Comments (63)

magster wrote on July 24, 2007 7:51 PM:

Wow!

If a Repub in the Gang of 8 calls bs, I'd expect him to be impeached sooner rather than later.

Who are the 8: Daschle, Pelosi, Rockerfeller, Harman, Roberts ?, Hastert ?, Frist ?, and ?

Jake Mayhoffer wrote on July 24, 2007 7:58 PM:

Until you can prove to me that Truman DIDN'T know about the existence of the A-bomb, I'm not replying to any of you.

via wrote on July 24, 2007 7:58 PM:

You know what Hastert, Frist and Roberts will do. Lie to protect Abu and Georgie.

Security Code: hope

As in, I hope they all fry in hell.

Youffraita wrote on July 24, 2007 7:58 PM:

Lies upon lies upon lies. How very GOP of them.

Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 7:58 PM:

Right, and the Democrats have NO motive to lie whatsoever?

dan_ps wrote on July 24, 2007 8:14 PM:

This would all be easier if some folks on the right were willing to take a stand as well.

yellowdogfox wrote on July 24, 2007 8:14 PM:

The other R must be Hoekstra. And Jesus, am I sick of Jake the loser.

dan_ps wrote on July 24, 2007 8:17 PM:

Take a stand as in:

http://pruningshears.squarespace.com/pruning-shears/2007/7/20/calling-conservative-patriots.html

OhSnap! wrote on July 24, 2007 8:18 PM:

re: "gang of 8" - includes Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders plus ranking members of both House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Therefore, 108th Congress (which would be inclusive of 2003-2004) the eight were:

Dems: Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller and Jane Harman

Reps: Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, Pat Roberts and Porter Goss

anon wrote on July 24, 2007 8:29 PM:

What no Lee Hamilton? I'm sure Lee Hamilton would be willing to carry some administration water on this issue. In fact, if he thinks about it, he can probably remember that Pelosi, Daschle, and Rockefeller were asleep or something and just don't remember it the way it happened. I mean, hey, Lee's gonna feel left out.

david78209 wrote on July 24, 2007 8:32 PM:

Wasn't Jane Harman the one whom Pelosi sort of 'passed over' in picking the new chair of the House Intelligence Committee? Would Harman fail to chime in out of pique? Did Pelosi pass over her because she was soft on this?

Frist, DeLay, and Pat Roberts all seem to be ethical black holes. If they didn't lie about this they'd develop memories like Alberto Gonzales. Did Porter Goss recently show some sign of conscience or decency or willingness to put democracy ahead of the Republican party?

Also, Daschle and Rockefeller don't remember the Gang of Eight discussing this at all. Does Pelosi remember a discussion, though she disagreed with the program?

eyeball wrote on July 24, 2007 8:37 PM:

color me stupid but i have no clue what this is about. is G claiming that this whole crew of 8 repubs and demos were all bipartisanly in support of the warrantless wiretap program that was in effect illegal (and only in place in the first plave because G had created some spurious logic for it)? i find that hard to believe. is he claiming that the whole passel of 'em were in a unanimous uproar over what comey had said and done? Or is G claiming they raced to Ash's bedside to resolve some "other" unrelated urgent surveillance matter? if that's the case, then is G saying comey was lying when he testified that G and Card in fact hurried there to challenge the legality of the warrantless program? ... this is crazy. help!

meander wrote on July 24, 2007 8:38 PM:

This is yet another example of why transcripts of meetings (or hearings) can be important.

TheraP wrote on July 24, 2007 8:41 PM:

One would think that, had such a consensus actually occurred, there would be a paper-trail. So far we've got 37.5% of the Gang of 8 contradicting Gonzi-lied. And no paper trail urging him to badger a man in the hospital under heavy sedation.

I honestly can't find the words to describe the arrogant stupidity of the Idiotic Big Lie here - especially one so easy to refute.

Except these folks just seem to assume they have a license to lie. A license to tell a story any way they want - no matter how foolish it may appear.

Truly we have gone round the bend. And they will reach for any delusion, any fantasy, any idiotic explanation - in an effort to evade the Truth.

How any self-respecting human can swallow or repeat their drivel is beyond me.

R Bubp wrote on July 24, 2007 8:45 PM:

NPR got Jane Harman. She said AGAG was full of crap, too.

Austin Cooper wrote on July 24, 2007 8:48 PM:

This is going to have a very interesting conclusion.

Gonzales, with plenty of assistance from Fat Karl's side of the shop, will try to walk this back. It's going to be difficult.

Either Gonzales says that his previous testimony was mistaken... and then walks everything back in a closed session, claiming 'operational security' as the reason, * or * he simply 'Stays The Course' and refutes Comey's testimony -- difficult, now.

Still, he will have more questions to respond to about that night in 2004: Specifically, what Cheney and Bush's roles were, and who directed Gonzales and Card to override Comey's refusal to authorize -- which program?

He'll claim not to remember -- because the moment he connects Bush and Cheney with the events of that night, it's one more step to asserting conspiracy to override the Constitution with 'an order from the president'. Not a high crime in 'lil Boots' book, but the Congress might have another perspective.

