« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Gonzales: I Only Visited Ashcroft's Hospital Bed Because Congress Wanted It
In May, former acting attorney general James Comey testified that then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and then-chief of staff Andrew Card rushed to the hospital room an incapacitated John Ashcroft on March 10, 2004 after Comey ruled that the president's warrantless surveillance program lacked sufficient legal authority to continue. Today, Gonzales gave two defenses of this ghoulish maneuver: first, that he and Card only went to Ashcroft because Congress wanted the program to continue; and second, that they merely intended to "inform" Ashcroft of Comey's decision -- not get a convalescent AG to overrule his designated deputy.
Gonzales weaves through this new story, which he said gave "context" for the hospital excursion -- in which FBI Director Robert Mueller told his agents not to allow Gonzales to have Comey removed from Ashcroft's room -- to several senators. First, Gonzales told Arlen Specter (R-PA) that the trip to Ashcroft's hospital followed a meeting by the so-called "Group of Eight" -- the bipartisan congressional leaders briefed into the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program -- at the White House to convince them of the seriousness of its imminent expiration. Specter nearly blew a fuse when he understood that Gonzales was suggesting that Congress wanted Comey overturned:
Amazingly, Gonzales turned to his second line of defense: that he wasn't trying to get Ashcroft to reverse Comey "if in fact he wasn't fully competent to make that decision." How could Gonzales lean on Ashcroft at all, given that Ashcroft had delegated his authority to Comey? "There are no rules" governing the matter, Gonzales said.
Gonzales got much softer treatment from Orrin Hatch (R-UT).
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) wasn't so forgiving. She noted reversing Comey was "clearly the only reason why you would go see the attorney general in intensive care." Gonzales replied that he was under "extraordinary circumstances," in which "we had just been advised by the Congressional leadership, go forward anyway, and we felt it important that the attorney general, general Ashcroft, be advised of those facts."
Later in the hearing, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) got Gonzales to admit that he indeed entered Ashcroft's hospital room bearing a reauthorization order from the White House for the program -- something it's hard to believe Gonzales would have carried if he wasn't trying to get Ashcroft to reauthorize the surveillance regardless of his condition. Video of that exchange to come.
Update: Here's Whitehouse vs. Gonzales:
Below are all the transcripts:
SPECTER: OK. Assuming you're leveling with us on this occasion... (CROSSTALK) SPECTER: No, I want to move to the point about how can you get approval from Ashcroft for anything when he's under sedation and incapacitated -- for anything.GONZALES: May I continue the story, Senator?
SPECTER: No, I want you to answer my question.
GONZALES: Senator, obviously there was concern about General Ashcroft's condition. GONZALES: And we would not have sought nor did we intend to get any approval from General Ashcroft if in fact he wasn't fully competent to make that decision. But General -- there are no rules governing whether or not General Ashcroft can decide, "I'm feeling well enough to make this decision."
SPECTER: But, Attorney General Gonzales, he had already given up his authority as attorney general.
(CROSSTALK) SPECTER: ... was no longer attorney general.
GONZALES: And he could always reclaim that. There are no rules...
SPECTER: While he's in the hospital under sedation?
(LAUGHTER) GONZALES: Again, we didn't know -- we knew, of course, that he was ill, that he'd had surgery...
SPECTER: Not making any progress here. Let me go to another topic.
You may not have had a full opportunity to explain what happened the day of your hospital visit to Attorney General Ashcroft. So if you would, please finish your description of those events so we can all understand just what happened there.GONZALES: The meeting that I was referring to occurred on the afternoon of March 10th, just hours before Andy Card and I went to the hospital.
GONZALES: And the purpose of that meeting was to advise the gang of eight, the leadership of the Congress, that Mr. Comey had informed us that he would not approve the continuation of a very important intelligence activity despite the fact the department had repeatedly approved those activities over a period of over two years. We informed the leadership that Mr. Comey felt the president did not have the authority to authorize these activities, and we were there asking for help, to ask for emergency legislation. HATCH: Was Mr. Comey there during those two years?
GONZALES: He was not there during the entire time, no, sir.
HATCH: How much of that time?
