of bushies and completely rewrite history.

Tell me, am I paranoid?

714Day wrote on May 16, 2007 4:33 PM:

The number of "Bingo" moments that crop up (now that someone is turning over a few rocks with sticks) is not really mind boggling. We've all known something shady in enormous volume was going on with this crowd.
Even so, it fairly avalanches out.
I used to think it was hippy dippy to wonder if the country could survive in the Nixon era. I'm full fledged, hippy-dippy on this gang and the price of the damage tab, though. And they still hold the reigns!
Can you BELIEVE that Gonzales is still AG!?! And (as of this moment, I think...) Wolfowitz helms the world bank. Man.

kay2 wrote on May 16, 2007 4:39 PM:

If Comey had only thrown in that somebody was getting a blow j*b then MSM would be all over this and we'd have our impeachment.

Tom wrote on May 16, 2007 4:50 PM:

This is why Gonzo has to stay.Anyone but a complete Bush stooge would not provide the bulwark necessary to prevent these violations of the Constitution from reaching the Oval Office and leading to impeachment.

MarkusQ wrote on May 16, 2007 4:52 PM:

The plan for domestic surveillance was prepared before 9/11, and it was implemented immediately afterward.

Actually, we now know that they had already started implementing it before 9/11/2001.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/02/0659222

--MarkusQ

Robin wrote on May 16, 2007 5:03 PM:

I wonder what could be more egregious than tapping every American call/email etc at will. Then this thought struck me.

What if it wasn't just average americans that would be caught up in this program. What if it involved waiving protection for government representatives communications who receive calls from Bin Laden associates?

Just a thought.

Earl wrote on May 16, 2007 5:06 PM:

Think about the times the house, and senate office buildings were cleared out because of potential terrorist threats. Now think about what might have occurred while those buildings were empty.

Levelland wrote on May 16, 2007 5:16 PM:

It seems more likely that the "Program" that was certified proir to "sick bed gate" was the same as the original but Ashcroft and Comey et al got a glimpse of how it was going to be USED by the political hacks.

We all know that laws as written can have interpetive black holes in them and my guess is the WH political ops came up with a plan that just stunk to much for even Ashcroft/Comey. Neither one of them are pristine Libertarians, or to put it another way..they wanted the gun in the house, but they didn't want to have to shoot it.

Code word Story..as in CHEAT the oldest story in the book

ELMorrison wrote on May 16, 2007 5:57 PM:

This is number 4 of the "10 Easy Steps" to a Fascist America outlined by Naomi Wolf in "The Guardian" on April 24. Here's the link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

Fodder for the "crazy" conspiracy theorists, or an unintentional, tragic downward spiral from democracy to totalitarianism?

ELMorrison wrote on May 16, 2007 5:57 PM:

This is number 4 of the "10 Easy Steps" to a Fascist America outlined by Naomi Wolf in "The Guardian" on April 24. Here's the link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

Fodder for the "crazy" conspiracy theorists, or an unintentional, tragic downward spiral from democracy to totalitarianism?

todd wrote on May 16, 2007 5:59 PM:

And CBS and ABC couldn't even be bothered to cover it in their newscasts last night according to Media Matters.

Pathetic -- no wonder they are losing viewers. If you want real news, network news is clearly not the place to go.

Tim Fuller wrote on May 16, 2007 6:05 PM:

Whatever could make somebody believe that an event like 9-11, a Pearl Harbor if you will, would happen. Certainly not the people most involved in the war...the PNACers'(newamericancentury.org)

There is more than just circumstantial evidence of problems with the admin's 9-11 story, but that is a distraction. The bag of impeachable offenses is now so deep there's no point in going down that road right now. There are still a lot of things we need to know about 9-11. The chips will fall as they may there. My favorite is lying us into a fake war with Iraq after the Saudi's attacked us, but I'll settle on the one the congress can agree on fastest.

