This is topic Gonzo & White House pressure sick Ashcroft to sign off on illegal wiretapping in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
quote:On the night of March 10, 2004, as Attorney General John D. Ashcroft lay ill in an intensive-care unit, his deputy, James B. Comey, received an urgent call.
White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., were on their way to the hospital to persuade Ashcroft to reauthorize Bush's domestic surveillance program, which the Justice Department had just determined was illegal.
In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.
The sickbed visit was the start of a dramatic showdown between the White House and the Justice Department in early 2004 that, according to Comey, was resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. But that was not before Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller and their aides prepared a mass resignation, Comey said. The domestic spying by the National Security Agency continued for several weeks without Justice approval, he said.
[ May 17, 2007, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
All right Kasie, I don't like it. I don't see how you think you get to post an article without offering your opinion. Even if you are trying to do impartial journalism, but it's been bothering me for a while and it runs really close to cowardice. What are the issues at play, and why is this newsworthy?
[ July 04, 2007, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Sorry, sorry. Unfortunately, it's post it with no opinion or don't post at all. Or, I guess, start over as someone with a different screenname and leave no indication of the switch. But even that's dicey with the blogs the way they are. I could literally kill my future in journalism with one post. I probably shouldn't be doing it at all, but I like it here, so I walk the line. ___
As for the relevant issues, well, it seems fairly obvious to me - Gonzales, who was White House counsel at the time, and Card, then White House Chief of Staff, went to Ashcroft's hospital room at night to try and get him to reauthorize the warrentless wiretapping program. Ashcroft said no, and planned to submit a letter of resignation if the White House went forward.
The White House did go forward with the program - without the Justice Department signing off and saying it was legal.
Gonzales was then put in charge of the Justice Department.
In the aftermath, President Bush met separately with Mueller, the FBI director (who also planned to resign along with Ashcroft), and ultimately agreed to remove the part of the program that Justice found objectionable. But the details are still classified.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Kasie,
Even when you back track, you do it with a sense of class. For anyone who is taking notes, notice that she didn't avoid the issue or pretend not to know what I'm talking about or pretend that she wasn't guilty as charged. Granted, any profession that'll penalize you for thinking, even if you make a few mistakes or be unpopular along the way, isn't worthy of you. I think it's a bad habit, really close to playing dumb, then of course, if you play dumb long enough, there is always a chance that it'll stick. And more importantly, taking career advice from me is dangerous business.
_________
As to the case: 1) to what extent does the AG serve at the pleasure of the President? I don't know. It's a different branch of government, but how much sway the President is supposed to have with which appointment is beyond me. 2) We won't know until Ashcroft's memoirs.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The AG is a senate confirmed position right? If so, I don't believe he can outright fire him, he has to ask for their resignation and get it. No?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
No. The President can fire any cabinet member. Their replacement has to be confirmed by the Senate.
The issue came to a head in Andrew Johnson's impeachment and trial. He fired the War Secretary, breaking the Tenure of Office Act. The Act was found unconstitutional 40 years later, in 1926.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: ...here's the video of yesterday's testimony by former Deputy AG James Comey. Their section of questioning where Comey discusses the hospital showdown is about 25 minutes. We've tried to edit it down by cutting out a few relatively non-essential passages. And we got it down to about 15 minutes.
We'll be posting a shorter version with just a few key passages--
[ May 17, 2007, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Summary: Bush advisers disagree about legality of wiretapping program. Bush modifies program to meet legal opinion of skeptical advisers.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Also, can we dispense with the "Bush only hires yes-men" stuff now? Since we have a vivid example of Bush-selected individuals saying "no." And in the face of "coercion" no less.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, you missed your calling. You're at least as good at that as Andrew Card. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Please - no comment on the use of "coerce" in the thread title?
Twice now this story has been posted leaving out the parts of the testimony that tend to show Bush in a better light.
It's not a coincidence. For you to call me on this is inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worst.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Summary: Bush advisers disagree about legality of wiretapping program. Bush ignores dissenters, browbeats AG in ICU to sign off on program. Goes ahead with program despite no legal certification. Finally, faced with a Saturday Night Massacre of 8 top DoJ officials in an election year, Bush blinks and modifies program to meet legal opinion of skeptical advisers.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:Summary: Bush advisers disagree about legality of wiretapping program. Bush modifies program to meet legal opinion of skeptical advisers.
I believe that summary leaves out some basic issues. You make it sound like there was a small conference. President Bush said "Lets do X", and members of the Justice Department said, "No. That would not be a good idea." and then President Bush said, "Oh? Fine. We'll do it your way."
Instead, we have President Bush saying, "Lets do X."
Members of the Justice Department saying, "No. That is illegal."
