home

FBI Director Contradicts Gonzales; Dem Senators Call For Special Prosecutor

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:12:07 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

AP:

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller said Thursday the government's terrorist surveillance program was the topic of a 2004 hospital room dispute between top Bush administration officials, contradicting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' sworn Senate testimony.

Think Progress:

Sens. Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Russ Feingold, and Sheldon Whitehouse explained in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement that “it has become apparent that the Attorney General has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements” to the Judiciary Committee. They wrote:
We ask that you immediately appoint an independent special counsel from outside the Department of Justice to determine whether Attorney General Gonzales may have misled Congress or perjured himself in testimony before Congress.

< Justice Dept. on Wrongful Convictions: "Not Our Problem" | "Whatever Happened To The Politics Of Hope?" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    FBI Director Contradicts Gonzales; Dem Senators Call For Special Prosecutor | 40 comments (40 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    SP aint gonna happen. (1.00 / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:58:41 PM EST
    I am reminded of again of "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly."

    If you're going to impeach, impeach. Don't talk.

    That's your only hope.

    Arguing over what supposedly maybe could hgave but didn't he don't remember but I do in a hospital room years ago when Gonzales was a staff guy of the Pres is silly to the nth cubed.

    In the meantime the DOJ is rudderless because of useless partisan attacks.

    DOJ is useless (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:40:00 AM EST
    ..because it is misled by Gonzo.

    What happened in that hospital room was no less than an attempted rape of the Constitution. That Gonzo is a serial rapist, and has succeeded on other occaisions is no defense.

    The professional class of prosecutors have rebelled across the country, to the "Rezidents" installed by Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Gonzo. The underlying crime is the use of the federal prosecutors for partisan political purposes in violation of 18 usc 606. Other crimes, like obstruction of justice, and contempt of congress, follow as a result of the attempted cover-up.

    When will Republicans learn the cover-up is always worse than the crime? And when will they stop recycling players and plays from Nixon's playbook?

    Parent

    NM (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:29:12 PM EST
    What happened in that hospital room was no less than an attempted rape of the Constitution. That Gonzo is a serial rapist, and has succeeded on other occaisions is no defense.

    Let's review some facts.

    1. Ashcroft had approved extensions numerous times before.

    2. His Deputy, with no warning to the President or his staff, declined. That's seems a bit much to. Not his declining... he had everyright to do so. But why didn't he call somebody?? Sorry, but that smacks of picking a fight, grandstanding, etc. And yes, I could be wrong. Perhaps he had no idea that him stopping an on going valuable tool in the WOT would get a reaction.

    3. So the President's people went to the Attorney General to plead their case. Now, you may think it in bad taste to go talk to a man in the hospital about his staff stopping an important program, but I don't. There was no priest giving out last rites, the family wasn't huddled waiting for the expected death news. The guy had gallstones! He was in the hospital! So what!!!!!!

    4. From what I have read Ashcroft said no. I have discussed this with Comey and I'm not going to overrule his decision. Fine. No problem.

    BTW - Mueller wasn't in the room. Can you spell "hearay?"

    And then what.

    Comey met with the Pres, expressed his problems and the Pres agreed..

    Wow. That sure is some rape you're speaking of.

    I am sure there are no words in the English language that you could use to describe an actual fight with bloody noses, cut lips....

    The professional class of prosecutors have rebelled across the country

    Your description of this is as accurate as your description of the rape in the hospital room.

    Parent

    leaving out facts (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Sailor on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:58:52 PM EST
    President Bush intervened in March 2004 to avert a crisis over the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program after Attorney General John Ashcroft, Director Robert S. Mueller III of the F.B.I. and other senior Justice Department aides all threatened to resign, a former deputy attorney general testified Tuesday.

    Mr. Bush quelled the revolt over the program's legality by allowing it to continue without Justice Department approval, also directing department officials to take the necessary steps to bring it into compliance with the law, according to Congressional testimony by the former deputy attorney general, James B. Comey.
    [...]
    Mr. Comey said he phoned Mr. Mueller, who agreed to meet him at the hospital. Once there, Mr. Comey said he ''literally ran up the stairs.'' At his request, Mr. Mueller ordered the F.B.I. agents on Mr. Ashcroft's security detail not to evict Mr. Comey from the room if Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card objected to his presence.
    [...]
    Before Mr. Ashcroft became ill, Mr. Comey said the two men had talked and agreed that the program should not be renewed.

