What AGAG Learned from the Newspapers
This is a persnickety point, perhaps, but it’s so much more fun to bust Alberto Gonzales in one of his subtle evasions than one of his real blatant lies.
In his most recent appearance before the Senate Judiciary Commitee, Chuck Schumer asked Gonzales whether he knew that Comey had assumed the powers of Acting Attorney General–Schumer was trying to point out how totally inappropriate it was for Gonzales to go to Ashcroft’s hospital room at all.
As is his way, Gonzales invented a lame, transparent excuse for his unethical behavior, admitting only that he "probably knew" that Comey was acting Attorney General and suggesting he learned of that fact from newspaper accounts.
SCHUMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your waiting for the votes.
I have just a few quick questions that I hope you’ll be able to answer quickly and concisely.
First,Mr. Attorney General, at the time you went to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospitalbed, did you know that power had been transferred to Jim Comey?
GONZALES: Ithink there were newspaper accounts, and the fact that Mr. Comey wasthe acting attorney general is probably something that I knew of.
SCHUMER: Probably you know of it?
GONZALES: Well,again sitting here today, I can’t tell you, yes, absolutely I knew. Butlet me make an important point here. The fact the transfer had — let’sassume the transfer had occurred.
There’s no governing legalprinciple that says that Mr. Ashcroft, if he decided he felt better,could decide, "I’m feeling better and I could make this decision andI’m going to make this decision." But to answer your question, I’m…
SCHUMER: But you believe you knew? That’s how — is that a fair characterization?
GONZALES: I would say that — let’s just assume that I knew but, again, I’m not sure that’s the main point.
SCHUMER: Andat the time you went to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital bed — you touched onthis — what was your understanding of Mr. Ashcroft’s authority?
GONZALES: Myunderstanding — sitting here today, my understanding is that — themain focus was — is that Mr. Comey would be making the decision withrespect to this matter. [my emphasis]
Well, of course you knew, you little shit! From Mueller’s log:
Tuesday 3/9/04, 1600: Meeting at Card’s office with Comey, attorneys from OLC, VP, Card, Gonzales, Hayden and others. [my emphasis]
The day before he stormed into Ashcroft’s hospital room, Gonzales attended a meeting about the warrantless wiretapping program with James Comey, who was undoubtedly there in his role as Acting Attorney General.
How about we don’t just assume that you know, Gonzales? How about you tell us what went on in that meeting? Because it’s pretty transparent you were trying to avoid admitting you had met with Comey about this program in his capacity as Acting Attorney General just a day before you barged into the ICU ward.
The depth of AGAG’s morass is stunning. C’mon Nancy, put it on the table. All of them. We will fix America after the dust settles.
A couple of thoughts, seeing as how threads are added frequently and old threads drop off the surveillance of posters …
First, I made a couple of comments about the concern AG Ashcroft might have had about the certifications he would have made, at posts datemarked August 17, 2007 at 08:36 and August 17, 2007 at 09:05. In short, those certification never get inside a courthouse.
Second, the notion of a â€disagreement†within the DoJ over a surveillance program is predicated on a sense that the program is invasive beyond the strictures either of a statute, or of the fourth amendment. IOW, their won’t be disagreement over a program that isn’t contentions, like no warrant to look after foreign spies, or get a warrant to spy on suspected child pornographers.
So, if there is no disagreement over the TSP (acquiring the communications with one person in US, one person out of US, one person Al Qaeda), whatever there WAS disagreement over was/is MORE invasive. DoJ isn’t going to have a heated disagreement over NSA grabbing foreign-to-foreign material, and throwing away (pretend I never saw it) any US-to-foreign (i.e., TSP) material that came in incidentally.
So, was the disagreement over obtaining the communications of US-to-US communications? Or â€no person suspected al Qaeda?
Or is AGAG trying to get people to conclude, â€Well, if there wasn’t any disagreement over the TSP, then whatever the government is doing must be hunky dory.â€
I swear. AGAG makes the damned lamest arguments.
I don’t think there is any doubt that the full story of the Hospital Visit contains the contextual framing that clearly shows BushCo intentionally circumventing the issues of Constitutionality with the Program – they were literally hiding the Program – and any details of its functioning – from everyone outside the Executive Branch.
It’s shocking to hear that Ashcroft may have been serially re-authorizing the Program every 45 days for two years or more – without knowing what he was authorizing, or having any guarantees that it didn’t violate current law, or any form of verification of activities built-in.
Ashcroft may have been acting on blind trust of Bush, hence the phone call on the night of the Hospital Visit when their ’deal’ appeared broken.