President Bush saying, "That is what you think. You are only a bunch of lawyers. We'll do it anyway."
Then members of the Justice Department get upset, morale in the department suffers, damage is done, and many of them prepare to offer to quit.
This is a political, not legal, danger to the President, so two of his top people try to do something to cover their backsides. They try to get the Attorney General to sign off on the program.
Problem with that: 1) Attorney General is sick, possibly drugged, in a hospital with no support staff. This just looks bad and may be considered coercion.
2) With the Attorney General in the hospital, his assistant is the legal head and representative of the Justice Department. Such a sign off by Ashcroft at that time, if they would have gotten it, would have not been legal.
3) One of the men who went on this politically damaging, non-legal trips in order to apparently avoid oversight, is now the Attorney General of the US. In other words, if President Bush wasn't getting "Yes" men in Ashcroft's Justice Department, it seems he's got one with Mr. Gonzales.
4) Only when this ploy failed, and the president was facing massive defections from both the justice department and the FBI did he back down and change the plan to what the department would consider legal.
To claim the "Hey, the President did the right thing eventually, so no harm, no foul" is a bit of a stretch. If I walk into a bank and pull out a gun, then walk threateningly toward a teller, only to stop when Security Guards and Police surround me with their guns, could I use as an excuse "Hey, I put my gun away and didn't rob that bank. So why are you prosecuting me?"
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
But most of the ones who aren't get fired or forced out.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I will state that this end-run is dirty politics, nasty, but not an impeachable offence in my opinion.
It does show even more reasons why Mr. Gonzales should no longer be attorney general.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Bush definitely doesn't just hire yes-men.
But most of the ones who aren't get fired or forced out.
Very true Rusell. I tried to write a similar post but deleted as it seemed too foamy. . .like foaming-at-the-mouth.
Well, you stay up all night reading comments at right- and left-wing blogs and see if you don't get foamy too. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
This is also, I believe, one of the main reasons why, despite everyone, even hard-core Republicans having major problems with AG Gonzales's behavior, integrity, and competence, the President continues to have "full confidence" in him.
If Mr. Gonzales is fired, his replacement will have to go through Senate confirmation and anyone who will get through that won't sign off on the many very questionable things that are extremely likely to be going on right now under the auspices of the DoJ. I don't think President Bush can fire Mr. Gonzales without drastically increasing his risk of impeachment.
[ May 17, 2007, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Also, can we dispense with the "Bush only hires yes-men" stuff now? Since we have a vivid example of Bush-selected individuals saying "no." And in the face of "coercion" no less.
You are too bright to be building straw men accidentally Dagonee. To be accurate, what people most commonly claim isn't that Bush only hires "yes men", it is that he has fired everyone in the administration who disagrees with him and replaces them with yes men. And this little story about how Ashcroft opposed Bush's warrantless wiretapping agenda and was then replaced by Gonzales, the same man who was trying to pressure Ashcroft to sign it pretty well confirms the claim.
Look at the big picture, none of the dissenters involved are still in the administration. Though you may personally dismiss this as coincidence, certainly even you can see how people can logically see this story supporting the claim that Bush surrounds himself with yes men.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it would be a stretch to say that Ashcroft actually opposed warrantless wiretapping, since he testified in support of it before Congress.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think it would be a stretch to say that Ashcroft actually opposed warrantless wiretapping, since he testified in support of it before Congress.
According to Comey's testimony:
quote:Card and Gonzales arrived a few minutes later, with Gonzales holding an envelope that contained the executive order for the program. Comey said that, after listening to their entreaties, Ashcroft rebuffed the White House aides.
"He lifted his head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me," Comey said. Then, he said, Ashcroft added: "But that doesn't matter, because I'm not the attorney general. There is the attorney general," and pointed at Comey, who was appointed acting attorney general when Ashcroft fell ill.
I don't know the details of what Ashcroft said he supported in his Congressional Testimony so its hard to tell whether Comey's testimony contradicts that testimony or he was talking about a different formulation of the plan. The bottom line assuming that Comey's story is true is that the Bush administration pressured him and the DoJ to endorse a plan they thought was illegal, they refused to comply. As soon as it was politically expedient, they were all replaced with hard core Bush loyalists. The story certainly doesn't diffuse complaints that Bush fires dissenters.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
True Tom, but something obviously bugged Ashcroft, Comey, FBI head Mueller, etc enough to draw a line in the sand. I wonder what the actual issue at issue was? There's lots of speculation in the blogs about what could cause so many in the DoJ to prepare to resign, but that's all it is: speculation about a classified program.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: And this little story about how Ashcroft opposed Bush's warrantless wiretapping agenda and was then replaced by Gonzales, the same man who was trying to pressure Ashcroft to sign it pretty well confirms the claim.