JamesL wrote on May 16, 2007 7:21 PM:

Bush looked all over Iraq for a smoking WDM to show the faithful, and couldn't find any. Comey's testimony is the smoking gun Bush fired: clear intent, the means, and collaborating witnesses to the attempt, along with stated witness fears, to engage in, continue, and cover up violations of law by the executive branch, with probable political (not security) goals. Clear impeachment evidence.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 7:33 PM:

I guess if they'd given Ashcroft a BJ we might finally be looking at impeachment.

John Latimer wrote on May 16, 2007 7:33 PM:

I guess if they'd given Ashcroft a BJ we might finally be looking at impeachment.

911wasAnInsideJob wrote on May 16, 2007 9:20 PM:

dear mrs. p:

Of course they had pre-knowledge of 9/11. It probably took weeks to set the charges in the Towers and WTC 7.

You haven't forgotten about WTC 7, have you?

Herb wrote on May 16, 2007 9:56 PM:

'Said it before & I'll say it again: We need to UNDO all the crap we can that these bozos have screwed up. FIRE or IMPEACH all his hires and appointments (Sorry Alito!) for starters...
Then maybe tackle his Executive Orders -- reverse every single one of them...
Then his Cheney-style(!) tax-cuts...
Then... [It's a big job!]

These guys set out to exploit and abuse power practically, it seems, for the sake of it... In addition to enriching themselves and theirs.

Thank you. I feel better, Herb.

MEG wrote on May 16, 2007 10:23 PM:

Crap, late to the party again.

For what it’s worth. A while back the CEO’s of Bellsouth and ATT (they recently got hitched) went to congress for a chat. On more than one occasion, the CEO of ATT was asked what he provided to the government referencing the warrentless wiretap program. He more or less told them to stuff it, no dice.

After some stern language from congress, he finally said he can’t say nuttin’ because it’s “classified”. And congress swallowed that response and the boys left.

In other news, the CEO of Bellsouth has recently stepped aside from the CEO part of his job, (don’t know what he’s doing at the moment) and the CEO of ATT is stepping aside from his CEO job in early June of this year.

I guess if you step aside you are in the clear.

Good advise if you’re hunting with big DICK.

Sara wrote on May 16, 2007 10:24 PM:

Mrs P. I had the same question a couple of years back regarding Atta's knowledge of English. And I too could not find specific evidence, but I asked an Egyptian born Prof (math) from the University from which I am retired, and as I surmised, English is a required subject in Egyptian Secondary Schools. In order to take exams for the University, one must have five or six years of English. Thus all Secondary Schools offer it, with some teaching more advanced subjects in English. Some of the better secondary schools also offer additional languages, French, German, Hebrew and Farsi being most common. The Secondary schools are apparently highly selective, still operating on the British Model of Eleven Plus's -- meaning one chance at an exam to get into a secondary school with an academic track at the age of eleven. Anyhow, by the time Atta got to Cairo University he would have studied English for 5-6 years. It is highly likely many of his engineering and architecture texts during University would also have been in English. He apparently did not know German when he first arrived in Germany, and had to attend an intensive course at something like the Goethe Institut in Stuttgart for several months before beginning his studies.

eyeball wrote on May 16, 2007 11:06 PM:

wouldn't it be a simple thing to ask snow if bush was the one who called ashcroft's wife, just to get that on the record? makes prez look pretty sleazy in and of itself.

then we need to deal with the issue of why this spying program was ongoing if even ashcroft felt it was uncertifiable. only 2 explanations:

- ashcroft had signed off on it prior without really running its legality by the JD pros.

or:

- bush used his executive power to essentially declare it legal even though it was not certified because ... he's the president and its an executive order. but if bush felt he had exec power to allow the wiretaps, why the fig leaf of JD certification? because ... he knew it was illegal all along.

thoughts?

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 11:18 PM:

You folks keep using the word "President" when it should be clear the word is "Cheney" or, possibly, "Rove". It has been the cherished wish of Rove, et al., since the Nixon Administration's attempt that became Watergate, to spy on the Democrats with the goal of creating a one-party State.