    When the White House officials appeared minutes later, Mr. Gonzales began to explain to Mr. Ashcroft why they were there. Mr. Comey said Mr. Ashcroft rose weakly from his hospital bed, but in strong and unequivocal terms, refused to approve the eavesdropping program.
    [...]
    Mr. Card expressed concern about mass resignations at the Justice Department, Mr. Comey said. He told the Senate panel that he prepared a letter of resignation and that David Ayres, Mr. Ashcroft's chief of staff, asked him to delay delivering it so that Mr. Ashcroft could join him. Mr. Comey said Mr. Mueller was also prepared to quit.
    [...]
    At Mr. Comey's urging, Mr. Bush also met with Mr. Mueller, who emerged to inform Mr. Comey that the president had authorized the changes in the program sought by the Justice Department.

    It was illegal. It was unconstitutional. It was supposedly changed.

    BTW, Ashcroft, as has been noted over and over, was not the AG at the time. He gave up that power while he was too sick to perform his duties, just as bush gave it up when he was to inebriated to perform his.

    Parent

    sailor (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:29:18 PM EST
    Amazing. We have a disagreement between members of the administration.

    Guess that never happened before. Wow. Them nasty Repubs arguing with each other.

    And you write:

    It was illegal. It was unconstitutional. It was supposedly changed

    What I'd like to know what made it illegal in Comey's mind in March of 2004 when:

    John Schmidt, associate attorney general of the United States in the Clinton administration, superbly explains why the NSA intercept program is legal under all authorities and precedents:

    "President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
    In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

    Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant."

    Link

    The other issue is that Ashcoft was going to resign. Given that he had approved the plan before, I wonder why he had changed his mind? Could it be that your source, unlinked to thus unverifable, is wrong?

    And BTW - Ashcroft could have resumed his authority at anytime. So that strawman is in flames.

    Parent

    powerlie is not a reputable source (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Sailor on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:45:26 PM EST
    I deliver facts, you deliver opinions.

    The FBI and top Justice officials were willing to resign over this unconstitutional point.

    And then the WH brought it back under FISA.

    Case closed.

    Parent

    Sailor (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 09:40:04 AM EST
    Powerline is Powerline.

    I note you don't dispute the quote.

    Consider this.

    The program had been on going since 9/12/01. As AG, Ashcroft had approved it before March 04. So why did it suddenly become unconstitutional?

    BTW - If I can believe you:

    When the White House officials appeared minutes later, Mr. Gonzales began to explain to Mr. Ashcroft why they were there. Mr. Comey said Mr. Ashcroft rose weakly from his hospital bed, but in strong and unequivocal terms, refused to approve the eavesdropping program.

    So Gonzales is correct. That is not a discussion.

    : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate

    to contend in words b : to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments

    BTW - I give the author 50 style points for the "rose weakly."

    Resign?? If you're gonna resign, resign. Don't talk.

    So there was a dispute among administration members. Wow. It happens among Repubs, but evidently, if I understand your shock, doesn't happen among Demos.

    At the end of the day what will have to be explained to the American people is why anyone would be opposed to a program that targets telephone calls to people in the US from suspected terrorists outside the country, and vice versa.

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:29:46 AM EST
    At the end of the day what will [not] have to be explained to the American people is why anyone would be opposed to a program that targets telephone calls to people in the US from suspected terrorists outside the country, and vice versa.

    No one but you has made the claim.

    What people are opposed to is domestic surveillance of American citizens by the NSA.

    Bolton Testimony Revealed Domestic Spying
    02 January 2006

    This past spring, an explosive nugget of information slipped out during the confirmation hearings of John Bolton... At the hearing in late April, Bolton, a former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, told Congress that since 2001 he had asked the NSA on 10 different occasions to reveal to him the identities of American citizens who were caught in the NSA's raw intelligence reports in what appears to be a routine circumventing of the rules governing eavesdropping on the American public. It turned out that Bolton was just one of many government officials who learned the identities of Americans caught in the NSA intercepts. The State Department asked the NSA to unmask the identities of American citizens 500 times since May 2001.
    What does need to be explained, by you ppj, re this is why you repeatedly make a claim that is untrue, especially since you know it is an untrue claim, and you make it intentionally, knowing it to be untrue.

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:46:53 AM EST
    The description I gave of the NSA plan is accurate, and you have nothing to show otherwise.

    Perhaps Jason Leopold obtained his information from the same source that had Rove indicted.

    i.e. No point is made by Jason that the information requested, if it actually happened, wasn't done legally with warrants, etc and etc.

    I remember during all the moaning by the press that when it was explained correctly to the Americam people, they approved the program.

    That's your problem. The truth wins.