But, there's Abu's poor memory. Criminals, in my professional experience, universally have such poor ability to recall... until you find a way to metaphorically squeeze their testicles. Hard.

R Bubp wrote on July 24, 2007 8:50 PM:

Watergate, thy name is Gonzo.

improper wrote on July 24, 2007 8:56 PM:

The Department of Justice is a fucking pathetic joke and everyone who works there, no matter how honorable and honest, feels and is forever stained by the taint and smear of shit clown Gonzalez. Any US Attorney or Assistant United States Attorney should be embarrassed to be associated with this current corrupt, dishonest and most dishonorable regime. They all should resign in protest, but a $130,000 salary is nice for government work no matter how embarrassed one might be.

mbbsdphil wrote on July 24, 2007 9:02 PM:

Remember who Gonzales is and who advises him about deceptive, carefully parsed statements. He implied that the Gang of Eight wanted the spying program to continue. That doesn't mean the gang voted unanimously. From Fredo's perspective, it only takes a simple majority. Back then, that only the Republicans agreed with continuing the program.

Somehting else. It's used to be a routine assumption that when the prezelnit gives a briefing to a Congressional committee, he gives as full a briefing to the Dems as to the Republicans. Before November '06, that's probably not a valid assumption.

Austin Cooper wrote on July 24, 2007 9:03 PM:

Gonzales is liar and a punk, man.

...and whether they're degreed, wear suits and drive a Lexus, or never made it past 9th grade and drive a chopper, criminals are criminals.

This fool needs to be removed, indicted, and imprisoned -- and afterwards (though it'll never happen), they can hand him to the International Court at the Hague.

parrot wrote on July 24, 2007 9:05 PM:

AG AG and Cheney and Busholini are counting on our fear of a power vacuum to remain in power. Frankly, a vacuum would smell nicer and not be so cloying. I'm tired of their smarmy waterboarding of the Constitution, let alone their outright abuses of the law and abuses of human dignity, at Guantanamo, at Abu Ghraib, and in dark corners of the world where their muddled thinking has lead to horrendous crimes being committed in the name of the US Constitution. They have little respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and they need to be held accountable for that. The presige of the United States has suffered so badly under their tutelage that we must now make a clean sweep...and get people with more integrity in charge quickly. Every day lost is another day in which the wolves grow bolder and hungrier. Let's starve them now and get them on the run...rather than laugh at them on TV as they hook in to our phones, steal all the goodwill that Americans created for themselves over the past centuries. It is a pitiful thing to behold, this rotting of the Republic...I really hope that there is enough backbone and ability left to contain the rot...but so far, it has simply continued with an inspection here and an inspection there but with no one held accountable for the mess.

anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 9:06 PM:

JakeD: "Right, and the Democrats have NO motive to lie whatsoever?"

So, where are the GOP Gang of Eight members to back up Gonzales and dispute the Dems?

Tick, tick, tick, tick . . . no body stepping up from the GOP to defend Gonzales . . . tick, tick, tick . . .

It's about who has the greater motive here.

Even GOP senators, except the most ridiculously partisan hacks like Hatch, have expressed disgust with Gonzales who has repeatedly lied, engaged in obsfucation, dissembled, "misremembered", and failed to remember.

It is Gonzales who will potentially lose his job and go to jail if it is found he's acted illegally, so he clearly has the greater motive to lie.

Code word = rate, as in JakeD is a second-rate partisan hack who can't see the truth due to his vision being blocked by Bush's buttcheeks.

anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 9:14 PM:

The bottom line is Gonzales's rationale makes no sense.

Comey was in charge. Ashcroft had turned over the DOJ to him and was at that point outside the chain of command and had no authority to overrule Comey. Moreover, if the Gang of Eight had any authority to demand authorization and Bush wanted to authorize it, then why would Bush need Ashcroft's approval? He wouldn't. If Bush can't overrule the DOJ, then Ashcroft couldn't either from his position outside the chain of command. Moreover, there is no indication that the same problem, threatened resignations, would somehow be off the table simply if Ashcroft backed the administration. Indeed, the sole purpose of the visit appears to be an attempt to give Bush a cover, very flawed to be sure, but some cover to overrule the DOJ staff and try to weather their resignations.

To boot, Gonzales has had weeks to give this version which very much suggests that they had to construct the reasoning. Something so important wouldn't require weeks to prepare an answer to; the answer would have been immediate. It wasn't, which is more evidence of lying.

So, Gonzales is clearly lying through his teeth.

Code word = smile, as in the smile that's on my face at JakeD's lame attempts to distract and confuse the issues at hand with bizarre and dishonest reasoning.

cds wrote on July 24, 2007 9:18 PM:

I called the Judiciary committee memeber's office and pleaded with each to IMPEACH the liar.
I hope there were many others.

cds wrote on July 24, 2007 9:19 PM:

Hope everyone called their reps and asked them to impeach the gd liar.

cds wrote on July 24, 2007 9:20 PM:

Hope everyone called his/her reps and asked them to impeach the gd liar.

anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 9:21 PM:

Just like they had to construct a reasoning about firing the USAs.