The Warrantless Eavesdropping was not, or is not, about "terrorism". It dovetails with the USA firings, the voter suppression and "unitary presidency" and it's only goal is one-party rule in the United States.

bcg wrote on May 16, 2007 11:26 PM:

I was long troubled by the proper term with which to describe what this administration is up to. I repeatedly returned to the phrase, "coup d'etat;" however, my dictionary defines that as a sudden move to overthrow and replace a government. There's nothing sudden about this: it's a long, drawn out, opportunistic attempt to overturn 70 years of constitutional jurisprudence and Congressional legislation.
If not a coup, what then is it? I believe that the traditional term would be an "intrigue." It is a long-standing, ongoing effort to ovturn and replace the governing system of this country. To be more precise, it is an intrigue to commit treason (taking control of the government by extrajudicial means.) While I doubt that anyone's going to be tried on those charges, it's crucial to remember that that is what has been going down.

bcg wrote on May 16, 2007 11:26 PM:

I was long troubled by the proper term with which to describe what this administration is up to. I repeatedly returned to the phrase, "coup d'etat;" however, my dictionary defines that as a sudden move to overthrow and replace a government. There's nothing sudden about this: it's a long, drawn out, opportunistic attempt to overturn 70 years of constitutional jurisprudence and Congressional legislation.
If not a coup, what then is it? I believe that the traditional term would be an "intrigue." It is a long-standing, ongoing effort to ovturn and replace the governing system of this country. To be more precise, it is an intrigue to commit treason (taking control of the government by extrajudicial means.) While I doubt that anyone's going to be tried on those charges, it's crucial to remember that that is what has been going down.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 17, 2007 12:46 AM:

Sara@May 16, 2007 10:24 PM

Thanks ever so much! You would think the 9/11 Commission would have anticipated that question, wouldn't you? That said, I'd still like to offically hear that Atta became fluent in English when he attended school in Cairo.

Minor point: I can't seem to access the 9/11 Report at the moment but I think I remember reading that Atta took a German course in Cairo before he left for Germany.

If someone can explain why Qatar, a US ally, permitted an engineer, Khalid S. Mohammed, to run around the world while on the job in the '90s, I would be most grateful.

IIRC, there is an unaccounted for gap in KSM's resume from the time he left Qatar to when he showed up in OBL's camp. Who was footing KSM's bills during that time period and what kind of work was he doing?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 17, 2007 12:50 AM:

bcg@May 16, 2007 11:26 PM

I had the same trouble with coup d'etat but went with it anyway. Government takeover sounded kind of boring and I couldn't come up with anything else. Dictorship didn't work nor did revolution.

upTooLate wrote on May 17, 2007 12:59 AM:

Does Mrs Ashcroft have security clearance?

Comey names the people in the room when Gonzales and Card told Ashcroft why they were there - Comey also makes it clear that he will not give the substance of the discussion to the committee becase it is classified

Mrs Ashcroft was one of the people he names as being in the room - is she authorized to hear info that can't be discussed in open hearing?

beb wrote on May 17, 2007 8:22 AM:

But didn't Justice have to re-authorize it every 45 days during the 2 years prior to March 2004? What made Ashcroft suddenly worried about the program? Did he finally see how it was run? There is much more to be dug up about this story...
Posted by: mfi
Date: May 16, 2007 01:57 PM

This is a key point as well. This program had been running along for two years with regular re-approvals, at least 16 re-ups and yet it was only this one time that Comey, Ashcroft, et al decided it was too blatantly illegal? It sounds like something in the program had been changed, something that went too far for Comey, since the last time it had been approved

Glass: The glass is half full. Who stoled the rest of my drink?

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 10:55 AM:

Now just a minute --

Hold on --

Among those who allegedly threatened to resign was FBI Director Mueller. FBI is not NSA. Why would Mueller threaten to resign over a program not under his autorhity and responsibility?

On what is based the assumption that it was about the NSA program, rather than about some other program?

SC = snake. As in, the Bushit not-so-White House is a snake farm.

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 10:59 AM:

"This just screams for an independent investigator. But unless I'm wrong the Attorney General has to sign off on any independent investigation and I'm pretty sure that Gonzo will refuse to do that. Not only that but the Whitehouse would put up classified information road blocks at every turn.

