Comey's testimony raises new and vital questions about the N

[Enforcer Talen]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... nsa_comey/

The testimony yesterday from James Comey re-focuses attention on one of the long unresolved mysteries of the NSA scandal. And the new information Comey revealed, though not answering that question decisively, suggests some deeply troubling answers. Most of all, yesterday's hearing underscores how unresolved the entire NSA matter is -- how little we know (but ought to know) about what actually happened and how little accountability there has been for some of the most severe and blatant acts of presidential lawbreaking in the country's history.

The vital issue highlighted by Comey's testimony

President Bush ordered the NSA to engage in warrantless eavesdropping back in October 2001. The incidents which Comey described yesterday -- whereby the DOJ refused to certify the program's legality -- occurred in March, 2004, two-and-a-half years later. Since the NSA was spying on Americans outside of FISA the entire time, what prompted the DOJ suddenly to "reexamine" the legality of the program after all that time?

Comey did not say specifically what prompted that re-evaluation. This is all he said on that topic:

In the early part of 2004, the Department of Justice was engaged -- the Office of Legal Counsel, under my supervision -- in a reevaluation both factually and legally of a particular classified program. And it was a program that was renewed on a regular basis, and required signature by the attorney general certifying to its legality.

And the -- and I remember the precise date. The program had to be renewed by March the 11th, which was a Thursday, of 2004. And we were engaged in a very intensive reevaluation of the matter.

Comey then made clear that he and Ashcroft met, determined that the NSA program lacked legal authority, and agreed "on a course of action," one whereby the DOJ would refuse to certify the legality of the NSA program. Yet even once Ashcroft and Comey made clear that the program had no legal basis (i.e., was against the law), the President ordered it to continue anyway. As Comey said: "The program was reauthorized without us and without a signature from the Department of Justice attesting as to its legality."

Amazingly, the President's own political appointees -- the two top Justice Department officials, including one (Ashcroft) who was known for his "aggressive" use of law enforcement powers in the name of fighting terrorism and at the expense of civil liberties -- were so convinced of its illegality that they refused to certify it and were preparing, along with numerous other top DOJ officials, to resign en masse once they learned that the program would continue notwithstanding the President's knowledge that it was illegal.

The overarching point here, as always, is that it is simply crystal clear that the President consciously and deliberately violated the law and committed multiple felonies by eavesdropping on Americans in violation of the law.

Recall that the only federal court to rule on this matter has concluded that the NSA program violated both federal law and the U.S. Constitution, and although that decision is being appealed by the Bush administration, they are relying largely on technical arguments to have it reversed (i.e., standing and "state secrets" arguments) and -- as has been true for the entire case -- are devoting very little efforts to arguing that the program was actually legal or constitutional.

Yet even once Bush knew that both Aschcroft and Comey believed the eavesdropping was illegal, he ordered it to continue anyway. As Anonymous Liberal wrote yesterday:

That's a rather stunning fact, and one that I wish at least a few mainstream journalists would attempt to grasp the significance of. The White House authorized a program that everyone of significance in the Justice Department had determined to be lacking any legal basis. They willfully violated the law.

Even The Washington Post Editorial Board -- long tepid, at best, concerning the NSA scandal -- recognizes that Comey has offered "an account of Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source." And as I documented yesterday, these "shocking" revelations were long concealed due to Alberto Gonzales' patently false assurances that the testimony of Comey and Ashcroft -- which Democrats on the Senate Judiicary Committee sought last year -- would not "add to the discussion."

What more glaring and clear evidence do we need that the President of the United States deliberately committed felonies, knowing that his conduct lacked any legal authority? And what justifies simply walking away from these serial acts of deliberate criminality? At this point, how can anyone justify the lack of criminal investigations or the appointment of a Special Counsel? The President engaged in extremely serious conduct that the law expressly criminalizes and which his own DOJ made clear was illegal.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Well this forces the Dems' hand. It's all in; pot's called.

We now have a choice: Impeach or Die.

[Patrick Degan]

Comey then made clear that he and Ashcroft met, determined that the NSA program lacked legal authority, and agreed "on a course of action," one whereby the DOJ would refuse to certify the legality of the NSA program. Yet even once Ashcroft and Comey made clear that the program had no legal basis (i.e., was against the law), the President ordered it to continue anyway. As Comey said: "The program was reauthorized without us and without a signature from the Department of Justice attesting as to its legality."

Amazingly, the President's own political appointees -- the two top Justice Department officials, including one (Ashcroft) who was known for his "aggressive" use of law enforcement powers in the name of fighting terrorism and at the expense of civil liberties -- were so convinced of its illegality that they refused to certify it and were preparing, along with numerous other top DOJ officials, to resign en masse once they learned that the program would continue notwithstanding the President's knowledge that it was illegal.

The overarching point here, as always, is that it is simply crystal clear that the President consciously and deliberately violated the law and committed multiple felonies by eavesdropping on Americans in violation of the law.

Certainly seems to meet the standard of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" to me.

