Comments (21)

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 5:25 PM:

I can't wait to see how these become subject to executive privilege.

TheOtherWA wrote on July 26, 2007 5:25 PM:

Ha, ha, ha! Notes are good. This is like Watergate on crack. (A commenter on another blog came up with that and I'm stealing it.)

Anna S. wrote on July 26, 2007 5:39 PM:

This should be rich. If he's already shared them, I think it becomes a lot harder for the Repubs to claim any sort of privilege (not that any sort of privilege applies, seeing as how executive privilege only applies to the executive). Sharing those notes was really dumb, in fact. Not burning those notes was dumb.

I'll bet Conyers is laughing his head off right now.

rubberpants wrote on July 26, 2007 5:42 PM:

I wasn't alive during Watergate but I can see the parallels here. Bush must know he going down right? Someone tell me I'm crazy for thinking that it's possible they'll allow/execute an attack on american soil to deflect the attention of the nation or start a war with Iran. (No, I don't think 9/11 was an inside job. I mean, I'm not a nutcase.) I know they're evil but are they THAT evil? Someone please tell me it's not going to happen.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 5:43 PM:

How come we haven't heard from Ashcroft on this?

Rebel wrote on July 26, 2007 5:52 PM:

I think there is a 'deep throat' somewhere in the executive branch that is starting to leak info to the congress. Davis clearly knew about those notes before he asked.

This is good for America.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 5:59 PM:

About a deep throat: perhaps the same person who gave the "Gonzales Memo" to Sen. Whitehouse.

regular lurker wrote on July 26, 2007 6:15 PM:

Here's the thing about Watergate: it wasn't that Nixon and pals got caught, it's that they weren't allowed to get away with it.

That's the important detail about Watergate.

And so far, Bush has pretty much gotten away with everything.

Interested Party wrote on July 26, 2007 6:35 PM:

I was in college during Watergate. Yes, this is worse. Yes, this is just what John Dean predicted would happen, before the 2004 election.

YES, the big difference is that they didn't get away with it in Watergate.

Unfortunately, yes, some (Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld) lived on to do worse.

SC = I DESIRE to see some folks strung up!

Interested Party wrote on July 26, 2007 6:36 PM:

I was in college during Watergate. Yes, this is worse. Yes, this is just what John Dean predicted would happen, before the 2004 election.

YES, the big difference is that they didn't get away with it in Watergate.

Unfortunately, yes, some (Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld) lived on to do much worse the second time around.

SC = I DESIRE to see some folks strung up!

Jack Neefus wrote on July 26, 2007 6:36 PM:

Now that is what candid testimony should sound like. The contrast with Gonzalez, Goodling, et al could not be more stark.

Rodney Lamprey, jr. wrote on July 26, 2007 8:45 PM:

It sounds like Mueller kept notes on the incident because he feared something illegal was attempted or took place, and he was concerned about being implicated.

Uncle_Meat wrote on July 26, 2007 8:52 PM:

I wasn't alive during Watergate but I can see the parallels here. Bush must know he going down right? Someone tell me I'm crazy for thinking that it's possible they'll allow/execute an attack on american soil to deflect the attention of the nation or start a war with Iran. (No, I don't think 9/11 was an inside job. I mean, I'm not a nutcase.) I know they're evil but are they THAT evil? Someone please tell me it's not going to happen.

Posted by: rubberpants
Date: July 26, 2007 5:42 PM

I suggest you go back and study the events of that day, as well as events leading up to it, and everything that happened afterward. Then ask yourself, who has the resources to pull off such an event?

I'll give you a hint: Those 19 "Saudis'" names are nowhere on the flight manifests...

And if you think they aren't willing to sacrfice some (more) of us wee little peasants to further their plans, or deflect criticism, I hsve some WMD from Iraq to sell you.

Think about it, if "terrorists" wanted to change the policies of the US government, why would they attack people that have absolutely mothing to do with foreign policy?!?

JNagarya wrote on July 27, 2007 8:33 AM:

can't wait to see how these become subject to executive privilege.

Posted by:
Date: July 26, 2007 5:25 PM

They won't. You're overlooking several key facts:

1. Mueller is not a hostile witness;

2. He didn't have to reveal that he took notes, and that the notes exist, and that he shared them with a number of other individuals.

Not everyone in gov't is a conspirator engaged in multiple conspiracies to steal your six pack and popcorn.

JNagarya wrote on July 27, 2007 8:40 AM:

"This should be rich. If he's already shared them, I think it becomes a lot harder for the Repubs to claim any sort of privilege . . . ."

Mueller doesn't have to obey any such claim of Privilege. Even if only because disgusted by the Gonzales-Card conduct.

". . . (not that any sort of privilege applies, seeing as how executive privilege only applies to the executive). . . ."

The FBI is located in the DOJ. The DOJ is located in the Executive.

"Sharing those notes was really dumb, in fact."

We can't know that unless and until we learn the circumstances.

". . . . Not burning those notes was dumb."

On which side of the issue are you on?

"I'll bet Conyers is laughing his head off right now."

I'm certain Conyers is much too sober for that. Rather, he's focused on his committee's investigations, and the next steps in those.

Posted by: Anna S.
Date: July 26, 2007 5:39 PM

JNagarya wrote on July 27, 2007 8:44 AM:

How come we haven't heard from Ashcroft on this?

