Comments (37)

Nash wrote on July 26, 2007 3:28 PM:

Glad to see folks haven't let the FISA issue drop off the radar.

TheraP wrote on July 26, 2007 3:29 PM:

Hmmmm. Can we try that with the IRS?

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 3:32 PM:

Suck it, Mueller. Paperwork is part of the job. It's how we ensure legal procedures are followed (or is THAT too much bother?). Besides, it's mostly boilerplate anyway. If you don't like paperwork, get a job in a coal mine.

Mike Conwell wrote on July 26, 2007 4:03 PM:

Notes taken by Mueller regarding the March 10th, 2004 phone call from Comey (and Ashcroft?) and actions taken are in the possession of the FBI Director and have not been shared with the White House and have only been shared with the Office of General Counsel(?) and Mueller's personal staff

Hoppy wrote on July 26, 2007 4:05 PM:

Speaking of the IRS, I just got audited! I'm a retiree living on SS, pension and small investments, and I got audited. The "error" they found, to the tune of me owing over $5000 is grossly in error too. Of course I suspect that those of us who post here are all liable to be audited.

I suggest, as TheraP did, that we not file income tax returns, just mail a check for what we want to pay the IRS, because that paperwork can be more than a quarter inch thick. On the other hand I look forward with pleasure to rolling up that quarter inch thick package tightly, then ramming it up the........

Roberta wrote on July 26, 2007 4:10 PM:

Sigh ... On Mueller, no comment possible.

On Bobby Scott, thank you, thank you, thank you for your spontaneous chuckle at this Admin's party line on "checks and balances." That kind of reaction can often have a stronger effect than anger.

I know that some of the people in Congress are tools. If nothing else, all these hearings have shown that there are also some really smart, savvy, and truly patriotic folks.

judyinnm wrote on July 26, 2007 4:12 PM:

Trust us - we don't need no stinking oversight. What Bill of Rights? What Constitution? Georgejr & Gonzo said it's okay, and that's all we need. Besides, where do you come off asking me questions?

"Due Process" is such a quaint idea.

TOO MUCH FREAKING PAPERWORK, INDEED!!!

Bearpaw wrote on July 26, 2007 4:17 PM:

"Policing is only easy in a police state." -- Austin Hill

joanne wrote on July 26, 2007 4:19 PM:

Rep. Scott is right on the money!!! AND the FISA emergency procedures whereby the FBI submits the paperwork within 72 hours does not have to be onerous. The statute does not require onerous paperwork. The DOJ requires onerous paperwork because they are so risk-averse that they are terrified that the court will reverse the DOJ's emergency decision and they (the AG) will look bad. Obviously, emergency procedures contemplate that, later, when all the facts are reviewed, the court might reverse. no shame in that.

BUT DOJ is afraid how that will look so they want NSLs so NO ONE will review what they have done!!!!!!!

Legalize wrote on July 26, 2007 4:19 PM:

So ... Mueller has admitted in open Congress to breaking the law.

Add that one to the pile.

aquart wrote on July 26, 2007 4:20 PM:

So their defense is they're too lazy to do their jobs?

Austin Cooper wrote on July 26, 2007 4:20 PM:

"Attention! Attention! This is Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI!

"Now, I know I'm in there -- and I don't drop my weapons and come out with my hands up -- then I'm coning in there after me!"

jak1 wrote on July 26, 2007 4:21 PM:

So to get this straight, you have the "after the fact" option. Which they agree is getting what you need, then do the paperwork, "after the fact".

But they needed NSLs? "If not for the NSLs, the post-facto warrants mean agents will get bogged down in "paperwork" up to "a quarter-inch thick":"

even with the after the fact option? Whaaaaat????

So if you arrest a suspect, then find numbers in his address book, you don't need the after the fact option(1.which means get what you need, 2.then do the paperwork when your done getting what you need) because the post-facto warrants mean agents will get bogged down in "paperwork" up to "a quarter-inch thick"?!?!?????

theo wrote on July 26, 2007 4:22 PM:

NSL-acquired information helps formulate warrant requests under FISA.

Can it be used to formulate after-the-fact FISA warrants?

Because if so, the FISA warrant is just a way of cleaning up after the NSL.

And the FBI can write its own warrants, in complete violation of due process.

caye wrote on July 26, 2007 4:25 PM:

Hope my 16-year-old doesn't hear this--he'll never do his homework.

Anna S. wrote on July 26, 2007 4:26 PM:

Mueller's been a goldmine today! The AP has him adding fuel to fire Gonzalez perjury fire:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_go_co/congress_gonzales

According to the article, this is an exchange between him and a representative from (of all places) Texas, in which he seems to confirm that the program under discussion was the TSP:

"Did you have an understanding that that the conversation was on TSP?" asked Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. TSP stands for terrorist surveillance program.