GONZALES: I can't recall now, Senator, when Jim Comey became the deputy attorney general. The consensus in the room from the congressional leadership is that we should continue the activities, at least for now, despite the objections of Mr. Comey. There was also consensus that it would be very, very difficult to obtain legislation without compromising this program, but that we should look for a way ahead. It is for this reason that within a matter of hours Andy Card and I went to the hospital. We felt it important that the attorney general knew about the views and the recommendations of the congressional leadership, that as a former member of Congress and as someone who had authorized these activities for over two years that it might be important for him to hear this information. That was the reason that Mr. Card and I went to the hospital. Obviously, we were concerned about the condition of General Ashcroft. We obviously knew he had been ill and had surgery. And we never had any intent to ask anything of him if we did not feel that he was competent. When we got there, I will just say that Mr. Ashcroft did most of the talking. We were there maybe five minutes -- five to six minutes. Mr. Ashcroft talked about the legal issues in a lucid form, as I've heard him talk about legal issues in the White House. But at the end of his description of the legal issues, he said, "I'm not making this decision. The deputy attorney general is." And so Andy Card and I thanked him. We told him that we would continue working with the deputy attorney general and we left. And so I just wanted to put in context for this committee and the American people why Mr. Card and I went. It's because we had an emergency meeting in the White House Situation Room, where the congressional leadership had told us, "Continue going forward with this very important intelligence activity." I might also add...
HATCH: That was the gang of eight, you're saying.
GONZALES: Pardon me?
HATCH: That was the gang of eight.
GONZALES: This was the gang of eight.
HATCH: The two leaders in the House, the two leaders in the Senate, the two leaders of the Intelligence Committee in the House and the two leaders of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, right?
GONZALES: That is correct. I might also add...
HATCH: Democrats and Republicans?
GONZALES: Democrats and Republicans. I might also add that the urgency was is that the authorities in question were set to expire the very next day.
HATCH: Right.
GONZALES: And the president believed this was a very important activity, as did the congressional leadership. In fact, the very next morning we had the Madrid bombings. And so that puts in perspective the context of the environment that we were operating under. And these are the reasons why we went to the hospital on the evening of March 10th.
FEINSTEIN: And I listen to you. And nothing gets answered directly. Everything is obfuscated. You can't tell me that you went up to see Mr. Comey for any other reason other than to reverse his decision about the terrorist surveillance program. That's clearly the only reason you would go to see the attorney general in intensive care. GONZALES: May I respond to that?FEINSTEIN: Yes, you may.
GONZALES: OK. You're right. This is an extraordinary event. But we were confronting extraordinary circumstances where we had been advised that something that the department had authorized for two years, they would no longer continue to approve. We'd just been advised by the congressional leadership: Go forward anyway. And we felt it important that the attorney general, General Ashcroft, was aware of those facts. Clearly, if we had been confident and understood the facts and was inclined to do so, yes, we would have asked him to reverse the DAG's position. But...
FEINSTEIN: Well, then, why would he have said Mr. Comey is in charge, if you hadn't asked him?
GONZALES: I don't understand the question.
FEINSTEIN: Well, clearly you asked him the question, because James Comey testified to us that...
GONZALES: My recollection, Senator, is -- and, of course, this happened some time ago and people's recollections are going to differ. My recollection is that Mr. Ashcroft did most of the talking. At the end, my recollection is, he said, "I've been told it would be improvident for me to sign. But that doesn't matter, because I'm no longer the attorney general."
FEINSTEIN: OK. All right.
GONZALES: And once he said that, Secretary Card and I didn't press him. We said thank you, and we left.
FEINSTEIN: OK.
GONZALES: But, again, we went there because we thought it important for him to know where the congressional leadership was on this. We didn't know whether or not he knew of Mr. Comey's position and, if he did know, whether or not he agreed with it.
GONZALES: I'm not sure I can give you complete comfort -- I'm not sure I want to give you complete comfort on that point, out of fairness to others involved in what happened here. I want to be very fair to them. But what I'm -- what we are talking about...WHITEHOUSE: (inaudible) different question.
LEAHY: Why not just be fair to the truth? Just be fair to the truth and answer the question.
(APPLAUSE) WHITEHOUSE: Was Attorney General Ashcroft read into, and did he approve the program at issue from its inception?
GONZALES: General Ashcroft was read into these activities, and did approve these activities...
WHITEHOUSE: Beginning when?
GONZALES: From the very beginning. I believe, from the very beginning.
WHITEHOUSE: All right.
GONZALES: But, well...
WHITEHOUSE: I'm sorry? My question...