Please. I don't know if you're too smart to do this accidentally or not, but Bush altered the program - if everyone here is to be believed, in large part to STOP Ashcroft from leaving. If you have any information that Ashcroft was forced out, I'd love to see it. There was talk of his wanting to leave well before the election, but he waited until then for Bush.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't know the details of what Ashcroft said he supported in his Congressional Testimony so its hard to tell whether Comey's testimony contradicts that testimony or he was talking about a different formulation of the plan.
He signed off on the warrantless wiretap plan. How is that not support? Especially since we know he was willing to resign over a plan he didn't support.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:There's lots of speculation in the blogs about what could cause so many in the DoJ to prepare to resign, but that's all it is: speculation about a classified program.
And considering that that the principal objectors did resign or were fired, etc. who is to say that the things that so incensed them were not reinstated?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote: Granted, any profession that'll penalize you for thinking, even if you make a few mistakes or be unpopular along the way, isn't worthy of you. I think it's a bad habit, really close to playing dumb, then of course, if you play dumb long enough, there is always a chance that it'll stick.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair to the profession of journalism. We are, in fact, encouraged to think, and to analyze, despite the commitment American journalists have to at least making every good faith effort to play fair. (This fairness requirement just means we keep our own opinions private, and a Web forum's not private.) I used to wonder if the British model of taking sides wasn't a more honest way to do it, but then I got inside a newsroom and realized that the agenda a news organization sets for itself is at least as important as the way stories are framed, and that it presents a whole host of issues for bias and slanting. When the purpose is to try and offer readers a window on the world, setting a purposefully biased/slanted agenda keeps windows in completely hidden instead of just tinting the glass one color or another.
If its journalists willingly profess their own political biases and inclinations, the organization loses credibility with its audience.
Washington is also a particularly weird place to do journalism, and I think your comments are more relevant to that city than to other places in the country. There are not many "stories" here in the true sense of the word - there are "actions" by one side or the other and then spin on both sides trying to use the action to his/her advantage. I think the biggest and most useful skill in Washington journalism is a nose for BS. In this town, thinking is secondary
quote:And more importantly, taking career advice from me is dangerous business.
___ As for the subject at hand.
Dags - you mention Ashcroft's testimony, but I think Gonzales' testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year (Jan or Feb) is more interesting. He said there has "not been any serious disagreement about the program (warrentless wiretapping)." It seems fairly obvious that at least Ashcroft and FBI director Mueller disagreed. (Comey obviously did, too.)
Also, I think Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's questioning of Gonzales in the more recent hearings also is interesting - he put up boards displaying the number of contacts between the White House and the Justice Department. Under Clinton, there were two people at Justice and two people in the White House authorized to talk to one another - otherwise, no communication was allowed. In the Bush White House, that number shot up - I want to say it is at least 50, though I would have to go back and read the transcript for sure. Whitehouse's point was that there is no attempt to control how and when the White House can talk to Justice officials, opening the door to political pressure and influence.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dags - you mention Ashcroft's testimony, but I think Gonzales' testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year (Jan or Feb) is more interesting. He said there has "not been any serious disagreement about the program (warrentless wiretapping)." It seems fairly obvious that at least Ashcroft and FBI director Mueller disagreed. (Comey obviously did, too.)
Not if he was speaking of the warrentless wiretapping program as implemented.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But that's just a trick then, isn't it? I mean, he was asked about the program as a whole. He responded without qualifying his response having full knowledge that there was in fact serious disagreement about the program (although it's possible he doesn't remember going into a sick man's hospital room to pester him into signing something that the acting AG wouldn't).
Resorting to tricks to conceal information isn't something I think we should support when our AG is testifying before Congress. I think we deserve an accurate accounting of things from the AG, so much as it is consistent with security concerns, which I can't see actually telling the truth here would hurt.
---
edit: Also, there was dissention about how they were implemented. That's the whole point. As they are currently implemented, we don't know if there is dissention or not. We also don't know how they are implemented and whether people who had problems with them before would have problems with them now.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, it's not a trick. The program was modified specifically to not have serious disagreement about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's positively Clintonian. I believe Clinton was disbarred for exactly that sort of parsing. Who would have jurisdiction to revoke Gonzalez' license to practice law?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Dagonee,
quote:Not if he was speaking of the warrentless wiretapping program as implemented.