If they had done it for legitimate reasons, there would have been no need to create reasons, no need for e-mails talking about why they were being fired, no need for meetings to discuss why they were being fired, they just would have come out and said it, right away, based on documented performance failures, not vague undocumented reasons clearly created out of whole cloth.

This is how this administration operates: lie, lie, lie and then create false reasons for why you didn't lie.

PW wrote on July 24, 2007 9:26 PM:

Harman did indeed have something to say. You can listen to it on NPR, here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12205388

A wrote on July 24, 2007 9:36 PM:

Parrot, allow me to give you a big Macadamia Nut Treat. Well said.

Meanwhile, on the other post (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003756.php), the guys equating Bush with the Beast from the Book of Revelations, and Cheney's determination by August to have us all thrown behind razor wire, have shown up. It's a little Twilight-Zone-like.

Yow.

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel we've crossed a little into another dimension... "a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind... between the pit of Man's fears, and the summit of his knowledge" ?

I mean, I thought only trolls would show up and post about The Beast and detention camps, as a method of disrupting actual discussion between regular posters, and reducing that discussion to the level of airing videos of 'Seth'.

But... they wouldn't do mean things like that. Would they?

Austin Cooper wrote on July 24, 2007 9:39 PM:

Sorry; I take responsibility for the Twilight Zone post. This is almost as good as Holoscan.

TheraP wrote on July 24, 2007 9:50 PM:

So now we're up to 50% of the Gang of 8 contradicting Gonzo-Liar. That's all the Dems now. And no evidence of the Repubs coming forward to back up Gonzo's Big Lie.

Unbelievable that an "adult" would lie so stupidly. But at this stage maybe a Stupid Lie is all they have.

Pitiful! And this is our top Law Enforcement Official? Do we look like a Banana Dictatorship or what?

eyeball wrote on July 24, 2007 9:51 PM:

well i get it now; the 4 repubs on hand will all back gonzales' story -- i mean we are dealing with delay, goss (a bush family crony from Bush I days) and 2 other snivelers. and so we'll have a check and gonzo will stay on. ugly stuff but this gop mob is as gutless about standing up for truth and justice as they are avid about keeping power.

modmom wrote on July 24, 2007 10:01 PM:

Jane Harman said this on the NSA Spy Program back in Jan. 2006:

The NSA program does not qualify as a “covert action.” That term is defined in the National Security Act as “activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent.” 50 U.S.C. § 413b(e). Covert actions, pursuant to the statute, do not include “activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence . . . .” 50 U.S.C. § 413b(e)(1).

http://www.house.gov/harman/press/releases/2006/0104PR_nsaprogram.html

She believed limiting info to only the "gang of 8"was in violation of the National Secuity Act of 1947.

Rick wrote on July 24, 2007 10:08 PM:

The Republican Party intent to rule the political process for years is dying. The American people will finalize this in Nov-2008. It is a sham that Republicans is willing to surrender their constitutional right in the future to the Democratic President in 2008.

Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 10:37 PM:

PELOSI'S ASSERTIONS BELIE HER ACTIONS: REFUSAL TO INDICT/IMPEACH PRESIDENT

[ "She made clear her disagreement with the program continuing despite Comey's objection," Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly tells TPMmuckraker. Pelosi was part of the Gang of Eight in her capacity as House Democratic leader in 2004. ]

Now we know the reason why Pelosi and Conyers have taken impeachment off the table: To attract attention with an impeachment would call into question why Pelosi did not, as the GOP has done, worked with the Senate DNC to block funding.

DNC's Pelosi, knowing this information, could have worked with the DNC in the Senate to reject all Amendments; and filibuster. Pelosi and Conyers did not.
We the People, consistent with our inherent powers through the 10th Amendment, may lawfully declare Pelosi a domestic enemy of the Constitution; and in breach of her 5 USC 3331 oath of office obligation. She as a leaders of the DNC was in a position to work with her DNC caucus in both the House and Senate to defend the Constitution. She failed. Her prosecution remains on the table.

As to the VP and other illegal retaliation against Plame, rest assured what the CIA can and will do: Work with foreign powers to defend the Constitution. Where Conyers and Pelosi have jointly refused to impeach this President, and do nothing about outing of a CIA agent, the CIA reserves the authority to communicate any and all information they have gleaned through all sources to ensure Conyers and Pelosi are charged under Geneva.

Pelosi's response to the TPM disclosures may be entered into evidence:

1. TO what extent was Pelosi reckless in not assertion all lawful options to enforce FISA and Geneva;

2. To what extent was Pelosi and Conyers jointly responsible for ensuring the President was given a green light with continued FISA funding, despite knowing that the program was illegal;

3. TO what extent Pelosi and Conyers illegally, recklessly assented to Geneva violations, failed to investigate, and did not assert all lawful powers to defend the Constitution and Supreme Law.

Madame Speaker you are hereby under notice that all lawful options the CIA may have used in response to the VP's illegal outing of Plame -- by way of forwarding that information to the EU -- may be used against you and Congressman Conyers.