(CROSSTALK) GONZALES: Again, it's very complicated. And I want to be fair to General Ashcroft and others involved in this. And it's hard to describe this in this open setting. We've tried to be -- we've tried to discuss -- we have discussed in the Intel Committees, in terms of exactly what happened here. But I can't get into the fine details, quite frankly, because I want to be fair to General Ashcroft.
WHITEHOUSE: And I think it's also important that people know whether or not a program was run with or without the approval of the Department of Justice but without the knowledge and approval of the attorney general of the United States, if that was ever the case.
GONZALES: We believe we had the approval of the attorney general of the United States for a period of two years.
WHITEHOUSE: For a period of two years?
GONZALES: That is what...
(CROSSTALK) WHITEHOUSE: Also from the inception of the program?
GONZALES: From the very -- from the inception, we believed that we had the approval of the attorney general of the United States for these activities, these particular activities.
WHITEHOUSE: Would that be reflected in any document?
GONZALES: Yes, it would.
WHITEHOUSE: We'll pursue the document later. When you went into the attorney general's room at the hospital that night, what document did you have in your hand?
GONZALES: I had in my possession a document to reauthorize the program.
WHITEHOUSE: Where is it now?
GONZALES: I'm assuming the document is at the White House. It was a White House document.
WHITEHOUSE: And it would be covered by presidential records laws?
GONZALES: It is a White House document.
WHITEHOUSE: Director Mueller was involved that evening. Do you consider Director Mueller to be reasonable, sober and level-headed?
GONZALES: Yes.
WHITEHOUSE: He's a former deputy attorney general, former United States attorney?
GONZALES: Yes.
WHITEHOUSE: Why would he tell FBI agents not to allow you and Andy Card to throw the acting attorney general out of the attorney general's hospital room?
GONZALES: I don't know that he did that, and I can't respond to your question. I'm not Director Mueller.
WHITEHOUSE: But we have direct testimony that he did. You can't -- is there any series of events that led up to this that would so provoke him...
GONZALES: I wasn't aware of that comment until I read Mr. Comey's testimony.
WHITEHOUSE: Is there some background to this that would help elaborate why he would have that feeling? I mean, when the FBI director considers you so nefarious that FBI agents had to be ordered not to leave you alone with the stricken attorney general, that's a fairly serious challenge.
GONZALES: Well, again, I'm not sure that the director knew at the time of the meeting and a conversation that we had had with the congressional leaders. We were -- again, we were there following an emergency meeting in the White House Situation Room with the gang of eight, who said, "Despite the recommendation of the attorney general, go forward with very important intelligence activities for now and we'll see about moving forward some legislation." And that was important information that led us to go to the hospital room. The director, I'm quite confident, did not have that information when he made those statements, if he made those statements.
WHITEHOUSE: Is it awkward to supervise the FBI after this piece of history has come out, that the director didn't feel comfortable leaving you alone with the attorney general?
GONZALES: I can't speak for the director's feelings about me. But I still have a great deal of confidence and admiration and respect for Bob Mueller.
Comments (58)
Harriet in the MIre wrote on July 24, 2007 11:54 AM:Can't wait for Jakie-Poo!
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 11:54 AM:Well, if none of the "Group of Eight" deny it, that's proof right there.
JohnW1141 wrote on July 24, 2007 11:57 AM:When Gonzales says "I have no recollection" or some variation, he's lying and one of these Senators needs to call him a liar. F**k protocol.
Harriet in the MIre wrote on July 24, 2007 11:59 AM:More poop, Jakie-Poo!
RB-Chicago wrote on July 24, 2007 11:59 AM:Durbin nailed it...This man is a LIAR and should be impeached TODAY.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 11:59 AM:JohnW1141:
You have 100% perfect recollection of everything you ever did? How far back, in utero?
MarkC wrote on July 24, 2007 12:00 PM:Well, if the MSM runs with this in the way they should, impeaching him will be moot. This sounds embarrassing.
Harriet in the MIre wrote on July 24, 2007 12:02 PM:Poop in utero- Jakie-Poo! oooohhh!
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 12:03 PM:RB-Chicago:
And, how does it make you feel to know that Gonzales will not be impeached? Do you feel HAD by the same Democrats who promised to stop the war in Iraq too?