This is an honest question, as you're the constitutional scholar. If Comey's testimony is true, did Gonzales open himself to charges of perjury, false statements and/or obstruction of justice? (He was testifying under oath when he said there was no serious disagreement.) How would such a case proceed, if at all? What would be Gonzales' defense, and the prosecution's argument?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
yes, but saying that there has "never been any serious disagreement about the program" is false, unless you add a mental crossing the fingers of as it is currently implemented -assuming that this is true. It's a half-truth, at best.
He was being asked about the program as whole. If he decides to (if this is actually what happened instead of it being an outright lie) narrow the context so as not to fully answer a question, it is a trick to not inform people of the context that you are imposing.
I have no problem saying that this is not acceptible behavior. I don't want to speak for you Dag, but it seems to me like you think what he did was okay. Is that accurate?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The program was modified specifically to not have serious disagreement about it.
That's seems disingenuous to me. Serious disagreement was clearly not the impetus for the changes. The program was continued without DoJ signing off on it and in the face of serious disagreements over it. They went so far as to step outside of the proper chain of comand and pester a sick man in the hospital to have to not accomodate people's serious disagreements. And, when that didn't work and he expressed serious disagreement, they did it anyway. The thing that changed the program was the threat of visible high level people resigning.
For all we know, there were still serious disagreements about it, just not ones grave enough to cause people to immediately resign.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Kasie, I'm not sure I understand. I was addressing Dag there, not you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I have no problem saying that this is not acceptible behavior. I don't want to speak for you Dag, but it seems to me like you think what he did was okay. Is that accurate?
I don't understand how you think that - I added a conditional that limits the scope of my okay.
I would need to see the question that prompted this answer. If the preceding questions deal with defining the program and deciding its limits prior to implementation, then I think it was at best misleading, at most an outright lie. I'd need specifics to clarify.
If the preceding questions all deal with the specific limits as implemented, then I'd think it's at worst misleading (which would not be OK) and at best perfectly accurate. I'd need specifics to clarify.
quote:That's positively Clintonian. I believe Clinton was disbarred for exactly that sort of parsing.
No, it's not. I think you all have an unrealistic view of institutional decision-making processes. I've never been involved in any major multi-person decision that did not involve resolution of serious disagreement. Yet, in the event an agreement was reached to implement a jointly-approved program, I - and hundreds of other people who I have been involved in such decisions - would not characterize that program as being the subject of major disagreement. The other programs - the ones considered and rejected, probably by the hundreds during the course of decision-making - were programs about which there was significant dissension.
If someone asked, "Was there dissension in deciding on which program to implement?" I'd answer "Yes." If the question was, "Has there been dissension about this program and the way it has been implemented?" I would answer "No."
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
MrSquicky - My bad. I missed crucial "you" - implying Dags obviously disagreed, but my position was unclear. My mistake.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: And, when that didn't work and he expressed serious disagreement, they did it anyway. The thing that changed the program was the threat of visible high level people resigning.
For two days.
quote:For all we know, there were still serious disagreements about it, just not ones grave enough to cause people to immediately resign.
Yes, "for all we know." But Kasie's question was based on what we do know, and my answer was limited to that, expressing conditionals to fill in the gap.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think you all have an unrealistic view of institutional decision-making processes. I've never been involved in any major multi-person decision that did not involve resolution of serious disagreement. Yet, in the event an agreement was reached to implement a jointly-approved program, I - and hundreds of other people who I have been involved in such decisions - would not characterize that program as being the subject of major disagreement.
See, I WOULD describe those processes as having been the subject of major disagreement. Specifically, I would have volunteered the information that there had been major disagreement in the early stages, but there was consensus on the program in its current form.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
The relevant piece of the transcript:
SCHUMER: I have to say, by the way, that's why I'm disappointed that Chairman Specter wouldn't let us show the clip of the president's speech.
Senator Specter said that the transcript speaks for itself. But seeing the speech, with its nuances, is actually very different from reading the record. And when you watch the speech, it seems clear that the president isn't simply talking about roving wiretaps, he's talking about all wiretaps, because the fact that you don't wiretap citizens without a warrant has been a bedrock of American principles for decades.
Nonetheless, having said that, I am gratified that these hearings have been a lot less partisan than the previous ones we held in this room. And many Republican colleagues have voiced concerns about the administration policy. I want to salute my Republican colleagues for questioning some of these policies: Chairman Specter and Senator DeWine, Senator Brownback, Senator Graham and others.
But it's not just Republican senators who seriously question the NSA program, but very high-ranking officials within the administration itself.
Now, you've already acknowledged that there were lawyers in the administration who expressed reservations about the NSA program.
SCHUMER: There was dissent; is that right?
GONZALES: Of course, Senator. As I indicated, this program implicates some very difficult issues. The war on terror has generated several issues that are very, very complicated.
SCHUMER: Understood.
GONZALES: Lawyers disagree.
