So, Mr. Specter asked, does that mean the program went forward illegally? Again, negative: "The Justice Department's certification . . . was not [required] as far as I know.

I have read it six times, and I see Comey's answer as being:

"The Justice Department's certification . . . was not [required] as far as I know

BTW - Custom requires nothing. Custom expects something. Custom is usually observed...

I think you see my point.

As to Comey's many talents, I have no doubt. But since the issue was not settled in court, but through Bush allowing Comey to have his way, we will likely never know.

BTW - Sometimes intelligence information is not gathered to arrest someone, but to be used in other places to do other things.

He may be setting himself up to plead the Fifth, or Executive Privilege, or National Security, but he's not going to get away with "I don't recall."

My answer was:

Sanity C - And why should he have to answer?? Comey has said no law was broken.
If you think one has, let's hear it.

The question was a simple one - did he send Card and Gonzales to visit Ashcroft?

Sailor wrote:

Actual question:

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

I wrote, from the post, what the actual question was:

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?

I don't know why, but neither you, Sanity Clause or Sailor seem to be able to quote the entire question, instead wanting to focus on one part .... did Bush send Card and Gonzales... that doesn't appear to be in dispute.

I say he did. We are violent AGREEEMENT. Again. So what? No law was broken... But wait. Since none was, the Left wants to trash and attack Bush, Gonzales and Card.

Now. I think I have defined their intent, and I state my opposition to such worthless partisan efforts. As I noted to Tracy in another thread, why doesn't the Demos start doing something about Gay Rights, Women's Rights, National Health Care, Drug Law Rationalization, etc....

Heck, they have the hammer. Why not try and build something instead of just tearing things down??
Is it because they have is hate no plan??? Beyond "Bush Bad."

Onward.

You claim that your unlinked to pundit is a war supporter. You say nothing about his opinion of the current administration. BTW - Why do you try such obviously devious things?? Do you think that those who read him in this matter will not ask the obvious question?? Such ploys are unworthy of you and your audience. He writes:

At least as Comey relates it, this affair is not one of mere bad judgment or over-aggressiveness.

But that isn't what you hear from Specter

The implication is that the White House was trying to lean on Justice to do something illegal. But listen to what Mr. Comey actually said as Mr. Specter questioned him. Was he pressured by Mr. Card, Senator Specter asked? No. "I don't know that he tried to pressure me, other than to engage me on the merits and make clear his strong disagreements with my conclusion."

Did they threaten him, or suggest he could be fired? "No sir, I didn't feel threatened, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be read [as threatening]." And what about Mr. Bush, did he twist arms in the Oval? Through FBI director Robert Mueller, Mr. Comey explained, "The President said the Justice Department should do what the Department thinks is right."

You can posture forever, but in the end we find that this was an internal executive branch pis*ing contest over a new guy changing something that had been approved 25 times in a row, and not telling the President's staff it was changed, and not telling them Ashcroft agreed, and not offering to meet with them, or explain why.

I have read nothing that would suggest that Card and Gonzales did anything more than ask Ashcroft what was going on, and was he in agreement, or if he was willing to change. He declined, and they withdrew. Perhaps they had left their hot irons and rack in their offices. (sarcasm alert)

I find the following particularly laughable. It is a vast overstatement and meant to imply things that never came into play. Never happened.

The Justice Department is the part of the government that defines the law for the executive branch. For the White House counsel to defy its judgment on an important legal question is to put the rawest power ahead of the law.

This statement ignores the fact that this was a change from previous policy, stated by an acting AG. No one defied anything. What they did was question. I would certainly expect the DOJ and WH to question each other and actually have disagreements. I mean, wow. What a concept. Two lawyers disagreeing... Stop the presses and tear down the front page!!!

We later find this from Specter's question, which your pundit ignores:

So, Mr. Specter asked, does that mean the program went forward illegally? Again, negative: "The Justice Department's certification . . . was not [required] as far as I know."

At the end I wonder why Comey, when first called, didn't pick up his phone and call Gonzales.... "Hello Gonzales... Comey here... I need to tell you that Ashcroft agreed with me on not signing.... Let's meet in the morning and I'll explain why..."

You know BTD, you have this problem of thinking anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and supports the other side. That is a bad trait because it runs off someone who may disagree with you on one thing, and agree on the other.

In the business world it is called listening and team building. No one succeeds without it.