To his credit, Ashcroft relented to Comey’s position, backed up presumably by Goldsmith, Philbin and Mueller – but at the very least, that was two plus years of a system with unlimited potential for abuse in the hands of unchecked Dick Cheney and unbalanced George Bush.
I get a kick out of these two in direct juxtaposition:
Next explanation, â€The pain killer kicked in between the time Card and I left and Mueller arrived.â€
I have to admit, he (Gonzales) does put on a pretty darn good show. Can you imagine this clown on SCOTUS?
cboldt,
You made a reference to my reactionary statements in a previous post. I think it’s in the fisa thread which was really good reading.
We are all sexist, racist and ignorant in some ways. What can I say? I was easily manipulated that day. I am not a black and white thinker but I am Irish. (bushco lack of accountability is contagious)
I am enjoying your posts and dialogue on these issues.
Aye; so now ya think bein Irish is an excuse do ya lassie? Blarney! Me, I am just crank cause I’m cranky.
You know, it seems to me that the Program’s secret, compartmentalized components are fivefold:
1. A protocol for the physical recording of voice, email, and browsing history of all communications routing through the NSA’s network. Also commercial and financial transactions, medical records, tax records, anything that travels over a wire. The justification being that the act of gleaning fiber-optic and hard wire communications are little different from using NSA spy satellites to intercept global satellite communications.
2. Quite separately, but directly related, a legal means–essentially a warrant served to the NSA for the materials in (1)–to retroactively access these records for use in: a. covert or overt legal proceedings, or b. presidential findings leading to â€direct action.†DA is WH legalese for assassination.
3. Social networking software showing the relationships between individuals.
4. A rationale for recording U.S. citizens’ information, using cryptic language â€enemies foreign and domestic,†but that could be interpreted as including the communications of associations (political parties, corporate communications, clubs, churches/synagogues/mosques, professional groups such as Nurses’ unions or the ACLU). A corollary to this may include language about being under attack, emergency powers, suspension of habeas corpus, and quashing seditious acts, i.e. political opposition.
5. Distribution of the information to local, state, and federal entities up to and including the FBI, National Counterintelligence Executive (NCIX), as well as the Pengaton’s Defense Security Service (DSS), Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), Measurement and Signals Intelligence (MASINT), and the CIA’s National Clandestine Service (NCS), and Directorate of Human Intelligence (DH).
The technical aspects of (1) may have limited the comprehension of the scope of what the NSA was recording. That is, rather than spelling out that the NSA is recording everything everywhere, the executive order (EO) describes in high technological detail the routers/servers/networks affected by the EO. Therefore Ashcroft and Rockefeller describe frustration with the technological aspects of the Program and their inability to seek counsel due to compartmentalization. They probably received no-notes examination of the EO and a no-notes briefing, and were warned not to seek outside legal or technical counsel. Rockefeller seems to have had the feeling that this may be illegal and so wrote his sealed letter to confess that he had no way of appreciating the Program in a detailed way; he was scared of being a party to multiple felonies.
(1) and (2) Seem to violate the Fourth amendment in that the government needs probable cause to apply for a warrant. Using such unwarranted evidence in court would be a violation of Miranda–Anything you *have ever said* can and will be used against you. But (2) cleverly applies a warrant to data already gathered. A technicality if you will.
Put (3) and (4) together, and you have a violation of freedom of assembly.
(5) would violate posse commitatus (now enfeebled by USA PATRIOT Act) as well as CIA’s charter prohibiting intelligence gathering of â€US Persons.â€
Put it all together and what does it spell? Indiscriminate wiretapping of all U.S. Citizens for the purpose of convicting them, especially in the case of an insurrection or rebellion, and especially directed at leaders of the political opposition.
Gonzales really is pathological.
Jay, we could have some real drama if we add your post to the ones about the law that gives Bush the ability to assert marshall law without an act of congress. Don’t scare me like that.
I am praying for impeachment. Even if they just start with Gonzalez we need to get this show on the road. I wrote my senators and told them to come here to this site and read up on the details. Think they’ll listen?
cboldt – Re: your thoughts on Gonzales on the SC. That could create quite the pair along with Thomas. One mute dense wood bobblehead justice; the other dense wood bobblehead justice constantly yammering inane disingenuous tripe in a squeaky voice. I feel deprived.
Katie Jensen writes:
â€Jay, we could have some real drama if we add your post to the ones about the law that gives Bush the ability to assert marshall law without an act of congress. Don’t scare me like that.
I am praying for impeachment. Even if they just start with Gonzalez we need to get this show on the road. I wrote my senators and told them to come here to this site and read up on the details. Think they’ll listen?â€
Katie,
I have the same apprehensions. Combining the fearmongering about an imminent terrorist attack in August with the FISA law and Cheney’s Iran preoccupation is scary.
I forgot to mention a couple of things in my previous post about â€the Program.†Hayden and Gonzales have maintained that it is â€very focused.†If NSA doesn’t know, per se, precisely what is in the information packets it’s collecting, it can claim ignorance and be unresponsive to FOIA requests and Congressional requests for information. By the same token, the Program’s governing mechanism that issues warrants to NSA can claim that its prerogative is essentially â€targeted†because it isn’t availing itself of everything NSA has. A novel legal theory provides cover from oversight, but inevitably contradictory; if the NSA can provide information to the Program, it should also be able to provide information to Congressional oversight.
The second thing is the possibility that the Program’s information gathering includes records about firearms, something every government would like to know if it faced a terrorist attack or armed insurrection/rebellion. If the National Rifle Association caught wind of that, they’d be screaming blue bloody murder, and the political fallout for Bush would be immediate.
Rove’s resignation stunned me, Cheney’s increased belligerence toward Iran is extremely troubling, as are the economic forecasts. I wouldn’t put it past this WH to use a terrorist attack or to instigate an international incident to do something unprecedented. Something’s clearly happening in the WH right now.
I’ve written my Rep and one Senator to impeach Gonzales. The other Senator is Joe Lieberman so I didn’t even bother but maybe I should. I’d encourage you all to call, write.
bmaz
You talking about me, swearing?
If I were doing it because I’m Irish, I’d be saying â€shite.â€
Nooooo. That was in response to Katie Jensen inferring that she got a bit cranky one day because she was Irish. And, heh, that may be a valid explanation. I, unfortunately, am not Irish; just plain old cranky. It was a lame joke; most of mine are….
Duh. Of course the White House knew its Attorney General had gone into hospital for emergency surgery – that he would be incapacitated for a week or two – and that his top deputy, Comey, had assumed command. Comey’s staff apparently directly informed the WH by phone and fax. Almost certainly, the WH-DOJ liasison would have communicated it, too. And Comey had already attended senior meetings as Acting AG.
Communicating that sort of thing – who’s in charge today? – is a routine governmental, military and business function. Moreover, these guys revel in personnel decisions, in who can exercise authority as top dog or by extension as his or her delegate. Look, for example, at the number of spies they insert as senior staff throughout the government, the number of empty top places they allow, the number of acting heads they resort to, the number of decisions overridden by junior PR types. The chain of command and how it can be circumvented is crucial to their daily work.
The WH knew about Ashcroft, which means that Cheney, Addington and Gonzales knew. So, why did Gonzales lie about something so routine? To hide bigger lies? To avoid being disbarred for obviously unethical behavior? Because he couldn’t admit the obvious – that a govt program it would have been politically dangerous to acknowledge was in jeopardy of being derailed and revealed via mass resignations of conservative, highly credentialed lawyers at the Department of Justice?
Or is it just the unseemly obvious – that ethical and legal obligations no more limit their behavior toward cabinet members than it does toward their detainees?
Perhaps Gonzales explained his knowledge came by way of newspaper accounts to avoid revealing matters subject to executive privilege. Such as what time is it or who’s at the office today, or what Dick might have told him to come back with Ashcroft’s signature or don’t come back at all?
– Because he couldn’t admit the obvious – that a govt program it would have been politically dangerous to acknowledge –
The rationale for not seeking a change in the law was that to do so would tip off bad guys.
So I’m playing around with that, in my head. It means (as against the government) statutes relating to personal privacy are intended to have the effect of FOOLING the public.
At least they admit it.
Let me shorten it up for ya cboldt. We are the bad guys.
– Let me shorten it up for ya cboldt. We are the bad guys. –
I would have gotten there eventually.
You are talking just about Democrats, right? G, D&R
I figure I’m in the top 10% of subjects to be sent to re-education camp. I stopped buying the â€government of the people, for the people and by the people†bullshit about 30 years ago.
â€The depth of AGAG’s morass is stunning. C’mon Nancy, put it on the table. All of them. We will fix America after the dust settles.â€
What do you mean â€fix america afterâ€? This IS how you fix america.
Maybe this has been obvious all along to everybody else, but considering Mueller’s notes, the hospital visit, Comey, Yoo, and all the rest, it occurs to me that there’s probably something about the fact that Gonzalez actually replaces Ashcroft in his job as AG that we’re missing.