SCHUMER: I concede all those points. Let me ask you about some specific reports.
It's been reported by multiple news outlets that the former number two man in the Justice Department, the premier terrorism prosecutor, Jim Comey, expressed grave reservations about the NSA program and at least once refused to give it his blessing. Is that true?
GONZALES: Senator, here's the response that I feel that I can give with respect to recent speculation or stories about disagreements.
There has not been any serious disagreement -- and I think this is accurate -- there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations which I cannot get into.
I will also say...
SCHUMER: But there was some -- I'm sorry to cut you off -- but there was some dissent within the administration. And Jim Comey did express, at some point -- that's all I asked you -- some reservations.
GONZALES: The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we're talking about today. They dealt with operational capabilities that we're not talking about today.
SCHUMER: I want to ask you, again, about -- we have limited time.
GONZALES: Yes, sir.
SCHUMER: It's also been reported that the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, respected lawyer and professor at Harvard Law School, expressed reservations about the program. Is that true?
GONZALES: Senator, rather than going individual by individual, let me just say that I think the differing views that have been the subject of some of these stories did not deal with the program that I'm here testifying about today.
SCHUMER: But you were telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program, is that right?
GONZALES: Senator, I want to be very careful here, because, of course, I'm here only testifying about what the president has confirmed.
And with respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you're identifying had concerns about this program.
SCHUMER: There are other reports, I'm sorry to -- you're not giving me a yes-or-no answer here. I understand that.
Newsweek reported that several Department of Justice lawyers were so concerned about the legal basis for the NSA program that they went so far as to line up private lawyers. Do you know if that's true?
GONZALES: I do not know if that's true.
SCHUMER: Now, let me just ask you a question here.
You mentioned earlier that you had no problem with Attorney General Ashcroft, someone else -- I didn't want to ask you about him; he's your predecessor -- people have said have doubts. But you said that you had no problem with him coming before this committee and testifying when Senator Specter asked, is that right?
GONZALES: Senator, who the chairman chooses to call as a witness is up to the chairman.
SCHUMER: The administration doesn't object to that, do they?
GONZALES: Obviously, the administration -- by saying that we would have no objection doesn't mean that we would waive any privileges that might exist.
SCHUMER: I understand. I got that.
But I assume the same would go for Mr. Comey, Mr. Goldsmith and any other individuals. Assuming you didn't waive executive privilege, you wouldn't have an objection to them coming before this committee.
GONZALES: Attorney-client privilege, deliberative privilege. To the extent that there are privileges, it is up to the chairman to decide who he wants to call as a witness.
But let me just say that if we're engaged in a debate about what the law is and the position of the administration, that is my job and that's what I'm doing here today.
SCHUMER: I understand. And you are doing your job.
And that's why I am requesting, as I have in the past, but renewing it here today, reaffirmed even more strongly by your testimony and everything else, that we invite these people, that we invite former Attorney General Ashcroft, Deputy Attorney General Comey, OLC Chair Goldsmith to this hearing and actually compel them to come if they won't on their own.
And as for privilege, I certainly...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There has not been any serious disagreement -- and I think this is accurate -- there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed.
Ooo! He's good. Dag, I have to ask: are you secretly Alberto Gonzalez? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think that nothing Gonzales said was a lie based solely on Comey's testimony. He qualified again and again that he was talking about the "confirmed"* program, and Schumer seems to acknowledge this: "But you were telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program, is that right?"
So there's no case to be made that Schumer was misled.
However, Gonzales didn't answer the question asked, and I don't find that OK at all. Schumer shouldn't have let him get away with it, but the ultimate fault for not answering "It's been reported by multiple news outlets that the former number two man in the Justice Department, the premier terrorism prosecutor, Jim Comey, expressed grave reservations about the NSA program and at least once refused to give it his blessing. Is that true?" lies with Gonzoles.
I'm not sure what Schumer could have done to insist on an answer, but I wish he had pressed on it and gotten a definite "I'm not going to answer that" on the record. Again, though, ultimate fault is Gonzales for not answering.
*Assuming "confirmed" means "the one that got certified by Ashcroft or Comey 2 days after the trip to the hospital."
[ May 17, 2007, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ok, I withdraw my statements with apologies. My impression was incorrect. The news coverage I saw on this seems pretty biased now.
I need to look at primary sources more.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Is there an issue with the fact that the White House made the decision to go ahead without Justice support and only agreed to change the program in the face of mass resignations? Did the White House break the law for whatever short amount of time the program was authorized and not supported by the Justice Department?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I think you all have an unrealistic view of institutional decision-making processes. I've never been involved in any major multi-person decision that did not involve resolution of serious disagreement. Yet, in the event an agreement was reached to implement a jointly-approved program, I - and hundreds of other people who I have been involved in such decisions - would not characterize that program as being the subject of major disagreement.