Richard L. Adlof wrote on July 24, 2007 12:05 PM:Does anyone else think that AG the AG is touching himself under the table to heighten the joy of lying . . . Oooo . . . Someone NEEDS to ask him to say something crazy like . . . He's wearing woman's underwear. .. .
oldtree wrote on July 24, 2007 12:06 PM:To our Senate; get off your hind quarters, get up and dance like a sentient beast and remove this turd from the septic system. Not that it is going to make it look bad or smell worse than you do for allowing it all these years
do something. NOW. We have waited long enough for you to take over the government and rid us of this criminal enterprise you cow tow to
Harriet in the MIre wrote on July 24, 2007 12:07 PM:Give us the doo-doo, Jakie-Poo!
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 12:08 PM:MarkC:
Do you have 100% perfect recollection of everything you ever did? If Gonzales testified last time he didn't recall some particular event, is it really fair to ask him the same question over and over?
Harriet in the MIre wrote on July 24, 2007 12:11 PM:I you remember what we did in the Mire, Jakie-Poo!
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 12:12 PM:Since both hands are clearly visible above the table on the video, I don't think he's touching himself. We KNOW that Bill Clinton masturbated in the bathroom sink right off Oval Office though. Are you longing for those good ol' days, Richard?
chimp wrote on July 24, 2007 12:12 PM:ignore the troll.
benjoya wrote on July 24, 2007 12:17 PM:they're missing the point. gonzales said last time that they're was no disagreement in DOJ about the legality of warrantless wiretaps. comey disagreed. gonzo admits he went to see ashcroft because the DOJ wouldn't sign off on it. why is gonzo not impeached?
Harriet in the MIre wrote on July 24, 2007 12:19 PM:And you do too, Jakie-Poo! Mired!
Slim Pickin's wrote on July 24, 2007 12:20 PM:What a studdering moron and buffoon - how can he possibly continue after such a destructive and emabarrassing peformance. Then again, it could be titled the same thing as so very many events from this Administration - "He's either mendacious or incompetent, which is it?"
"Emotionally distraught woman!" Hillarious! This can't get any better - or can it?
Urban Pirate wrote on July 24, 2007 12:20 PM:will someone start banning the paid trolls please.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on July 24, 2007 12:27 PM:Jake D. @ July 24, 2007 11:59 AM,
We are not talking about daily dappling ones diapers forty plus years ago . . . We are talking about two fucks being ordered by one or both elected officals in the Executive Branch to drive over to a hospittal and arm twist a drugged out man . . . Unless this sort of thuggery is so common that Gonzales' life is a blur of banality OR he is a black-out drunk . . . Well, the hyperbole of your . . .fetus fascination phraseology . . . is stretching it even for you.
It is okay to be a fucking idiot . . . Just don't go outta your way to be DAMN fucking idiot.
halfnhalf wrote on July 24, 2007 12:31 PM:I second the troll ban.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 12:39 PM:Since I am not paid to post here, I oppose the motion to ban anyone -- I didn't know you guys were so scared of the other point of view -- if TPM decides to have an "echo chamber" just for liberals, that's fine with me.
Legalize wrote on July 24, 2007 12:40 PM:What is the purpose of all of this? The Committee know Gonzo will only keep on lying, and Gonzo knows that neither he, nor anyone else who matters, will be held responsible.
Congress, either DO YOUR DUTY relative to this matter, or fuck off.
benjoya wrote on July 24, 2007 12:40 PM:keep the trolls. i find it fascinating that there are people who see gonzales as honest and/or competent. these same people see bush as hard working and patriotic. it's amazing they exist, let alone know how to turn on the computer
nene wrote on July 24, 2007 12:47 PM:As a long-time reader and rare commenter, I enjoy reading the comment threads; now they are becoming nearly unreadable. To Harriet and Jake: what do you think you contributed to this thread today besides crap that the rest of us have to skip over?
bob wrote on July 24, 2007 12:50 PM:Jake D.,
You have come into a community to disrupt. You will probably cite your rights of self-expression. But if one uses their own rights to deny or disparage the rights of others, which it is the obvious long-term goal of your multiple, rabid postings, then your self-expression rights are no longer valid. This is the spirit of the Ninth Amentment.
You are a Destroyer. And your enemy is the clear dissemination of information. I wish you ill will.
horatius wrote on July 24, 2007 12:50 PM:Jakie-poo's not a paid troll. He's a blog-warrior. That's the latest term these mental cripples go by these days.