    Parent

    Either stop the lies and pay attention (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:58:08 AM EST
    and read, or give up. You look foolish.

    Patrick Radden Keefe, author of Chatter: Dispatches From the Secret World of Global Eavesdropping, said at the time that he was troubled that, other than the questions raised by Rockefeller, Congress and the Senate showed little concern over the NSA's practices "beyond the specifics involving Bolton."

    "If the National Security Agency provides officials with the identities of Americans on its tapes, what is the use of making secret those names in the first place?" Keefe wrote in an August 11 op-ed in the New York Times. "We now know that this hasn't been the case - the agency has been listening to Americans' phone calls, just not reporting any names. And Bolton's experience makes clear that keeping those names confidential was a formality that high-ranking officials could overcome by picking up the phone."

    Link

    Parent
    that's part of the perjury (none / 0) (#42)
    by Sailor on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:12:45 PM EST
    We have a disagreement between members of the administration.
    and gonzales perjured himself when he said there wasn't one.

    Parent
    So the GOP standard is (none / 0) (#3)
    by Categorically Imperative on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:05:03 PM EST
    If the perjury does not involve a blowjob, but instead relates to matters of national security, it's no big deal

    Parent
    Jim (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:20:24 PM EST
    is not worth responding to.

    Parent
    And if you do ... (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:55:13 PM EST
    ... you get threatened with being banned.

    I am reminded of again of "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly."
    I would have a remark to this obvious fantasy equating real life with a movie, but I'm afraid of being banned.

    Parent
    Sailor (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:03:27 PM EST
    Come on. You know it is not my call on this.

    What can I do?

    Parent

    Yeah, sorry about that (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:21:52 PM EST
    My apologies to both you and Jeralyn.

    I was brought up to hate inequality, it just kinda stuck.

    Parent

    He Is The Resident Opposition (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:28:52 PM EST
    Not such a bad thing to have around.  He loves getting beaten, obviously.

    Parent
    Careful (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:23:55 PM EST
    I wasn't joking, I was threatened with being banned because I responded in kind to ppj.


    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:40:41 PM EST
    His favorite thing is winding us up. Hard not to occasionally slip and let him have it.

    The trick is not to get too enraged at his nonsense, cause no matter how much you complain, he is a fixture here and you are wasting your breath complaining.

    Think of it as spiritual development.

    Parent

    A long time ago (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Peaches on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:44:24 AM EST
    when I used to get on the internet after having a few beers, I came on TL after coming home from the pub and invited ppj to come to my neighborhood bar so I could give him a right smack in the nose.

    After reading my comment the next day, I vowed never again to get incensed by Jim's comments (and also to curtail my visits to the neighborhood bar).

    I don't think Jeralyn would condemn responding in kind to Jim, or to pointing to his misstatements. What crosses the line is when you begin telling her how she should enforce her rules on her site. She is the host and you are the visitor. She will decide who is trolling and which comments be deleted. Her decisions are subjective, so we cannot all be in agreement with them. But, she has done one hell of a job at running this site and like it or not, Jim is a component of this site that keeps people coming back, whether to argue with him or just to ridicule him -I don't know. But, I do wonder what DA, Edger, Jondee, Squeaky and you would do without him.

    Parent

    Peaches - Love you too (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:45:15 PM EST
    And did I take your threat to punch me seriously?

    I might have, but I have since learned better...

    Not like what I have learned about Edger since he invited me to kill myself.

    Which BTW, defines the difference. You speak for yourself while Edger plays the edge. Perhaps his moniker is self revealing, eh??

    For the others, I think this thread speaks for itself.. I opine that a "SP aint gonna happen" and note that if they want do do something quit talking and impeach.

    Do I get any disagreement? Nope. BTD notes that "We'll see." Which is true.

    CI assumes I'm talking about Bush so he decides I'm a Repub and brings up Clinton.

    BTD doesn't respond besides claiming I'm not worth responding to.. his opinion, and of course I have one of him, but so what??

    Sailor wants to do psycho babble over my use of what I think is a funny/cute movie line.

    But I think my usefulness to those on your list is that I provide a whipping horse for them to beat on when they are feeling low.

    I give DA a chance to place links to information showing that he knows how to use Google, even if the info isn't about the subject...

    Edger and Squeaky are both convinced I am a religious fanatic so they stand ready to dispense  the news of any transgressions by any christian or  jew..to balance out the people killed by the terrorists..

    jondee just knows in his heart that I am a racist so he gets to watch my every word with keen interest...

    And Sailor?? Well, I don't know. My theory is that sailor thinks I think I am better than he is so he thinks everything I write is directed at him. (A mouthful. Read twice.)I'm sure there is some psycho babble there, but I am not going to go there.