See, I WOULD describe those processes as having been the subject of major disagreement. Specifically, I would have volunteered the information that there had been major disagreement in the early stages, but there was consensus on the program in its current form.
Tom, disclosing internal decision-making processes is almost always a bad idea. This is generally accepted in institutional settings, and this general acceptance means that people assume that questions are not being asked about internal decision-making processes unless they are explicit. Often, people don't care.
My "No" would only be given if I thought they had some business knowing.
As it stands, I think the original question was explicitly asking for information about the decision-making process, I think Gonzales should have answered it, but I think his refusal was not a lie. I think Congress does have business knowing about the existence of dissent, although not necessarily all the details. Gonzales cut it off far from the line, though.
He should have answered.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:disclosing internal decision-making processes is almost always a bad idea. This is generally accepted in institutional settings
And you know I disagree with this premise in its entirety. It's one of the reasons I dislike the mere existence of an executive branch. I think it is assumed by many people that complete transparency is bad, but I think they're provably wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Squicky.
quote:Is there an issue with the fact that the White House made the decision to go ahead without Justice support and only agreed to change the program in the face of mass resignations? Did the White House break the law for whatever short amount of time the program was authorized and not supported by the Justice Department?
Maybe. But it's not the issue we've been talking about.
The Justice department approval was (if I'm understanding this all correctly) voluntary check put in place by the Bush administration. Running without the approval doesn't affect the legality of the program.
However, the reason Justice withheld approval might affect that legality. We don't know the reason, hence the maybe.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And you know I disagree with this premise in its entirety. It's one of the reasons I dislike the mere existence of an executive branch. I think it is assumed by many people that complete transparency is bad, but I think they're provably wrong.
I can say it's a tremendously bad idea in business. Don't feel like discussing the poli-sci implications right now. But I do think that some confidentiality in giving and taking advice is absolutely necessary.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:For two days.
I'm not sure I understand why this is relevant. Could you explain?
For me, the context of going to the hospital bed of an ail John Ascroft as an end run around the legitimate authority, getting, rebuffed, and then going ahead with it anyway coupled with the response only after being threatened clearly defines the situation.
The length of time seems directly connected to when the threat was made.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The length of time seems directly connected to when the threat was made.
Yes, I'm not disputing that. I think the statement that DoJ thought this serious enough to resign over is what caused reconsideration. The length of time was related to how long the program ran after the final DoJ refusal and correction.
I suspect - and this is pure speculation - that Bush first learned the extent of the opposition when he the resignation came up. Which is not meant as either a compliment to or a defense of Bush or his staff. It's pretty appalling, actually, if true.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think the statement that DoJ thought this serious enough to resign over is what caused reconsideration.
What do you think caused the late night visit to John Ashcroft's intensive care room as an attempt to circumvent the legitimate authority?
edit: To me, this indicates that they weren't concerned with the serious objection that the acting AG raised.
I'm having problems reconciling that with the view that the active force behind the resignation threat was a concern over the problems as opposed to fear of the political damage.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What do you think caused the late night visit to John Ashcroft's intensive care room as an attempt to circumvent the legitimate authority?
edit: To me, this indicates that they weren't concerned with the serious objection that the acting AG raised.
Which is perfectly consistent with what I said: they didn't consider them serious absent the threat.
quote:I'm having problems reconciling that with the view that the active force behind the resignation threat was a concern over the problems as opposed to fear of the political damage.
My suspicion stated above reconciles this, I think.
Even if that suspicion is not true - and I wouldn't even try to assign a probability to it - it's very possible that Bush was giving more weight to his long-time associate's legal opinion, based on familiarity and Gonzales's better knowledge of how to convince Bush of something. The resignation, however, would be very convincing to Bush as an indication of the strength of their convictions, even outside of the political concerns.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Which is perfectly consistent with what I said: they didn't consider them serious absent the threat.
That seems very unlikely to me. It (edit: seems to me to) suppose that they believed that Comey and Ashcroft were prone to making frivolous objections on matters vital to national security.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's a big difference between "serious enough to overcome Gonzales's influence on the President" and "frivolous."
(I know I didn't qualify "serious" that way, but that's what I meant by it.)
Anyway, it seems we simply disagree about the most likely explanation. We're both guessing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:There's a big difference between "serious enough to overcome Gonzales's influence on the President" and "frivolous."
I think you are shifting contexts with the first bit here. The seriousness of the acting AG and extremely ill AG both saying "We won't sign off on the legality of this issue." isn't determined by how much someone else is advocating for it.
You are now (edit: clarifying to say) that maybe they considered them serious, but it wasn't until they threatened to quit that they realized that they were serious enough to override Gonzales saying "We should do this."
That seems both implausible and, if true, a really poor comment on how the Bush administration approaches matters like this.
Either way, this seems to call for increased scrutiny and oversight of these processes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I still don't see why you consider that implausible.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The idea that the White House thought "Oh, they don't really mean it when they refuse to certify this program that we are all clear is an extremely important matter of national security."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't think that's what they thought.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Then what do you think?
In the situation, from the DoJ's view, they would be stoppping the domestic spying program by refusing to sign off on it. If they agreed, which seems to be the case, that this was a vital tool for national security, I don't see how the idea that they were doing this for anything other than extremely serious reasons is plausible.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That the resignation made Bush reconsider and give more weight to their opinion.
Again, "They don't really mean it" is a far cry from thinking it's a legal dispute which is serious enough to make someone not want to put their name on it - which is a far cry from a legal dispute which is serious enough to make someone willing to resign if the white house went ahead.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:a legal dispute which is serious enough to make someone not want to put their name on it
As I understand it, that is not how it was structured. Rather, continuation of the program was understood to be contingent on continued approval of the DoJ.
Although it's possible my understanding is flawed. I've been very busy and the depth I look into these things is not what it once was.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kasie H: Also, I think Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's questioning of Gonzales in the more recent hearings also is interesting - he put up boards displaying the number of contacts between the White House and the Justice Department. Under Clinton, there were two people at Justice and two people in the White House authorized to talk to one another - otherwise, no communication was allowed. In the Bush White House, that number shot up - I want to say it is at least 50, though I would have to go back and read the transcript for sure. Whitehouse's point was that there is no attempt to control how and when the White House can talk to Justice officials, opening the door to political pressure and influence.
I believe those numbers (4 under Clinton, 50 under Bush, or whatever the true numbers are) refer to the number of people in the White House who can initiate discussions with the DoJ about specific criminal cases. It's not a general number of who can communicate between the WH and DoJ.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
This is the highlighted Comey quotes I promised last night. While not the most significent legally or politically, I was struck by how these short passages give insight into the events and the people involved.
quote: COMEY: Just the three of us at that point.
I tried to see if I could help him get oriented. As I said, it wasn’t clear that I had succeeded.
I went out in the hallway. Spoke to Director Mueller by phone. He was on his way. I handed the phone to the head of the security detail and Director Mueller instructed the FBI agents present not to allow me to be removed from the room under any circumstances. And I went back in the room.
It seems plausible that Comey and FBI Director Mueller feared if there was no witness in Ashcroft's room, an ill Ashcroft could be unfairly pressured to sign. Or even worse, Ashcroft's signature could have been forged. As Glenn Greenwald said, it's behavior you'd expect "only in the worst cases of deceitful, conniving relatives coercing a sick and confused person to sign a new will."
quote: And he said it was Mr. Card wanting to speak to me. I took the call. And Mr. Card was very upset and demanded that I come to the White House immediately.
I responded that, after the conduct I had just witnessed, I would not meet with him without a witness present.
He replied, What conduct? We were just there to wish him well.
And I said again, After what I just witnessed, I will not meet with you without a witness. And I intend that witness to be the solicitor general of the United States.
"What conduct? We were just there to wish him well." Who does Card think he's fooling? He's lying about an event that had just happened, to someone who was there. Card comes across here as someone who's a such a reflexive spinner of BS that he's seems slightly delusional. And the thing about having a witness. These are two high-ranking men in the administration. They're on the same team. Usually when you demand that a witness be present, it's a highly adversarial confrontation. Which at this point, it had degenerated into.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Card comes across here as someone who's a such a reflexive spinner of BS that he's seems slightly delusional.
It sounds to me more like someone who thinks he might be speaking on the record about something that happened off the record.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Gonzales No Confidence Vote Sought Thursday, May. 17, 2007 By AP/LAURIE KELLMAN Two Senate Democrats said Thursday they will seek a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over accusations that he carried out President Bush's political agenda at the expense of the Justice Department's independence.
Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California, who have led the investigation into the conduct of White House officials and Gonzales, said the attorney general has been too weakened to run the department. Just when such a vote might occur in the Senate was uncertain.
The President was asked today about Comey's Senate testimony, specifically if he personally ordered Card and Gonzales to go to Ashcroft's bedside for his approval of the program. He ducks the question, and not very well. It seems to me that he did, and the way he answered this question supports that. There's an old saying, "the longest 'no' is the surest 'yes'". Also, the briefs on the program to Congress were lacking in various ways.
quote: PRESIDENT BUSH: That's right. Kelly O'Donnell.