PaulB wrote on July 24, 2007 12:54 PM:"I didn't know you guys were so scared of the other point of view"
ROFL... Dear heart, nobody here is "scared" of you, particularly given your incompetence and your propensity for mindless partisan drivel.
bohdi wrote on July 24, 2007 12:55 PM:Why no one ever comments on what a little queen Gonzalez is is beyond me. He sounds more like a receptionist at a Beverly Hills hair salon than the head of America's justice system. Closeted,repressed,self-loathing sadist of the highest order. This sick period in Americanna will be remembered by just how much the culture hired its shadow side to come forward and lead it. A sick culture naturally choses perverts and sadists to represent it. The American culture is very deep into victimizing itself like the beaten wife of a chronic drunk. The real perpetrators of fraud and malfeasance here are the large and various bodies of dumb and dumber citizens that checker this Land.
biltud wrote on July 24, 2007 12:58 PM:Here's a hypothetical, everyone.
Let's say, during the the course of your job -- presumably not as important as being Attorney General of the United States -- you're asked to remember specific details, meetings, and major conversations.
And it turns out that after these important events and strategizing, you can't remember a goddamn thing.
Now, given you can't, the question would be raised: If you can't remember anything, shouldn't we replace you with someone who can?
If you're not involved in any major decision making, shouldn't we replace you with someone who is?
The standards that are held for the rest of working America don't apply to Abu.
The incompetence is staggering. And the thugs continue to defend him, to their eternal embarrassment and shame.
Jane wrote on July 24, 2007 1:06 PM:Anger increases the heart rate, ups the blood pressure. For somebody in an ICU that could be very dangerous.
Did they have a doctor there monitoring Ashcroft's condition or just the nurse's station on remote?
Oh right, this wasn't torture so they didn't need to have a doctor present.
So now Gonzales claims that he wasn't trying to get Ashcroft to reverse Comey "if in fact he wasn't fully competent to make that decision." He just happened to walk in to Ashcroft's ICU room bearing a reauthorization order from the White House for the program. TPM's view that this is something it's hard to believe Gonzales would have carried if he wasn't trying to get Ashcroft to reauthorize the surveillance regardless of his condition gives Gonzales far to much credit. Gonzales and Ashcroft had undoubtedly discussed this program before -- the views that Ashcroft expressed were the same as Comey's. So Gonzales very well knew that if Ashcroft was competent he wouldn't sign the order. And Ashcroft summoned enough of his remaining strength in order to say precisely that.
So what was Gonzales doing there? Most likely,he wanted to be alone with his hand picked witness and find Ashcroft sufficiently out of it that Gonzales could claim that Ashcroft had signed when Ashcroft hadn't. Fears that this was what was up would explain why Mueller ordered his FBI to be sure that Comey was allowed to remain so that Gonzales would not be alone with Ashcroft.
I say keep the troll; ignore it when it shits all over the place, respond to any points with a glimmer of logic and use it as an alert system that they are trying to distract us from something important, look for what that is and keep pounding the point.
tamiasmin wrote on July 24, 2007 1:33 PM:What's the deal with calling Ashcroft "General Ashcroft," as if he was a battlefield commander instead of an attorney? Isn't the general in attorney general just an adjective to distinguish him from, say, a district attorney? If Smith is an envoy extraordinary, would you call him Extraordinary Smith?
Fred M wrote on July 24, 2007 1:34 PM:This really frightening thing to me is that this administration still has a single supporter left! Goodling wasn't joking when she said she took an oath to the president. These "loyal Bushies" put their blind faith in a badly flawed individual ahead of their loyalty to our Constitution and the rule of law.
The fact is these people belong to a cult!
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 1:45 PM:Fred M:
What part of "If Gonazles lied to Congress, he should resign, or be impeached" don't you understand?
tamiasmin wrote on July 24, 2007 1:49 PM:People forget things. I can understand that. I do it myself. That is why most people, when they attend important meetings that involve, for example, firing employees, take notes or minutes of what went on. But at the Department of Justice, where memos fly thick as starlings, people apparently don't need to do that. They are all confident that their memories will not let them down.
quax wrote on July 24, 2007 1:52 PM:Fred M - you nailed it. Jake D - assuming that he is not paid - is a reminder that there are still loyal Bushies out there. Of course this also the only useful aspect of his "contributions".
