Comments (15)

TheraP wrote on May 16, 2007 4:46 PM:

Undoubtedly - there's another! And another. And maybe even another.

Whether it's spying programs or other secret activities, geared to limiting our civil rights and mangling the constitution.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 4:51 PM:

It's some undisclosed FBI spying program. Think about it...

Why would Comey consult Muller? In testimony, Comey said, ["I hung up, called Director Mueller and -- with whom I'd been discussing this particular matter and had been a great help to me over that week -- and told him what was happening. He said, "I'll meet you at the hospital right now."]

And Muller said he was prepared to resign over the matter like Comey. Why would Muller be prepared to resign unless the FBI was being asked to do something terribly illegal? As Director he'd be left holding the bag... Why would he care about the NSA?

And DOJ was being asked for approval. DOJ is the home agency of the FBI. DOJ owns the FBI and would have to "approve" any of its activities.

The writing is on the wall - and we've got a new classified program, folks!

bordersmuggler wrote on May 16, 2007 5:10 PM:

George Orwell's Big Brother from 1984 is alive and well in good ole US of A, 2007.

Once the Republican base learns the extent that it is being spied on, the halo above St. George may lose a bit of its lustre.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 16, 2007 5:27 PM:

bordersmuggler @ May 16, 2007 05:10 PM,

Folk with "R"s after their names wouldn't care cuz their bud the boy king Whore-for-hay is looking fur tay-er-ests like Demoncrats and Green Party folk . . .

Gone are the GOP's more libertarian days of 'Give Me Liberty" bumperstickers and "From my cold dead hands" jingoistic sloganeering . . .

Mark wrote on May 16, 2007 5:33 PM:

Read Gonzalez' testimony carefully -- there's no contradiction, if you follow Clintonesque parsing rules.

"there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the President has confirmed. ... none of the reservations dealt with the program that we are talking about today. They dealt with operational capabilities that we are not talking about today..."

See? News reports say Gonzalez tried to override Ashcroft and Comey, but Bush sent them back to get a plan DOJ could sign off on, and they did. Comey of course didn't have major reservations about the final plan, which DOJ signed off on.

zAmboni wrote on May 16, 2007 5:39 PM:

I have to agree with Mark. Gonzales was using his words very carefully there. They need to change their questions to ask about the relevant time period that Comey testified about....and ask about the program before it was modified so the DOJ could sign off on.

nuffsaid4now wrote on May 16, 2007 6:51 PM:

I missed the Frontline program on PBS last night, but on a clip posted on thinkprogress.org, one of the program's participants was White House Privacy Counsel from 1999-2001, Peter Swire. Swire said that he believes that "there could be lots of room after you read [Gonzales'] testimony for other programs to be doing really unprecedented things." Comey's time line for all this happening was 2004. A rash of upper level Justice Department officials, including the ailing attorney general and acting attorney general, would not have gone quietly into the night, regardless of how good a job we believe the media was doing at the time. As the TPM reader said in an e-mail to Paul Kiel, "When John Ashcroft is prepared to resign, and to risk bringing down a Republican administration in the process, he's not doing it for the kicks."

Which brings me to the video clip of Comey testifying. He told Schumer that the Justice Depart.'s decision to withhold approval of the NSA program because of doubts withing Justice of its legality, he added a caveat (at about 3:12 into the video): "Nor am I confirming any particular program." Having seen the clip of the Frontline program, am I seeing conspiracies where there are none? Is congress asking the right questions about the wrong program?

If you watch the video clip of the Frontline episode posted by Peter Swire and then watch the clip of Comey testifying yesterday, it will either begin to make sense or drive you crazy.

[code: I regret the loss of my trust in government for the people by the people]

irina wrote on May 16, 2007 7:56 PM:

WHAT WAS SO IMPORTANT TO HEAR?

let's examine what this could mean. Here's the sequence: 9/11, wiretapping to catch supposed terrorists, wiretapping not recertified, attempt to circumvent the DOJ, illegal wiretapping that included tapping US citizens in America.

I suggest that the Bush Administration was in fact monitoring American citizens for what they knew or were talking about. I think that "monitoring terrorists talking to US citizens" is a cover for the real purpose. These people wanted to wiretap because they wanted to track what Americans were talking about. There may have been specific Americans targeted, but the TIA program could monitor a lot of bandwidth.

So, , care to assemble a list of topics Americans might talk about that the Bush Administration would feel so threatened that it would go around the DOJ? My personal list begins with the Administration's knowledge and involvement in 9/11. Yours?

steambomb wrote on May 16, 2007 10:30 PM:

They dont have to impeach Gonzales to get rid of him. They only have to present the perjury case against him. Convict him and then post facto removal due to the fact that a felon cannot hold public office. Even if he retains his position as per the stubborn ineptitude of Bush, 5 years in prison will prevent him from doing any more damage at the DOJ. Just make sure you have a decent deputy A.G. to run the department until the next president can pick a real lawyer.

Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 7:47 AM:

NO one has ever said how the government puts people on the 'no fly list'. 60 minutes had done an interview that was basically accusing the administration of incompetence for adding people to the 'no fly list'. Remember that Democratic senators (Kennedy code: "liberal enemy") are on the list. Have not heard of any 'conservative' Senators on the list. How the hell could you confuse womanizer Ted Kennedy with a terorist?!? The administration basically shruged it off.

I see a pattern here. They would rather be labeled incompetent, than admit that there is a competent, yet illegal, program that adds names to the 'no fly list'.

The administration has never said what criteria was used to add names to the list. Domestic spying by the FBI would be a great fit for feeding names to the list. There are other unnamed programs still out there.

chisholm wrote on May 17, 2007 7:58 AM:

I just read Gonzalez' testimony from 2/06 just now, for the first time, in the Post article. "None of the reservations dealt with the program that we are talking about today," Gonzales said then.

My immediate reaction is that he's talking about the same program, but that it's changed--i.e., "It's not the same program it used to be." This would make (specious) sense if the program had been modified.

FWIW

tjallen wrote on May 17, 2007 8:23 AM:

To explain Mueller's presence, one need not assume a different wiretapping program. The FBI would have an anti-terrorist role in the NSA wiretapping project as a provider of watch words and a receiver of secret product.

tjallen wrote on May 17, 2007 8:39 AM:

Commenters asking, what was different or changed about the NSA wiretappping project, that the Justice Dept couldn't approve it this time, when they had approved it before?

I would suggest that it was not facts about the program that changed, but rather, it was facts about what was known about the program that changed.

Some have suggested the change was, someone new knew about the program, there was a new man in the loop, Jack Goldsmith. But I wonder.

Check the calendar, what leak happened (SWIFT? NYTimes?) around this time, that now prevented recertification of the program?

tjallen wrote on May 17, 2007 9:01 AM:

Comey said the law didn't require the Justice Dept to certify and recertify the program, so no law was broken when they didn't have certification for 30 days or so. So why certify at all?

I am reminded of programs detailed by James Brady in his book, The Puzzle Palace Inside the NSA. In the 1920s, it was against the law for anyone, even the government, to read private telegrams. So, the telegraph companies voluntarily gave secret Govt Agencies all foreign telegrams, so long as the government would certify that it was legal for them to do so. Similar thing happened with the phone companies, who voluntarily gave secret Govt agencies the contents of private phone calls, without warrants, as a matter of patriotism, so long as the government would certify that it was legal for them to do so.

We have heard similar rumors and unconfirmed reports of exactly analogous methods this time, of AT&T and other phone companies asked to voluntarily give the government warrantless access to foreign party phone calls, if the government will certify that it is legal for them to do so.

Maybe this explains some of Comey's strange comments about the Justice Dept needing to certify the program. At least, this is the analogy I am working with at this time. See Brady's old (1970s?) book for details, and work by analogy to today.

tjallen wrote on May 17, 2007 9:16 AM:

typo above, sorry:

The Puzzle Palace: Inside the National Security Agency, America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization,
by James Bamford, 1982, reprinted 2001