You are hereby under notice that We the People, consistent with our retained, and inherent powers to make adverse inference, may lawfully conclude that you are an apparent domestic enemy, bear close watching, and shall explain yourself.

A. What was the reason you and your staff have not fully asserted your oath to ensure this President is not held to account?
B. Why did you and Conyers agree to not keep all Constitutional obligations on the table?
C. Was there a reason you were concerned impeachment proceedings would adversely interfere with the DNC election goals?
D. Please describe in detail all notes, communication, and other things you as a member of the DNC were given from the Executive Branch; and have been given to you breaching the claim of Executive Privilege?
E. When were you first aware that the FISA violations were not being adequately reviewed by the Judiciary, FISA Court, and the US Atty?
F. Do you have an explanation, why, upon notification of the FISA violations, you and the DNC Minority/Ranking members of the Committee did not document your concerns with the FISA violations, and direct the NSA-CIA-DoJ IG to review this illegal activity/
G. Upon review with counsel of the Article 1 Section 8 powers of Congress to make all "rules," do you have a reason why you as a leaders in the DNC did not timely ensure that the FISA rules were not subject to arbitrary "opt out," as the AG and President have well asserted?
H. Where are the memoranda from you, your ranking committee peers, and other DNC Members of Congress related to your "concerns" about the FISA violations?
DISCUSSION
The information before us suggests the Speaker, then a DNC Member of Congress but on the "Gang of 8" was in receipt of specific information which she, as a duly sworn elected official under 5 USC 3331, had an obligation to report, document, and ensure the IGs reviewed.
The Speaker, having blocked impeachment, appears to know that there is no evidence -- as required -- related to her concerns. Either she is lying to day in 2007 about her concern; or there is no evidence documenting her concerns; or she has permitted this evidence to be destroyed. Pick.
On the table are 5 USC 3331 violations. Speaker Pelosi and Conyers have appeared several times -- repeatedly, in fact -- asserting that impeachment is "not" an option. Yet, a plain reading of the Constitution, clearly shows We the People that we have _not_, repeat "not" changed that power of Congress; and that the duties of all elected officials are to assert their oath using all lawful options.
Having failed to demonstrate she has fully asserted all lawful options per 5 USC 3331, there is probable cause to issue an arrest warrant against the Speaker and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee; and seize their private memos related to the information the AG and President have forwarded to them related to the information that the Pelosi staffers have implicitly asserted exists.
There is probable cause under 5 USC 3331 for the Speakers notes, memoranda, and all evidence she and others on the "Gang of 8" may have obtained, procured, reviewed, commented on. When discussing issues of subpoenas and warrants, this in no way accuses the Speaker of any illegal activity; rather, there is probable cause to suggest that the Speaker and Judiciary Chairmen have allegedly illegally conspired to violate 5 USC 3331; and not fully assert their oaths.
It is serious business to start prosecutions of the Speaker, especially when the CIA has well shown where it's loyalties lie: Not with keeping evidence of war crimes confidential. As a Member of the Gang of 8, Pelosi is allegedly complicit with failing to prevent Geneva violations; and she has failed to work with her DNC colleagues to ensure that the funding for these CIA-disclosed war crimes was shut down.
Based on information an and belief, the Speaker appears to have been involved in the discussions, coordination, and active assent to illegal activity to which she had a duty, but allegedly failed, to fully report, document, oversee, and ensure was either prosecuted, forwarded to the US Atty, or subject to impeachment.
While Speaker and as a leader in the DNC 2001-2007, Nancy Pelosi allegedly was complicit with known FISA violations; and she and her alleged co-conspirators in the DNC and GOP have allegedly refused to assert their oath so of office.

We the People of the United States incorporate by reference all of the above.

COUNT 1: Obstruction

Based information and believe, The Speaker and Congressman Conyers have jointly, and allegedly conspired to not review evidence of illegal activity; and have refused to review all evidence they personally reviewed related to FISA violations. Known to the Speaker were specific memoranda which have not, as required, been disclosed. Rather than forward this information, WE the People have been told that the information was shielded by privilege. This, is false: Once the information breached the Executive's veil, and was sent, transmitted, delivered, and received by Pelosi and Conyers, the information is no longer subject to a claim of "executive" privilege. There is no joint "legislative-Executive shield."

COUNT 2: Evidence Destruction, Witness Tampering

We the People of the Untied States, based on information and believe, incorporate the above and allege that Speaker Pelosi has been complicit in failing to ensure all information subject to all Congressional subpoenas has been forwarded to the appropriate law enforcement and Congressional staff.
Based on disclosures today, it appears the Speaker and Chairman of the Judiciary, despite their legal obligation under their oath to fully disclose all information related to illegal activity, have not fully complied with all subpoenas; and have not, as required, fully cooperated with We the People in reviewing evidence of criminal activity by the US government.

COUNT 3: Alleged illegal use of subpoena power to stifle public discussion of above allegations

Based on information and believe, the Speaker, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and outside legal counsel have allegedly conspired to have issued subpoenas not to gather information, but to identify, target, and disclose the identifies of confidential informants seeking to bring indictments against Members of Congress.