A moderation system for the comments would help. This way you can still get to these artifacts of leadership cult while not having them distract from the main discussions.
party-of-one wrote on July 24, 2007 1:58 PM:Congress seems content to march Gonzales into committee hearings, swear him in, listen to his lies, build a record of those lies, express outrage, tweek his ears and then start the whole process again and again. Do they have any clue what this spectacle does to public confidence in the Justice system: seeing the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the nation lying in the process of sworn testimony, and defying the Contitutional responsibility of Congressional oversight. The Democratic leadership now shares full responsibility with Bush for this travisty. What constitutes an impeachable offense? Why doesn't Congress ACT?
denis wrote on July 24, 2007 2:06 PM:My question is... Exactly who were the gang of eight? Do any of them collaberate the AG's story that they wanted Ashcroft to sign the reauthorization?
Vulture Breath wrote on July 24, 2007 2:08 PM:The entire remaining DOJ should resign, immediately, leaving only Gonzales sitting alone in his booster seat with nobody to supervise. Come on, DOJ people, make a statement. Aren't you sick of being kicked around?
ohiomeister wrote on July 24, 2007 2:33 PM:HFS!
If "There are no rules" governing delegations of authority, as Gonzales claimed...
Then Cheney really could have bombed Iran on Saturday when he was designated to take over for Bush while Bush got his colon scoped! Why did Bush even bother to delegate if "there are no rules."
I guess even Bush doesn't listen to the AG or Justice Dept these days. Pretty sad commentary on the state of affairs.
Gonzo is such a ridiculous liar. The so-called Group of 8 or even the Congressional leadership had no authority to send Gonzo down to the hospital to get Ashcroft to overrule Comey.
Our Attorney General is just not a credible witness in any respect. He'd be laughed out of court. He's like Jake D. in the comments.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 2:45 PM:Jake D.:
> What part of "If Gonazles lied to Congress, he
> should resign, or be impeached" don't you
> understand?
I will take that to mean you favor Bush asking for his resignation inasmuch as it has been shown that he has lied on several occassions.
saysyes wrote on July 24, 2007 2:55 PM:Has former AG Ashcroft weighed in on any of this? Maybe he could clear the air. I would think an upstanding citizen would volunteer his account of such a widely disputed episode. According to Gonzo and Comey he was "lucid" even if very uncomfortable.
TEL wrote on July 24, 2007 3:16 PM:Jane:
The problem for me is the sheer volume of comments coming from one source. After reading one or two "troll" postings, I figured out that nothing was being contributed except name-calling, behavior I wouldn't tolerate from my loved ones, much less a commentor. I now look at the "posted by" section before bothering to read the comments, but the sheer volume of "troll" postings often outnumbers the other postings, so I rarely read the comments at all anymore. I imagine I am not the only one. Having a commentor like that really does ruin it for everyone. I strongly suggest you ignore that poster altogether.
714Day wrote on July 24, 2007 3:25 PM:Hatch is such a pathetic puppet, too. Look at his b.s. trying to give wiggle room for Alberto to vindicate himself and the raid on Ashcroft's ICU lodgings... Al gingerly mentions the Madrid bombings followed his hospital fiasco. WTF does that mean? It was okay because they were feeling a little hysterical.
casam wrote on July 24, 2007 3:43 PM:P.S. can we all let the trolls waft on their own farts in the wind? They are made to feel significant with attention, you know?
Think of it this way. Every time you respond to a troll they get an erection. It's their Viagra! You will notice there is usually two, probably one and the same person, responding to the troll to keep it going. "Harriet" was up first today.
justme wrote on July 24, 2007 5:00 PM:Please do not respond to them. Your responses are ruining TPM for me, and I gather many others and that means the troll(s) win.
denis,
The "Gang of Eight", IIRC, is a concept this administration trotted out to further its unaccountability regarding the warrantless wiretaps. The GoE consists of the House and Senate leadership of both parties, and the Chair and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
The administration created this artificial grouping to sidestep the requirement of reporting to the whole committees. In addition, for even the GoE to get any information at all they were sworn to secrecy no matter what. They could not even voice conceptual objections to other regular members of the committees, much less publicly criticize the program.
Gonzo's assertion that they told him to go to Ashcroft is not only utterly useless, as it is unverifiable because said Congresspeople cannot speak of anything related, and so cannot confirm or deny, but in supposedly, and carelessly, making public actions so classified may well rise to a prosecutable offense by itself.
Wikipedia has an article on them, but it's pretty thin.