    The funny thing is that just two days ago I answered kdog's questions most truthfully. If anyone is interested, go read them.

    What you see is what you get.

    And my purpose?

    Why to speak truth to power!

    Now. Anybody here want to tell me why a SP will be appointed??

    Parent

    You're speaking truth to power (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Peaches on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:58:07 PM EST
    all right!

    Knucklehead! ;)

    Parent

    Nicer (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 03:18:30 PM EST
    knuckle is as knuckle does,,,

    ;-)

    Parent

    Engraved invitations... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 03:41:55 PM EST
    to the inaugural conference of the Knucklehead Society are in the mail boys:)

    Parent
    kdog (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:24:48 PM EST
    Think JetBlue will give us any airline tickets?

    Parent
    Nah.... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:51:08 AM EST
    Knuckleheads, at least self-admitted ones, get no love.

    Parent
    I dont think you're (none / 0) (#26)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:27:07 PM EST
    a racist Jim: you're just forced to triangulate with them and the End Timers in order to win. Your chronic, terminal, "who, me?" denial though, makes you almost as culpable, IMO.

    Also, try imagining the fallout if Bush ever quoted an Imperial Wizard in a speech..While I imagine your inevitable defense of such.

    Parent

    Jondee (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:02:10 PM EST
    If Bush quoted one to show how wrong the guy was I'd say he was doing the right thing.

    Would you have a problem with the Pres showing the KKK in a bad light??

    BTW - Next open thread I'll quote the whole to show how wrong you are.

    And "end timers?" I think that is funny. I had never heard that phrase until you brought it out in response to my push on why some one the Left support Hamas and Hezbollah rather than Israel.

    Parent

    DA (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:55:16 PM EST
    Thank you for your usually wonderful explanation about something no one cares about.

    Parent
    To be honest (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:19:40 PM EST
    I've thought the same thing..Galls me to admit it though. Id also miss your concise, non-recriminative posts, Peaches. Luv Ya, Bro.

    Parent
    Luv ya too, Jondee (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peaches on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:37:05 PM EST
    I Always have enjoyed your comments and your zingers. As heated as your back and forths with Jim are at times, I have always sensed a playfulness in your comments that separates you from others. You can't take all this too easily.

    It's as I said before. If jim were my neighbor, or anyone else here for that matter, I'd probably bring him lemonade and my chainsaw over to help cut down a diseased tree without topics of politics or current events ever coming up. Then we'd sit on lounge chairs and talk about sports and women - and that's all right by me.  

    Parent

    correction (none / 0) (#29)
    by Peaches on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:38:40 PM EST
    seriously for easily.

    Have a good weekend all.

    Its my B-day today. I'm 43! My wife has promised me an act that almost got Clinton impeached. :)

    Parent

    I used to let the old man.... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:15:25 AM EST
    get me riled up too....then I had an epiphany, he's just a knucklehead like me passing the time conversing on the internets.

    Now I enjoy our bull sessions...always remembering we are just a couple knuckleheads.

    You can judge a man's character by how he treats his ideological adversary....always remember that fellas.

    Parent

    That about sums it up (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:56:01 PM EST


    Parent
    CI (1.00 / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:01:33 PM EST
    You will have to ask the GOP.

    Parent
    So, (none / 0) (#1)
    by Categorically Imperative on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:40:02 PM EST
    Is Clement, either on his own or under orders, stupid/arrogant enough to attempt to dodge this on some sort of privilege/sep of powers argument?  

    If so, then AGAG really knows where the bodies are buried because there is no credible reason not to investigate his lies and refusal to answer questions on Tuesday.  

    We'll see (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:20:42 PM EST


    Parent
    What will Ascroft say? (none / 0) (#14)
    by zak on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:54:46 AM EST
    Isn't Ascroft waiting in the wings to give gripping testimony about what "really" happenned that day in the hospital?  I know his memory may be hazy from the sedation and all, but in this he said-she said situation he seems like the star witness.  Won't the administration trot him out to bolster Alberto's account?

    zak (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 03:16:41 PM EST
    That's an excellent question.

    My guess is that the longer the Demos wait the more assurance we have that Ashcroft will say nothing of any help to the Demos.

    But I could be wrong. If I was playing the game I would wait until I knew what he was going to say.

    Parent

    ["Ashcroft"] (none / 0) (#15)
    by zak on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:00:30 AM EST
    oops

    FBI Director Contradicts Gonzales; Dem Senators Call For Special Prosecutor | 40 comments (40 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment