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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
posted
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."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