"I had an understanding the discussion was on a NSA program, yes," Mueller answered.

Jackson asked again: "We use 'TSP,' we use 'warrantless wiretapping,' so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?"

"The discussion was on a national NSA program that has been much discussed, yes," Mueller responded.

the fly-man wrote on July 26, 2007 4:27 PM:

I wish someone would ask the director , under oath, if any, even just one, Federal convictions for crimes other than terrorist related ones, have been secured using evidence garnered through the use of the NSLs.

scav wrote on July 26, 2007 4:32 PM:

Coming soon to a court near you, the "following the law just takes so much TIME!" defense.

Scott wrote on July 26, 2007 4:32 PM:

I wouldn't oppose a streamlining of the FISA process, but it's the height of arrogance to skip it altogether.

The vocal Right's talking point on this is ridiculous - the FISA court can't be used because it's "clogged up"; the very existence of the FISA court is to provide expeditious clearance for this very specific purpose.

I'm no wag, but it's impossible to clog the court if you're not using it, isn't it?

unpoetaloco wrote on July 26, 2007 4:40 PM:

Is it just me, or does anyone else see irony in a man with a German surname running the FBI as if it were the Gestapo? Hollywood couldn't write this stuff. Speaking of Nazis, how's Henry Kissenger's mission to Russia going?

cevrero wrote on July 26, 2007 4:55 PM:

1/4" thick,...that's like over 60 pieces of paper.
Maybe they should get interns so they can teach the FBI how to fill out those PDF files on their fancy laptops....surely they know how to type and edit an existing document to save time. What if lawyers had to do all their own paperwork over and over again from scratch?

C'mon Meuller, the only reason FISA doesn't work is because of paperwork? Hhmmm, ssssshhhhh....nobody whisper the words: accountability and violation of civil rights......don't whisper it, Shout it!

TheraP wrote on July 26, 2007 5:05 PM:

End result of this laziness: show trials.

No evidence. No paperwork. Just walk through and collect your guilty slip!

cevrero wrote on July 26, 2007 5:07 PM:

Question to Mueller:

"How many NSA wiretappings have resulted in convictions of terrorism? How efficient is the NSA in the amount of wiretappings vs. convictions?"

Congressman:

"Did you say a near 0% efficiency? Well that deserves the medal of freedom or some shit like that."

Mueller:

"Congressman, your out of line, it only takes 1 wiretap to prevent another 9/11. Do you want another 911? Do you?"

Brianm0122 wrote on July 26, 2007 5:19 PM:

So,

In other words, the NSL's serve as a short-cut.

They by-pass reasonable cause AND save time!!

That is just lazy.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 5:22 PM:

It seems to me that Mueller gave an evasive answer to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee when she tried to pin down what program was discussed. Mueller repeated twice “…a national NSA program” with out naming the program.

"I had an understanding the discussion was on a NSA program, yes," Mueller answered.

Jackson asked again: "We use 'TSP,' we use 'warrantless wiretapping,' so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?"

"The discussion was on a national NSA program that has been much discussed, yes," Mueller responded.”

I have to ask, why did he word it like that? Could there be another program that has been much discussed within the FBI, but that the eight senators on the Intelligence Committee have not been briefed on? Just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

slb wrote on July 26, 2007 5:41 PM:

>> I have to ask, why did he word it like that? Could there be another program that has been much discussed within the FBI, but that the eight senators on the Intelligence Committee have not been briefed on? <<

I had the same reaction to that wording.

Paranoid yet? wrote on July 26, 2007 5:51 PM:

Me too.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 5:57 PM:

Everyone is carefully dancing around saying anything specific about the "program" or even the existence of the "program". There is something very rotten and very incriminating being hidden here, something that could put Cheney and/or Bush in jail. That's the reason for the vehement and extreme stonewalling. This is going to make Watergate look like a kid stealing a candy bar. Boy would I like to be a fly on the walls of the whitehouse right now as these guys try to figure out how they're going to get out of this.

Mick Savage wrote on July 26, 2007 6:04 PM:

I'm sure it's my faulty memory and that it has been covered extensively in MSM, but could someone ask der Director details about the national secrets which caused him to specifically warn Asscrap not to fly commercial a month or so prior to the favorite terra siren that changed the world AKA 911?

tough to believe wrote on July 26, 2007 6:06 PM:

Something just occurred to me – is it possible that in testifying that the Ashcroft hospital room showdown was about some “other” intelligence activities, and not the TSP, Gonzalez is trying to draw a distinction between the original program that Comey refused to re-authorize, and the watered down TSP about which Gonzalez later testified there had been no “serious disagreement?” In other words, since Gonzalez’s 2006 testimony was about the modified TSP that resulted from Comey and other DOJ officials’ threat to resign after the Ashcroft hospital room showdown, the “other” intelligence activities being discussed in the hospital room was in fact relating to the original TSP, not the TSP for which Gonzalez testified there was no “serious disagreement.” Ta-da!! No perjury. All testimony by Gonzalez is technically accurate. Could Gonzalez possibly use this logic to wiggle out of a perjury allegation?!?