"Posted by: Steve Garrett
Date: May 16, 2007 01:53 PM"

Congress doesn't need the permission of Executive or Judiciary to appoint a Special Prosecutor.

See _Watergate_.

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 11:05 AM:

"what does this president have to do to deserve impeachment?

"Posted by: r€nato
Date: May 16, 2007 01:58 PM"

A groundswell demand for it by the ultimate check on gov't: We the people. Get it through your head: Congress cannot on its own initiate impeachment -- we saw the abuse which results with Clinton. We the people must in sufficient numbers demand it, and communicate that demand to Congress.

What have you done as concerns the latter?

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 11:24 AM:

"This is the issue that could sink this administration if Congress has the principle to take it on in an uncompromising, vigorous head-strong manner. However, these blatantly unconstitutional warrantless wiretaps are intoxicating to whoever is is in power, which could be the dems in '08. My point is they may let this most important constitutional issues disappear while wasting time on this pretty pudding candy dandy of a US Attorney firing fiasco. Issues such as this make the libertarian party momre attractive and perhaps viable. Someone needs to reign in and stop the US military's domestic spying efforts.

"Posted by: tbhull
Date: May 16, 2007 02:20 PM"

Military spying? Of what was Meuller the Director? Military intelligence? No. NSA? No.

FBI.

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 11:31 AM:

"I'm not sure what's more upsetting -- that the White House has been conspiring to gut the Justice Dept. or that what's going on now makes me long for John Ashcroft. Just HOW BAD DOES IT HAVE TO BE for me to wish that he was back at Justice!!???

"Posted by: ebmck
Date: May 16, 2007 02:33 PM"

While we're at it, let's exhume Nixon and let him serve out his second term. Being dead, he couldn't do any harm, and couldn't stink up the place more than it already is.

Game?

SC = news. As in, Nixon has been restored to his presidency in order that the not-so-White House smell less than is has while occupied by Bushit.

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 11:47 AM:

"BTW: Having Gonzales as the AG precludes any Fitzgerald as special counsel . . . ."

"Posted by: RW
Date: May 16, 2007 02:46 PM"

Damn it, will you people get it through your heads --

Congress has the Constitutional authority and obligation to oversee the Executive. That means it has the obvious authority to conduct investigations.

1. Having the power of subpoena, Congress has -- else that be meaningless, the authority to enforce its subpoenas.

2. Congress, having the authority and obligation to investigate, obviously therefore has the authority to appoint Special Prosecutor/s.

Was Watergate that long ago that so many recall or learned nothing whatever about it?

SC = sharp. As in, most bashers of Congress, and the Democrats' current actions as moajority, are not especially sharp.

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 11:54 AM:

"Understanding now the extent of the deviousness of this administration, do you honestly feel that the "golden opportunity" you speak of occurred as a mere coincidence?"

"Posted by: bordersmuggler
Date: May 16, 2007 02:53 PM"

Hopefully, most of us don't "think" with our "feel"ings, thus confuse honesty as a matter of fact and truth, and reason for "gut" decision-making as promoted by Bushit.

SC = smell. As in, conclusions based upon feeling instead of thought smell of irrationality.

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 12:05 PM:

"Why don't yhey ask Ashcroft? He will tell the truth before congress. I don't see him as a lying SOB like AGG.

"Posted by:
Date: May 16, 2007 03:34 PM"

He lied during his confirmation hearings about his efforts to prevent _voluntary_ desegregation of schools in St. Louis, MO.

SC = grip. As in, get a grip.

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 1:09 PM:

"Comey names the people in the room when Gonzales and Card told Ashcroft why they were there - Comey also makes it clear that he will not give the substance of the discussion to the committee becase it is classified"

No: he simply won't disclose _publicly_ those particular details. That does not mean he didn't provide them in prior closed sesssion.

"Mrs Ashcroft was one of the people he names as being in the room - is she authorized to hear info that can't be discussed in open hearing?"

Irrelevant: it wasn't exactly a planned meeting in which it was determined who would be present, and what would be discussed.