Stuff like how you go from an AG who only received partial information about the program and never the big picture, to an AG who previously played a legman role in executing the strategy and must have known all about it, if he wasn’t smart enough to design it himself, that stuff is obvious. So Abu became a safeguard at the top of the DoJ for the TSP. Okay.
I’m trying to set how he managed to get the job and even the USA scandals aside. As we learn more about this, something just doesn’t seem right. It’s probably just the absurdity of the guy who tried to get the critically ill AG to sign off on something himself becoming the AG, but what is the reason? Again, Gonzo seems like the obvious choice for them on a lot of fronts, so there’s no ostensible missing link. I guess a place to start is: what does the timeline say about Ashcroft’s resignation and the Gonzo nomination and hearing? The NYT was sitting on this story through all of this, right?
If nothing else, it’s kind of funny to think about what Gonzo’s nomination hearing would have been like if Leahy and the Dems had been running the SJC and we knew everything we know now.
If nothing else, it’s kind of funny to think about what Gonzo’s nomination hearing would have been like if Leahy and the Dems had been running the SJC and we knew everything we know now.
*******
*******
Or what it would have been like if, even though they were the minority, even ONE of the players in the piece had the guts to go to someone like Leahy or Feingold (or even a Schumer) with the story about the hospital situation so that there could have been questioning about it during the nomination proceeding.
Or what it would have been like if the story had come out before the elections and Bush had been required to answer questions about it.
*sigh*
From the above post:
GONZALES: â€My understanding — sitting here today, my understanding is that — the main focus was — is that Mr. Comey would be making the decision with respect to this matter.â€
Did any one asked Mr. Gonzales what he hoped to accomplish,if authority to make the decision rested with Mr. Comey?
Consider the wording it is still unclear weather Mr.Gonzales knew that authority has been passed on pertinent date.But still this area gives opportunity to senators to ask him what he wanted to achieve trough this meeting.He may claim memory loss but it would be highly ingenious if he claims to not remember this fact.
Further more,is he arguing that Mr. Ashcroft could not have in any case unilaterally overturned the decision in the following answer:
â€There’s no governing legal principle that says that Mr. Ashcroft, if he decided he felt better, could decide, â€I’m feeling better and I could make this decision and I’m going to make this decision.†But to answer your question, I’m…â€
I think Mr.Gonzales would have been happy to make the claim that he didn’t know that Mr.Comey was acting as Attorney General but since there exists some evidence that indicate otherwise he can’t.That is the reason why i thing he is raising the opinion that in any case Mr.Ashcroft could not have made that decision.But that information is only pertinent if Mr.Gonzales knew that Mr.Comey was acting as AG or if he asked Ashcroft to overturn the decision and he refused a gave this reason.If he it is former the former Mr. Gonzales will have to admit either he asked Mr.Ashcroft to make a decision he knew that Mr.Ashcroft didn’t posses the power for or provide a reason for his visit.In the later case if evidence exist that he knew that power have been transfered than he can be impeached,in any case if this evidence is backed up by evidence that he asked Mr.Ashcroft to make that decision the same purpose will be achieved.
Quote from CBolt:
â€It’s shocking to hear that Ashcroft may have been serially re-authorizing the Program every 45 days for two years or more – without knowing what he was authorizing, or having any guarantees that it didn’t violate current law, or any form of verification of activities built-inâ€
Isn’t that EXACTLY what Sen. Rockefeller complained of in his handwritten letter to Cheney? He said he needed to consult experts and felt he was voting to authorze w/o having the info he needed!!
Which brings me back to the FISA ammemndment just before Congress recessed.
WHo was it that said during the debate that â€if it was good enough for the majority of ranking memebers from both parties on the Intelli8gence Committees, it was good enough for himâ€? [even though that is in quoatation marks, it’s a paraphrase]
Quote from Mary:
â€Or what it would have been like if, even though they were the minority, even ONE of the players in the piece had the guts to go to someone like Leahy or Feingold (or even a Schumer) with the story about the hospital situation so that there could have been questioning about it during the nomination proceedingâ€
Hi Mary,
It’s been a while. Howya doin’?
To your quote: What makes you think that no one went to the Dems with this (and lots of other stuff) long before the ’04 elections. What makes you think the Dems didn’t sit on it in the name of â€keeping the powder dry†and not rocking the boat on the midterm elections?
You can lead your Senator of Congressman to evidence, but you cannot make him use it.
LHP – That is quite correct; apparently, not even when a gun is being held to the Constitution. It is just not important enough to the Democratic leadership.