Allegedly, working in concert with the Executive, Pelosi and Conyers have orchestrated subpoenas not with the intent to review information they have, but to find the identifies of CIA, NSA,< and other personnel providing information to foreign powers related to Pelosi and Conyers alleged complicity with war crimes, FISA violations, Geneva illegalities, and other to be disclosed prisoner abuses.

COUNT 4: War Crimes

It is serious business to discover in July 2007 that the Speaker and Conyers have not, as they would have us believe, fully asserted their oath, nor used all lawful options to gather information related to illegal activity. Rather, the information surfacing today clearly shows that the Speaker and Conyers are in alleged receipt of to-be-disclosed evidence of war crimes which they have not allegedly provided to the US Atty; nor timely brought to the table for consideration by We the People.

COUNT 5: Malfeasance

We the People of the United States incorporate by reference the above, and refer to the DoJ Staff counsel memoranda from Denver who recently reported on Member of Congress misconduct and malfeasance in re war crimes.
We incorporate by reference that editorial in the Denver Post, and reallege all allegations made in the editorial, and attach those allegations to the Speaker and Congressman Conyers.

SUMMATION

The evidence before us in 2007 clearly indicates the Speaker and Congressman Conyers have no intention, despite their legal obligation to act, to assert all lawful options to defend this Constitution. Rather, the evidence disclosed to day clearly supports an adverse inference that the Speaker and House Judiciary Chairman, while in the DNC Minority, did not -- as required -- forward all evidence they had to the US Atty; nor did they fully document and require the NSA-CIA-DoD-DOJ IG to review these allegations of FISA violins; and they did not use all lawful options to block funding for things the US Atty General now disclosed Pelosi and Conyers either knew about and refused to stop; or were reckless in not fully investigating, as they had the power to do as Ranking DNC personnel, to ensure that the FISA was fully enforced; and that funding for this illegal activity was ended.

We the People of the US have been given misleading information, recklessly misguided, and have since 2001 given incorrect evidence as to who was at fault; what wasn't done; and what could or could not be done. Given the GOP Senate's use of the filibuster, and Pelosi and Conyers' unwillingness to assert their powers and influence to end illegal warfare and funding, We the People of the United States conclude Conyers and Pelosi remain domestic threats to the US Constitution; and kindly ask that the US Atty immediately open an independent investigation using all lawful resources of JTTF, NSA, CIA, DHS, and DOJ to bring to justice the alleged co-conspirators within the Congress, DNC, and GOP who have allegedly defied their oaths; and brought discredit upon themselves and the United States.

chimpeach wrote on July 24, 2007 10:48 PM:

Re: "PELOSI'S ASSERTIONS BELIE HER ACTIONS: REFUSAL TO INDICT/IMPEACH PRESIDENT" posted by nobody

How hard is it to find peyote these days, anyway?

Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 11:01 PM:

Pelosi: "I Objected to Spying When Comey Did"

Oh, so you've known about the illegal activity, but despite knowing that too impeachment off the table: When did you plan to share with the Senate the information you and Comey knew?

Both the DNC and GOP are complicit with these war crimes, FISA violations, and other illegal activities.

Let the Senate GOP choose whether they want to convict or not. We the People are not required to assent to this non-sense. The Grand Jury may introduce all of the above for purposes of adjudicating war crimes against Pelosi, Conyers, DNC and GOP Members of Congress, not just the VP, legal counsel, President, and Executive Branch personnel.

If the GOP refuses to convict despite Pelosi's assertion that she well knew of Comey's information -- that there were illegal activities -- Pelosi cannot claim she's fully asserting her oath to enforce Geneva, FISA, or the US Constitution. There is nothing before us, especially in light of the "Take impeachment off the table"-argument that Polosi or anyone in Congress is seriously asserting their 5 USC 3331 oath of office.

Rather, the GOP well shows us that these bills could have been stopped; and the budgeting rules permit Congress to zero-out budgets, requiring the GOP to pass amendments to add money back.

There is only one reasonable conclusion:

A. Congressional assertions that they are "against" the war belie their continued rubber stamping for activity they know, or should have known, was illegal; and

B. Members of Congress, despite their oath, have no plans to use all lawful options -- as required under that oath -- to enforce the Constitution against all domestic enemies.

The issue is not that the US government is in illegal rebellion, or that Conyers and Pelosi appear to be complicit with FISA violations, and failure to enforce FISA: but more subtle: They are complicit with an ongoing illegal rebellion by this President, GOP, DNC, and Members of Congress against the Supreme Law. They have apparently put their loyalties to 'something else" before their loyalties to the Constitution. This is impermissible.

Pelosi has known this information since day one; yet it was only when Gonzalez finally "got around" to disclosing this information did Pelosi disclose that she was aware of the Comey information _From day one_. No "oversight' was needed; no "subpoena power" was needed; and the DNC did not need "new powers" to find things out: They already knew -- they were involved.

The point of the above is not to absolve Gonzalez, but to turn this sham Congressional "oversight" on it head: The information Congress supposedly "needs, but is shielded (illegally) by claims of privilege" is, in part, within the Member of Congress staff papers. Members of Congress and Staff counsel appear to be pretending to ask for information that they already have, should have, but failed to act on when they were first made aware of this information. Congress is not serious about enforcing any subpoena or contempt citation: The White House appears to have promised to "block" the information Members of Congress appear to have already procured, or should know: Evidence of the illegal activity: FISA violations, rendition, Geneva violations, and other things Members of Congress either have been provided; or were reckless in not requesting when they first knew about the illegalities.

We the People since 2001 have been fed a mountain of lies by both the DNC and GOP: And these lies related to bogus hearings, malfeasance, and reckless misconduct by Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle in re failures to fully assert 5 USC 3331 in re Geneva, FISA, and the Constitution. You have jointly chosen to illegally engage in unlawful rebellion against your oaths, rule of law, and wrong Constitution: Fully entrusted to the last Vanguards: We the People. Today's revelations speak volumes about the sham oversight this Congrses has given since 2001; and says nothing of the original illegal conduct contemptlated, coordianted, and fully endorsed by both leading parties.

Tell us again Madame Spaker: What is the real reason you and others object to impeachment: You have "no time"? Perhaps jail time is the appropriate forum for you to consider MLK words: There is always a good time to do the right thing: Now. Not next year; not after you get "subpoena power": But right now. You didn't need supboenas -- the information was disclosed to you; and you didn't need to get COmey to confirm anything: You've known all along what was going on: Illegal activity, butyou have nothing to show for what you should have done. This is not our problem

Take your martial law plans, the dis-continuity in poor-governance plans, and your other non-sense excuses for failing to shut down this war in Iraq and go talk to your legal counsel. You remain a domestic enemy of the Constitution. You are an embarassment to the US government, We the People, and the Constitution.

You wished this.

Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 11:17 PM:

Is the best this Speaker and Judiciary Chairman can offer the public -- at this juncture -- more non-sense? On the table: The assertions by Pelosi she knew; but the so called "need" for a subpoena to find "new" information.

Members of Congress have a real problem: You have no idea who provided that information to the EU; and despite the NSA monitoring, you have no idea how to stop additional data packages from being forwarded to war crimes prosecutors. What are you going to do: Shut down the Internet; make the CIA stop; make the CIA personnel who have been retaliated against suddenly start to roll over?

Get real! You screwed them over. You took one of their own, did nothing to help Plame, then asked the intelligence community to go along with this. Wake up: The evidence remains outside American Control: Evidence of war crimes.

- Who was really at the briefings on the FISA?
- How many FISA related briefings did the NSA intercept?
- Do you remember Frank Kuzma and the GCHQ intercepts: Do you have any idea what is happening with the "special relationship" between the US and her "allied" intelligence service?

The Speaker and Conyers have no idea what information has been disclosed; or who is cooperating with foreign powers to review these issues of war crimes:

A. When did Pelosi and Conyers know about this;
B. Did they documents, as required, their concerns3 with FISA violations and Geneva illegalities;
C. Did all lawful options get used to shut down funding, investigate, and end this illegal activity?

Guess who in the CIA is working with foreign powers to provide the transcripts of the data intercepts GCHQ makes of all US government communications related to FISA, Geneva, and the deleted RNC e-mails?

Wow. Now you're starting to wake up. Now you understand why Libby's counsel was worried: Now you have an idea why Libby's counsel was worried about what the Grand Jury knew: All those CIA-NSA personnel turned on you long ago, and you've been led to believe you were in the clear. Aren't you stupid, Madame Speaker and Chairman Conyers.

IT doesn't matter if you destroy the evidence or not. The origiginal transcripts, e-mails, and other information was collected: NSA has an ability to capture everything, even the classified briefings given in the secure areas of Congress. You're all on tape. It's known what happened since 2001. You're all stuck. You have no hope of escape.

Your CIA has stood up to the illegal rebellion and defied this President and Congress: War crimes information is on the table before the EU. And there is _nothing_ Pelosi or Conyers can do to change that. Zero.

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on July 25, 2007 12:30 AM:

Hope everyone gets over the small talk and looks at this for what this is: what you see oozing out is the puss from a very very sick group of people.This is the current zit that gets the attention.It's right on the forehead in the lights.
This is only a symtom of the disease inside.
For zits: just get rid of them.
For the disease you must remove at the root, the actual cause.
mmmmm.....who causes zits like this in this bunch of carnival barkers?
And why are they squeezing it in public when they are all involved?
This isn't something that just popped up recently.
Some one had better start telling the truth.
Truth has power.
Maybe someone should mention that to them.
Of course when you are blinded by cash nothing else seems to matter.

steambomb wrote on July 25, 2007 1:04 AM:

did anyone else pick on on Gonzo telling one of the senators in the opening of an answer "Listen!" etc. The god damn chulo is so arrogant that he cannot even answer the damn questions with civility. Do you really think he gives a damn about civil liberties? Code word part as in.... It's time for Gonzo and his position at DOJ to part ways.