In fact, there needn't be any classified details disclosed or discussed in the room, as Asscrafty already knew which "program" was at issue; so there was no need for gonzo/Card to identify those details. "We're here to get your signature on the authorization to continue program 'X'" would be sufficient.

You're reading in too much.

"Posted by: upTooLate
Date: May 17, 2007 12:59 AM"

SC = cord. As in, Andrew Card will be taught the correct spelling of "rule of law".

MO Blue wrote on May 17, 2007 1:31 PM:

I want to know what happened to this program after Ashcroft and Comey left. Once Gonzales and his minions were in place, did this program go back to operating in the same illegal fashion as it did prior to the confrontation with Ashcroft and Comey? We all know that as far as Gonzales is concerned, nothing that Bush does is illegal and there appear to be no limits on what he would sign off on.

gcrit wrote on May 17, 2007 1:56 PM:

Dollars to doughnuts Ashcroft's name turned up on a list after this incident.

Fraud Guy wrote on May 18, 2007 2:45 AM:

I have read many blogs (here and Glenn Greenwald especially) who have commented that after 9/11, with a compliant Congress, many of these programs would probably have been passed into law (like the Patriot Act) with barely a blink if they also passed the barest of sniff tests. Yet we have additions to laws by Senate staffers after the last minute that no one could read before the final vote. We have programs that takes the best attorneys in our Justice Department and Executive Branch months to devise legal interpretations to justify. And still apologist attorneys like Kmiec, Althouse (her take on the Comey testimony is painful), Bart and Charles here repeatedly say that all of this is ok, normal, don't look behind the curtain.

Being a legal layperson, legal processes can be arcane. However, without legal training, one can read a law and devise a way to comply easily (even if implementation could be difficult). Why can't this administration do the same, when they also could have had laws rewritten even more than they did (or signing statemented away)?

Fraud is theft by deception. When I see so much deception, I start to look for what is being stolen. I am afraid it is my country, and what it could be.

Fossilhippie wrote on May 18, 2007 8:57 AM:

Hmmm....

Remember before the election that Rove was interviewed by NPR and said this about "Rove's math":

ROVE: ...I'm looking at 68 polls a week [for candidates for the US House and US Senate, and Governor.]** You may be looking at 4 or 5 public polls a week that talk about attitudes nationally but that do not impact the outcome of individual races.

I'm guessing he was looking at more than just polls.

irina wrote on May 18, 2007 9:33 AM:

Some courageous person must make it public. All of it. EVERYTHING. Where is the one honest person who will save the republic?

Read about Russell Tice, NSA Whistleblower. On Amy Goodman he had some powerful words about the illegal sh*t General Hayden, now in charge of CIA was doing at NSA. He names some other names.

He is a member of Sybil Edmunds National Security Whistleblowers Coalition online.

len wrote on May 18, 2007 1:56 PM:

I think that Comey's comments about FBI director Mueller ordering the FBI agents in the room to not allow Comey to be removed is one of the most telling parts of the hospital incident.

Who would have removed him from the room? Why, the Secr#t Ser#ice of course.

As has been pointed out on TPM before-did the coup already take place?

Bindarra wrote on May 18, 2007 7:58 PM:

None of this Bush Administration crimality will ever be prosecuted. Bush will pardon all his lackeys just before he leaves office, and whoever steps into the White House afterward, regardless of party, will pardon him just like Ford did Nixon, because they'll fear what might come down the road for them or future presidents.

What really gets me is, Bush always portrays himself as a devoutly religious man. So don't you think he'd be worried about the consequences he'll face for all this obvious lawbreaking when he has to stand before God?

Oh, I forgot, he thinks he has a mandate from God.

David Manchester wrote on May 19, 2007 12:17 PM:

Here is a collection of related pdf documents converted to html with links to citations, footnotes, etc. added.

http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/nsa.html

The 20 January 2006 House Judiciary Democrat's Briefing is there, the EFF (Hepting v. AT&T) and ACLU (v. NSA) initial filings of complaints are there, some relevant CRS Reports, ACLU issues briefings, and others.

-dcm