[Glocksman]

Two things:

One, who the hell would have thought that Gonzales would make John Ashcroft into a defender of civil liberties??
Two, as was pointed out on another board, Bush and Cheney aren't the only ones who can be impeached. Congress has the power to remove Gonzales, if they choose to exercise it.

[Elfdart]

I just heard on the news that the Senate is going to demand his resignation next week.

[Enforcer Talen]

Could you link an article? -likes confirmation-

And, I was shocked about Ashcroft as well.

[SirNitram]

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

Their announcement is the latest in a series of blows suffered by Gonzales this week, including new criticism from Republicans and the prediction of one GOP veteran that the investigation into the firings of federal prosecutors would end with the attorney general's resignation.

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Thursday that the Justice Department can't properly protect the nation from terrorism or oversee Bush's no- warrant eavesdropping program with Gonzales at the helm.

"I have a sense that when we finish our investigation, we may have the conclusion of the tenure of the attorney general," Specter said during a committee hearing. "I think when our investigation is concluded, it'll be clear even to the attorney general and the president that we're looking at a dysfunctional department which is vital to the national welfare."

His comment echoed new criticism of Gonzales this week. Former deputy attorney general James Comey testified that Gonzales tried to get his predecessor as attorney general, John Ashcroft, to approve Bush's eavesdropping program as Ashcroft lay in intensive care.

Asked twice during a news conference Thursday if he personally ordered Gonzales and then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card to Ashcroft's hospital room, Bush refused to answer.

"There's a lot of speculation about what happened and what didn't happen. I'm not going to talk about it," Bush said.

The tale inspired Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., to become the fourth Republican senator to call for Gonzales' resignation. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., joined in the criticism.

"When you have to spend more time up here on Capitol Hill instead of running the Justice Department, maybe you ought to think about it," Roberts told The Associated Press.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, who has not called for Gonzales' resignation, agreed.

"I have absolutely no confidence in the attorney general or his leadership," said Leahy, D-Vt.

Bush has stood by his longtime friend and adviser, the key to Gonzales' hold on his job.

But just when some predicted that Gonzales had survived the furors over the firings, Comey's testimony helped broaden the Democrat-led probe into whether the attorney general politicized the Justice department at the White House's behest.

Gonzales has said only eight U.S. attorneys were targeted for dismissal. But the Justice Department, over nearly two years, listed as many as 26 prosecutors after concerns were raised about their performances, a senior government official familiar with the process said Thursday.

The Justice Department said it fully supports all of its current U.S. attorneys. The list of 26 names was first reported Thursday by The Washington Post.

Many of the names on various and changing lists of prosecutors under scrutiny "clearly did not represent the final actions or views of the department's leadership or the attorney general," said Justice spokesman Dean Boyd. He said the lists "reflect Kyle Sampson's thoughts for discussion during the consultation process."

Sampson, Gonzales' former chief of staff, oversaw the review that drove the firings. He resigned in March as a result of the department's botched handling of the dismissals.

The developments came as Democrats sought more testimony from current and former Justice Department officials. House Democrats announced that Gonzales' former White House liaison, Monica Goodling, would testify next week under a grant of immunity.

At issue is whether the department, at the White House's urging, tried to cause problems for Democrats by facilitating voter fraud cases and others involving corruption.

Comey's testimony this week further weakened Gonzales among Republicans as well as Democrats.

According to Comey, Gonzales in 2004 pressured Attorney General John Ashcroft to certify the legality of Bush's no-warrant eavesdropping program. The conversation took place at Ashcroft's hospital bedside as the attorney general recuperated from pancreatitis.

Ashcroft rebuffed Gonzales, but the White House certified the program's legality anyway. Faced with the resignations of Ashcroft, Comey and FBI Director Robert Mueller, Bush ordered the program be changed to accommodate Justice's objections.

Democrats said his testimony appeared to contradict Gonzales' account in February 2006, when he told two congressional panels that there had "not been any serious disagreement about the program."

Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman said Gonzales' testimony "was and remains accurate."

Joining Hagel in demanding Gonzales' resignation are GOP Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and John McCain of Arizona, who is a presidential candidate. House Republican Conference Chair Adam Putman of Florida also has called for a new attorney general.

Might be this.

I don't beleive a Vote Of No Confidence holds any weight in the American system, however.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I wish I'd known about that bedside intimidation of Ashcroft back when it actually happened. Christ, does that put the Bush White House in a new and sinister light.

[Patrick Degan]

These people are simply thugs in 3-piece suits.

On another note, I just can't help wondering if any or all of the eight fired U.S. attorneys had any participation in determining that the wiretapping was hopelessly illegal no matter how much the maladministration attempted to redefine, reword, or even respell the law.

Yes, I do wonder...

[Elfdart]

I can't help but wonder if the main reason the Bush Junta has been trying so desperately to cover up the wiretaps is because the taps were used against political opponents.