Arabiflora wrote on July 25, 2007 2:34 AM:

I'm confused

..."She made clear her disagreement with the program continuing despite Comey's objection,"...

I thought that Comey, too, disagreed with the continuation of the program (as executed at that time). Could someone parse Pelosi's statement in a way that makes any sense at all?

lysias wrote on July 25, 2007 7:29 AM:

Pelosi remembers being part of such a discussion, but Daschle and Rockefeller do not?

Is this evidence that only some members of the Gang of Eight were kept in the loop?

aterrificjob wrote on July 25, 2007 7:44 AM:

Arabiflora - I was confused by that passage also. I think it should have read "She made clear that she disagreed with the program continuing because Comey objected". And I am bewildered that illegal spying on Americans was known by both Reps and Dems - and it continued with no action by them until the NYT outed the program. Would Dems have let spying illegally go on indefinitely?!
And by the way, who is this NOBODY person with the long posts, unsigned? I now skip through them after having tried to read one all the way through. It sounds like a rant - besides, I dislike typing errors and bad grammar. Anyone who wants their stuff read should take the time and care to write well. Better yet, say something intelligent - we want to read your stuff.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 7:53 AM:

Arabiflora - I was confused by that passage also. I think it should have read "She made clear that she disagreed with the program continuing because Comey objected". And I am bewildered that illegal spying on Americans was known by both Reps and Dems - and it continued with no action by them until the NYT outed the program. Would Dems have let spying illegally go on indefinitely?!
And by the way, who is this NOBODY person with the long posts, unsigned? I now skip through them after having tried to read one all the way through. It sounds like a rant - besides, I dislike typing errors and bad grammar. Anyone who wants their stuff read should take the time and care to write well. Better yet, say something intelligent - we want to read your stuff.

VietVet67 wrote on July 25, 2007 10:01 AM:

Anyone notice a lot of "terror activities" all of a sudden?

party-of-one wrote on July 25, 2007 10:01 AM:

A New York Times article today
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/washington/25gonzales.html?ref=washington

quotes Rockefeller and Harman,and adds "But another member of the Gang of Eight... supported Mr. Gonzales’s version. Speaking on condition of anonymity, he confirmed the attorney general’s testimony that the group reached a “consensus” that the disputed intelligence activity should continue and that passing emergency legislation would risk revealing secrets." Once again the NYT in the tradition of Judith Miller gives equal weight to sources unwilliing to be identified and held accountable for their statements.

It would have been more professional and ethical to say: "No Republican contacted was willing to speak on the record." Reporters DAVID JOHNSTON and SCOTT SHANE elected instead to serve as communications officers for Gonzales.

lysias wrote on July 25, 2007 10:03 AM:

Maybe Gonzales really wasn't at that meeting with the Gang of Eight. I don't think he ever said yesterday that he was. It's been reported that Cheney does a lot of the briefing of people in Congress on intelligence matters. Maybe Cheney was at that meeting, and later reported -- or misreported -- on its results at the White House meeting before Gonzales and Card went to the hospital.

That would be consistent with Cheney being the one at the White House meeting who asked -- or ordered -- Gonzales and Card to go to the hospital. Which would explain Gonzo's refusal to testify on who told him to go.

Maybe Cheney flat out lied about the Gang of Eight approving a continuation of the controversial program. Or maybe he took agreement by the four Republicans -- or by the four Republicans plus Harman -- to constitute a consensus of the Gang of Eight.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 10:57 AM:

Why wouldn't 5 of 8 approving be enough for you, lysias?

lysias wrote on July 25, 2007 11:01 AM:

5 out of 8 is not a consensus. Especially if some of the 8 were not even informed or consulted.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 11:03 AM:

Also, if Pelosi KNEW about all of this, why did she take impeachment off the table?

RUN, CINDY, RUN!!!

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 11:07 AM:

Sorry, lysias -- majority rules.

dzman49 wrote on July 25, 2007 11:23 AM:

In re: A.G. Authori-ta

Not that it makes Gonzales' bedside visit less creepy and low, but does anyone know for a fact that only 1 person at a time has A.G. authority? That is, during the time Comey was temporarily given the authority to act as A.G., did Ashcroft still possess it also or not?

lysias wrote on July 25, 2007 11:28 AM:

Majority is not consensus.

NATO is governed by consensus, according to the North Atlantic Treaty. That has been taken to mean that any member of NATO has the power to block action by the alliance.

dzman49 wrote on July 25, 2007 11:30 AM:

"...(S)he made clear her disagreement with the program continuing despite Comey's objection..."

Could possibly have meant:

"...(S)he made clear her disagreement with the program, concurring with Comey's objection..."

Or perhaps she disagreed with a particular point of Comey's objection.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 11:38 AM:

lysias:

This is not NATO -- here in America, majority rules -- sorry.

lysias wrote on July 25, 2007 11:42 AM:

I have no idea whether, when the Gang of Eight is consulted, consensus or majority rules.

That is not the point. The point is the truthfulness of Gonzales's testimony. It was Gonzales who used the word "consensus."