JMOHR wrote on July 26, 2007 7:59 PM:

Since I have been a judge advocate and prosecutor, I think that I can add something to this discussion. First, I have always heard law enforcement complain about the paperwork involved. Few times did it ever turn out to be remotely true. Indeed, our office would hold sessions to go over search warrants and other authorizations to smooth the process over. Rarely did we hear the complaints after that. Second, the usual complaints about the paper work requirement really involved the effort necessary to document probable cause. Law enforcement had their hunches, they had a gut feeling and so forth. Actually, I would imagine that the FISA warrant information required for intercepts from recorded call information would be rather simple. This is not nearly as hard as for a drug case, white collar fraud or tax evasion. Third, law enforcement invariably stretched the limits when not subject to outside, independent scrutiny. It usually started as cutting corners to save time. It always evolved to relying more and more on gut instincts. Mistakes crept in and eventually outright abuse.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 8:30 PM:

Could this administration justify to the public a program so secret and so illegal they couldn't even disclose the existence of it to the Intelligence committee? Yes, they have successfuly worked in secrecy ever since 2000.

The wheels of justice move slowly. The administration knows that contempt of congress will take them to the justice system, which they are in control of. The issues will be digested slowly and forgotten in mess of things to come. They know their best bet is to refuse to answer.

The administration's treatment of whistle blowers has been cut-throat enough to tie the tongues of those who know.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 9:18 PM:

The idea of "paperwork" -- read, "a warrant" -- is to require the Executive to go through the thought process, and formally lay out a plan to the court to justify confidence that things are in order.

This Reckless FBI has ignored two requirements:
1. The Court
2. The warrant

That is not impressive. Where is the Asst FBI director; and does this apparent buffoon have a problem with DOJ ORP; or is there some sort of superivosry problem this person working for you you has?

"Not enough time" my A$$! Your DOJ staff cousnel has been using their computers for _non official_ businss. Who are you to dare say "saves time" or "saves paperworkd": It's a legal requirement under the FISA process; and the NSLs _have_ been abused under _your_ watch.

How's that 5 USC 3331 defense coming along?

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 9:21 PM:

Posted by: JMOHR
Date: July 26, 2007 7:59 PM

That's right: Law enforcemtn "gut feeling" can be very wrong: Esxpecially when they go after the wrong people.

I have never heard such idiocy from law enforcement: They will abuse poeple who dare to cooperate. They're stupid, incompetent, and have poor superivision. It's not worth the hassle attempting to cooperate with them: They will twist it around and screw it up ten-times-to-heaven. What a bunch of buffoons in JTTF and law enforcement. Judicial oversight is needed because their LE supervisors are _apparently_ retarded.

Yan wrote on July 26, 2007 10:00 PM:

Yep.
Remember that clause in the constitution?

"All of the above rights apply if and only if the resultant paperwork is less than on quarter of an inch."

The Oracle wrote on July 27, 2007 1:53 AM:

Save a tree!! Save a tree!!

Mueller: "...the post-facto warrants mean agents will get bogged down in "paperwork" up to "a quarter-inch thick."

Yep, Mueller and other NSL FIB...er, FBI agents are actually environmentalists at heart, who were just rrying to save some trees, by using the NSLs to bypass FISA court requirements, which involves way to much paperwork.

Whew, I'm glad that's been cleared up.

Mueller isn't a "loyal Bushie" who goose-steps in lock-step with anything the Bushies political wingnuts demand. He's just a bleeding-heart environmentalist concerned for our nation's forests.

loonwalk wrote on July 27, 2007 8:04 AM:

No, it means they can listen in on phone calls for Anybody that comes to mind and not have to document that they have done so. By anybody, think if you had that capability. Wouldn't You be listening in on your co-workers, boss, mother-in-law, DNC, newspeople, MSM executives, wealthy people, anyone whose name comes up in discussion, and on and on?
I always wonder, when those Senate moments come up (like during Sara Taylor about the "oath she made to the president"), why don't Senators/Reps ASK what they are talking about. Continuously they jump to a logical assumption as if the person mis-spoke, when I think they did not or may not have. But by correcting them, we never know. Same with TSP versus NSA: why didn't they ask anyone to give their definition of the program on record instead of jumping around and leaving a loophole?