JNagarya wrote on July 24, 2007 9:13 PM:Well, if none of the "Group of Eight" deny it, that's proof right there.
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 24, 2007 11:54 AM
And when they do deny it -- and they will, because it doesn't make sense -- you'll attack their verzcity rather than accept the fact that Gonzales is trying to weasel his way out by "inviting" those 8 to support him on that extraordinary lie: some of those 8 were Democrats, and they -- we know otherwise about Republicans -- would not have authorized continuing the illegal program without it being legal.
Clue, "Jake": your rejection of Constitution and rule of law is not shared by everyone. In fact, the vast majority of US citizens -- over 70 per cent -- are not criminal dead-enders.
SC = snake. As in, the Bushit criminal enterprise and its illegally politicized DOJ is a snake factory.
JNagarya wrote on July 24, 2007 9:21 PM:JohnW1141:
You have 100% perfect recollection of everything you ever did? How far back, in utero?
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 24, 2007 11:59 AM
Wholly irrelevant, as Gonzales has nearly 100 per cent perfect inability to recall -- an impossibilty, except that being Republican is the cause of voluntary Alzheimerz.
Wretched Refuse wrote on July 24, 2007 11:49 PM:Since I am not paid to post here, I oppose the motion to ban anyone -- I didn't know you guys were so scared of the other point of view -- if TPM decides to have an "echo chamber" just for liberals, that's fine with me.
Posted by: Jake D.
AHEM,
You and your ilk are NOT the "other point of view" You are the enemy from within that the founding fathers warned us about, and that is why we are empowered to have your asses arrested, tried and hung fro treason.
You are the enemy. You are not American, nor the "collegial opposition."
I would slit your traitorous throat, no sooner look at you.
left coaster wrote on July 25, 2007 12:37 AM:I love the point that Gonzo makes about the Madrid bombings--they happened the NEXT DAY so the night before them he and the admnistration was frantic to keep the surveillance program alive. Huh? It indicates in a way that he knew the Madrid bombings were coming (although I pray to some god that he didn't!). It's just a very weird way to make a point....
r.hudson wrote on July 25, 2007 3:28 AM:LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!
the_nerdguy wrote on July 25, 2007 9:52 AM:It diesn't seem like you folks wathed the testimony. Two memebers of the gang of 8 were there and straight said that the conversation never happened.
the_nerdguy wrote on July 25, 2007 9:59 AM:JohnW1141 -- are you just stupid or actual retard. These guys are assaulting the rule of law. Where is your patriotism? People like you make me sick.
Do you have no respect for the country we live in? These people have attacked everything that is truly American. The worst part is the total disrepect for our troops and public service people.
Luis wrote on July 25, 2007 1:10 PM:There is very little doubt that the AG is lying about the whole thing.
pj in jesusland wrote on July 25, 2007 2:06 PM:My question is who are these "Gang of Eight" ? I think if what the AG is saying about them is true, that they told him to go ahead despite the fact that de DOJ was saying it was illegal to do so, we should be throwing those bozos out of office too. But in reality, I suspect that over the next couple of days these congressmen will deny that they said that. And if they don't, they are as guilty as Bush, Chenney and Gonzales and they need to be booted
How is it that the "Gang of Eight" all say they can't publicly disclose the contents of their discussion with Gonzalez prior to his hospital visit with Ashcroft because the meeting was classified, yet nothing is holding Gonzalez back now from disclosing selected contents of that meeting? And was everyone in Ashcroft's hospital room at the time cleared to discuss classified material?
Is Gonzalez just making things up as he goes? His story about the attorney firings is changing as fast as Bush's justifications for invading Iraq.
pmv wrote on July 25, 2007 5:28 PM:I sure wish he'd tell us what drugs he's on that make him think that by continually and constantly undermining the very notion of law he's capable and qualified to enforce it.
Can I be the attorney general now?
1) I'm not on drugs.
2) I don't have a law degree either.
3) I know that breaking the law is against the law.
4) I know that selective political enforcement is not in the constitution.
5) I'm aware that a candidates political views are not legal interview subjects, nor useful.
6) I remember yesterday, the whole day, not just tiny parts of it (goes with #1).
Other than #2 I think this makes me much more qualified than alberto to head the department of 'just us'. Thank you and I await your decision.
plobiorie wrote on October 20, 2007 11:00 PM:Can aynyone tell me where I can find good tires fo my car??
I live in New York.