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 11:49 AM:

I understand that Gonzales used the word "consensus" -- I am pointing out that, here in America, a reasonable definition of "consensus" in this context would include 4 Republicans and Jane Harmon. If you are seriously going to argue otherwise, please join me over on the Conyer's contempt thread and use your argument to claim any contempt referral by the (Dems) majority vote is not a "consensus" ; )

dzman49 wrote on July 25, 2007 11:58 AM:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus

con·sen·sus [kuhn-sen-suhs] –noun, plural -sus·es.

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

[Origin: 1850–55; < L, equiv. to consent(īre) to be in agreement, harmony (con- con- + sentīre to feel; cf. sense) + -tus suffix of v. action]

—Usage note Many say that the phrase consensus of opinion is redundant and hence should be avoided: The committee's statement represented a consensus of opinion. The expression is redundant, however, only if consensus is taken in the sense “majority of opinion” rather than in its equally valid and earlier sense “general agreement or concord.” Criticism of consensus of opinion has been so persistent and widespread that the phrase, even though in common use, occurs only infrequently in edited formal writing. The phrase "general consensus" is objected to for similar reasons. Consensus is now widely used attributively, esp. in the phrase "consensus politics".

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 12:03 PM:

Thanks, dzman -- MAJORITY of opinion. End of argument.

RBS wrote on July 26, 2007 5:34 AM:

I've posted this on another thread, but it applies to almost any given TPM Comments section at any given time:

Jake D's unrelenting attempts at hijacking the discussion are, unfortunately, successful--the thread always ends up being about him and his inane diversions (which is exactly what he wants) rather than about the subject matter at issue--and I, for one (or two or three), am ready to forego TPM's comments entirely rather than having to slog through such massive amounts of troll shit.

Legitimate expressions of "other" viewpoints are fine, but when Jake's "expressions" disproportionately and egregiously hog the bandwidth, with the intent to disrupt the actual thread of the conversation and prevent real discussion of the issues, there's no reason for TPM to put up with it (the First Amendment only restricts the government from censoring expression, Jake) and legitimate reasons not to put up with it (losing readership).

Enough is enough.

If there's a TPM moderator, please get rid of this guy; he adds nothing and only disrupts the true flow of the commentary. Too many people "bite" and feed this guy, which is understandable, but the tipping point has been reached.

Could others who feel the same way pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease let TPM know how you feel?

Thanks.

(We now resume our regularly hijacked programming . . . )

RBS

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 2:06 PM:

Pelosi says she "Objected":

Small problem: Her name is all over the TSP briefings since 2001:
See page 2 of 4 -- she's been briefed on this since 2001: [ http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/may_17_tsp.pdf ]

When did she "object"?
How long has she "had" information supporting this objection?
Once she "learned" of this information that Comey objected, did she bother to use that during teh TSP briefings she was given?

It does not appear she fully asserted her 5 USC 3331 oath of office. Time for the state AGs to issue an arrest warrant for the Speaker: She has lied, defied her oath, and misled the public.

yeranalyst wrote on July 27, 2007 12:52 PM:

Consensus decision-making is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision. Consensus is usually defined as meaning both general agreement, and the process of getting to such agreement. Wikipoedia
So, I guess the case is not closed.Consensus decision making is quite different than majority decision making.
If Gonzales claimed their was a consensus and the people on the Intelligence committees claim there was not a consensus then Gonzales would be lying.
Personally I don't trust a single person on those committees or Gonzales. Both Harman and Pelosi are beholden to AIPAC, I don't trust anybody named Rockefeller, Tom Daschle was a spineless DLCer, and the the Republicans are Just lying swine. Christ, Porter Goss was having breakfast the morning of 9/11 with a Pakistani ISI general who responsible for sending $100,000 to Mohammed Atta.
We all know that Tom Delay was only concerned with power and would happily endorse any policy that would suppress civil liberties.In a different life his name would be Bormann. Gonzales
has proven himself over and over a liar and a person devoid of humanity and morals.In a different and just world Alberto Gonzales would be a rotting corpse swinging at the end of a rope.
In my opinion everyone of the members of those Intelligence committees went along with the NSA spying just as they did on the war, the Patriot act, the Military authorization bill, the enormous war funding and the establishment of the Dept. of Homeland Security.
They let Bush do as he pleased without a peep.
Screw Nancy Pelosi, Rahm(mossad)Emanuel, Steney Hoyer,Jane Harman and the rest of the stealth neocons pretending to be Democrats. These people want this war and their delaying tactics and impeachment obstruction are part of their strategy of keeping this war going as long as possible. They have sold our country out to the state of Israel,oil companies and defense contractors. We all know that it is not a problem pulling our troops out of Iraq. We all know that the Iraqis no longer want us there. We also all know that these lying scum who pretend to represent us in government are going to leave the giant military base( which is what this war is all about...imperial military hegemony) in Iraq, are going to try to control the oil under Iraq as though it is ours somehow. These people are so imbued with power and arrogance, and so lacking in humanity that I think it is safe to characterize them all as psychopathic serial murderers.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 1:24 PM:

TL;DR