It's like Nixon covering up Watergate. He wasn't concerned about being linked to simple dirty tricks. He knew that if people started snooping around, all the other illegal shit would come out -shit that would stick to him and stink to high heaven. It's just that Nixon's Plumbers had to actually break into offices and hotel rooms, while their counterparts today can "data mine" with computers.

People don't care that inmates are raped, tortured and killed, especially not foreign inmates. They don't really care about all those dead Iraqis. They care a little about the Americans dying in Iraq. But if word got out that Dubya's flunkies had been using "terrorism" as an excuse to go rifling through private phone calls and e-mails, it might provoke the booboise to do something about it.

[Vaporous]

Stunningly, News Week did an article about this in February of 2006. It even mentioned the "Ashcroft in the ICU" story. It just didn't get any press. Comeny was part of a group of lawyers that had been challenging Cheney's Men over spying and torture, and as we can tell, his side lost. Comney and Goldsmith also had eight or nine friends among the U.S. Attorneys that were helping them fight the spying battle. Guess who they are.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

When people indulge in "See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Speak No Evil", a lot of things slip through the cracks.

Will Democrats finally act? I wonder. However, impeachment of Bush may or may not rally the Republicans to either back or fire Bush, depending on whether they wish to do the courageous thing and loose the next election.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I wish I'd known about that bedside intimidation of Ashcroft back when it actually happened. Christ, does that put the Bush White House in a new and sinister light.

So does the whole Halliburton subsidiary KBR given $385 million to build Detention Camps thing.

[Durandal]

Jesus Christ, is this for fucking real? I saw virtually the same situation on this season of 24. Is this why Bush and his cronies have such a hard-on for torture? They live in 24-land?

And I never thought I'd actually be cheering for John Ashcroft.

[K. A. Pital]

24-land is what they want to make out of America. Today this is rather obvious - 24 is a demonstration of the future, duh.

[Enforcer Talen]

And they all want to be Jack Bauer.

[RedImperator]

Well, now I'm all the way on the impeachment bus now. Even if the maladministration only has a few months left by the time they're actually removed from office, the precedent and the humiliation might be enough to prevent the next president from using the powers the Wonder Chimp illegally usurped.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, now I'm all the way on the impeachment bus now. Even if the maladministration only has a few months left by the time they're actually removed from office, the precedent and the humiliation might be enough to prevent the next president from using the powers the Wonder Chimp illegally usurped.

I'm still opposed to impeachment proceedings because of the fact that they'd be a massive clusterfuck which would result in nothing, and that they'd simply do even more harm to the fabric of the Republic than leaving this motley crew around.

One thing I will note in advance my statement above does not comment on is whether or not legal grounds for impeachment appear to exist, as a distinct issue from whether or not impeachment proceedings should actually take place. And I prefer to let my silence on that matter speak louder than any comment could. It's something that need not be said, now.

[Glocksman]

I'm not totally committed either way with impeaching Georgie the Wonder Chimp because of the factors Duchess mentioned.
But Gonzales has certainly opened himself up to it WRT perjury in his sworn testimony to Congress, and his Repub allies there are few and far between.

[Enforcer Talen]

Id quite cheerfully impeach and send them to real prison. If you can do what Bush did with no repercussions, the system has officially broken.

[Uraniun235]

At this point, since there's such a strong basis for conviction, I'm all for impeachment even if only to have the ultimate final word in any argument with any shithead in the next fifty years who tries to argue that Bush "wasn't that bad".

[Vaporous]

The case for impeachment is pretty air tight at this point. Actually, its been almost airtight since the courts ruled the NSA spying program was illegal.

[CmdrWilkens]

The case for impeachment is pretty air tight at this point. Actually, its been almost airtight since the courts ruled the NSA spying program was illegal.

The LEGAL case for impeachment is airtight but then again so was a case that Clinton perjured himself (because whether or not he should have been forced to testify he certianly did perjur himself). Impeachment is more than just a legal proceeding its a political one and while the House could easily write up articles of impeachment and even actually impeach Bush (which would be neat that we could have two successive Presdient's impeached) but getting the Senate to try and remove him is beyond a long shot.

[Sriad]

I'd be just as happy to see them tried and jailed when they're out of office.

Well, not QUITE, but it's a lot more likely.

[Gil Hamilton]

Even if you impeached Bush and forced him to resign or forced him to stand trial, the first documents on President Cheney's desk would be the ones he needs to sign to pardon him. The system is designed so that top elected officials can't be held criminally accountable unless you get all the hydra heads in a sweep. Look at how Iran-Contra ended with the President firing pardons left, right, and center to allow them to get away with what they did.

However, even if he doesn't ever end up facing the music for his crimes, at least impeaching him will demonstrate that Bush's corruption at least has some resistance, as impotent as it may well be. Going "Well, he deserves to be impeached and all the crimes are there for him to be impeached, but we are scared that impeaching him will piss some people off and lead to a fight" is the sort of thing that has allowed Bush to walk all over everyone. Since day one people have been saying the same thing, that they want to do something and agree that something should be done, but they don't want to risk the backlash themselves.