Q Thank you, sir. There's been some very dramatic testimony before the Senate this week from one of your former top Justice Department officials, who describes a scene that some senators called "stunning," about a time when the wireless -- when the warrantless wiretap program was being reviewed. Sir, did you send your then Chief of Staff and White House Counsel to the bedside of John Ashcroft while he was ill to get him to approve that program? And do you believe that kind of conduct from White House officials is appropriate?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Kelly, there's a lot of speculation about what happened and what didn't happen; I'm not going to talk about it. It's a very sensitive program. I will tell you that, one, the program is necessary to protect the American people, and it's still necessary because there's still an enemy that wants to do us harm.
And therefore, I have an obligation to put in place programs that honor the civil liberties of the American people; a program that was, in this case, constantly reviewed and briefed to the United States Congress. And the program, as I say, is an essential part of protecting this country.
And so there will be all kinds of talk about it. As I say, I'm not going to move the issue forward by talking about something as highly sensitive -- highly classified subject. I will tell you, however, that the program is necessary.
Q Was it on your order, sir?
PRESIDENT BUSH: As I said, this program is a necessary program that was constantly reviewed and constantly briefed to the Congress. It's an important part of protecting the United States. And it's still an important part of our protection because there's still an enemy that would like to attack us. No matter how calm it may seem here in America, an enemy lurks. And they would like to strike. They would like to do harm to the American people because they have an agenda. They want to impose an ideology; they want us to retreat from the world; they want to find safe haven. And these just aren't empty words, these are the words of al Qaeda themselves.
And so we will put in place programs to protect the American people that honor the civil liberties of our people, and programs that we constantly brief to Congress.
I don't necessaily agree with your interpretation, Morbo. I think that it is at least equally likely that he is deliberately not answering the question so that people don't have any more to go with on it. In either case, that he ordered it or that they went on their own hook, he doesn't want the truth to get out.
Which is not to disagree with the idea that his answers were crap and he should be held accountable for them. Just that I don't necessarily think it leads to what you said it does.
---
Although, here's an ethical dilemma. In an instance like this, where the President is acting irresponsibly and dishonestly from his position of power, is it acceptible to apply one of the interpretations (as a likely scenario that isn't ruled out by what anyone has said) and run with it as a way of putting pressure on the President to actually answer that question?
Something like taking the angle "President doesn't deny that he sent people to harrass John Ashcroft in intensive care."
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
COMEY: Mrs. Ashcroft reported that a call had come through, and that as a result of that call Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales were on their way to the hospital to see Mr. Ashcroft.
SCHUMER: Do you have any idea who that call was from?
COMEY: I have some recollection that the call was from the president himself.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
2. In Febuary 2006, hearings were being planned in the Senate Judiciary Committee on the NSA program. The DoJ in general and AG Gonzales "strongly discouraged" the Committee from calling former Attorney General Ashcroft and his deputy, James Comey as witnesses. After Comey's recent eye-opening testimony, it's obvious why Gonzales did not want him or Ashcroft testifying.
quote: In addition, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales signaled in an interview with The Washington Post yesterday that the administration will sharply limit the testimony of former attorney general John D. Ashcroft and former deputy attorney general James B. Comey, both of whom have been asked to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the program.
"Clearly, there are privilege issues that have to be considered," Gonzales said. "As a general matter, we would not be disclosing internal deliberations, internal recommendations. That's not something we'd do as a general matter, whether or not you're a current member of the administration or a former member of the administration."
"You have to wonder what could Messrs. Comey and Ashcroft add to the discussion," Gonzales added.
quote: Specter's committee will continue to investigate the program's legality at a Feb. 28 hearing. The Justice Department strongly discouraged him from calling former Attorney General John Ashcroft and his deputy, James Comey, to testify about the surveillance program.
Just as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales could not talk about the administration's internal deliberations when he appeared before the committee earlier this month, neither can Ashcroft or Comey, Assistant Attorney General William Moschella said in a letter to Specter obtained Thursday.
“In light of their inability to discuss such confidential information, along with the fact that the attorney general has already provided the executive branch position on the legal authority for the program, we do not believe that Messrs. Ashcroft and Comey would be in a position to provide any new information to the committee,” Moschella said.
quote:Gonzales's testimony in 2006 was that officials expressed no reservations that "dealt with the program that we are talking about today." Presumably he was being extraordinarily careful with his words -- "the program that we are talking about today" had already been modified, two years earlier, to avoid what threatened to become a Wednesday Night Massacre. Before those changes, the attorney general neglected to tell Congress, the program had caused a legal riot.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)