Posted by:
Date: July 26, 2007 5:43 PM

I suspect the committee has already heard his testimony in closed session. Or that he has already been "interviewed" by committee staff.

I don't know why so many assume that, if they don't see anything happening, then nothing is happening, unless they both don't know how Congress functions (and investigations are conducted), and they don't spend a whole lot of time thinking.

JNagarya wrote on July 27, 2007 8:52 AM:

"I think there is a 'deep throat' somewhere in the executive branch that is starting to leak info to the congress."

The Watergate "Deep Throat" was more likely a composite than an individual. Otherwise, as Richard Clarke says: gov't can't keep a secret. It is much like a sieve; "leaking" is actually continual, even during times of "non-scandal". Individuals thorughout the bureaucrazy -- the Executive and the administrative agency -- anonymously provide evidence of potential wrongdoing to Congress. How else do you think Congress got the Rove powerpoint presentation used to violate the Hatch Act?

"Davis clearly knew about those notes before he asked."

Probably because Mueller was interviewed, or testified in closed session, before he testified publicly -- as is the norm. If, as example, one closely watches the Comey testimony about the hospital episode, one could see that the questions being asked were intended to elicit answers already known to the person/s asking the questions.

No competent lawyer asks a question to which he doesn't already know the answer.

"This is good for America."

Ya think?

Posted by: Rebel
Date: July 26, 2007 5:52 PM

JNagarya wrote on July 27, 2007 8:58 AM:

Here's the thing about Watergate: it wasn't that Nixon and pals got caught, it's that they weren't allowed to get away with it.

That's the important detail about Watergate.

And so far, Bush has pretty much gotten away with everything.

Posted by: regular lurker
Date: July 26, 2007 6:15 PM

In fact, it was both: that they weren't allowed to get away with it meant that they had to get caught first.

And yet, once Nixon resigned, the investigations ceased, thus the "cancer ON the presidency" (Dean)survived, and metasticized; and we saw that reassert itself every time thereafter when there was a Republican president, each time as an increasingly severe -- and public -- scandal.

This is the last chapter of Watergate. It is still in the balance as to how it will ultimately end.

JNagarya wrote on July 27, 2007 9:00 AM:

About a deep throat: perhaps the same person who gave the "Gonzales Memo" to Sen. Whitehouse.

Posted by:
Date: July 26, 2007 5:59 PM

When one doesn't know the facts, assume the normal and simple. It's probable that memo was obtained by relatively normal means, perhaps as part of the document dumps.

JNagarya wrote on July 27, 2007 9:05 AM:

It sounds like Mueller kept notes on the incident because he feared something illegal was attempted or took place, and he was concerned about being implicated.

Posted by: Rodney Lamprey, jr.
Date: July 26, 2007 8:45 PM

There is any number of reasons for making the nots -- his being that it was because the incident was unusual. And to have a record of the facts should the incident become an issue.

I don't get where you assume that all these people are about defending themselves against implicit wrongdoing. I know it's a shocking fact, but not all politicians are corrupt -- or, even more shocking, dishonest.

And not all Republicans are corrupt and liars -- I give you Simpson, key associate with the Siegelman revelations.

JNagarya wrote on July 27, 2007 9:25 AM:

"I'll give you a hint: Those 19 "Saudis'" names are nowhere on the flight manifests..."

Bullshit. I'd ask you to substantiate that claim, but you can't -- any more than can the at-15th-hand "source" of that conspirabunk.

"And if you think they aren't willing to sacrfice some (more) of us wee little peasants to further their plans, or deflect criticism, I hsve some WMD from Iraq to sell you."

Nice "sentiment"; but no facts to support it. And -- no: the "I know something you don't" melodrama does nothing to substantiate it.

"Think about it, if "terrorists" wanted to change the policies of the US government, why would they attack people that have absolutely mothing to do with foreign policy?!?"

To coerce, obviously. There is nothing which bars "terrorists" killing civilians in effort to achieve their ends. Or, being "terrorists," simply committing acts intended to terrorize.

Nothing which bars, as example, the Taliban from kidnapping civilian missionaries and killing them one by one in effort to coerce.

Nothing which prevents the US gov't/military from accepting the deaths of civilians as "collateral damage".

Bushit notwithstanding, "terrorism" is not "a new kind of war"; killing civilians in effort to affect official policy is nothing new.

Otherwise, the WTC and Pentagon represent US economic and military power. Attacking and destroying those is a means to refute the sense of superiority and invulnerability associated therewith.

One can think, and apply obvious reason, or one can engage in the pseudo-intellectual exercise of making up anti-gum'mint conspirabunk -- usually the province of the anti-gum'mint right-wing lunatic fringe. Which oh-so-conveniently -- or ignorantly -- leaves out this basic fact: under our system of laws, the gov't is WE THE PEOPLE -- not a separate and hostile entity as falsely defined by Reagan.

When, absent facts, one has a choice of explanations between, on one hand, conspirabunk, and on the other, stupidity or incompetence, the latter is the more likely. Otherwise, one can engage in mental masturbation, for the sake of entertainment and attention-seeking -- at the expense of those who were injured in real life and real time -- by speculating up all sorts of dark intrique folderol.

There is always the problem of _proof_; but speculation upon speculation intended to demonstrate the "reasonableness" of the initial speculation is not that; it is more of the same horseshit.

Posted by: Uncle_Meat
Date: July 26, 2007 8:52 PM