It sounds to me like Comey was walking a tightrope.

He definitely shied away from “national security-sensitive” answers in open session, but I also got the impression that he wasn’t going to offer up information unsolicited unless he was asked something in a certain way.

Thus, his response to a specifically-framed question which got him afterward to admit that Gonzales and Card wanted him (or the bedridden Ashcroft) to sign-off on a specific Bush executive order, which apparently DOJ officials had judged to be outside the law.

And then, Comey seems to defend the Bush administration by asserting that he couldn’t find any “statutory law” that Bush’s executive order violated, leaving unanswered whether or not he felt Bush’s executive order violated “constitutional law.”

Which makes me wonder how Comey was able to resolve this “statutory” versus “constitutional” discrepancy, thus making it possible (like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat) to somehow make Bush’s “constitutionally” illegal executive order pass the DOJ’s smell test.

In other words, while I respect Comey for testifying, I still get the feeling that he was playing a political game, making me suspicious that he wasn’t being as forthright as he could have been. He volunteered details about the hospital incident, but in other areas he held back.

I presume that in closed session the questions were more forthright, blunt and probing, leading to more forthright and comprehensive answers. No more dancing around the Bush. Our Democracy is at stake.

Political enemies? What else is the “justice” department being used for these days?

Mary4 @ 137

65 – (snip)

From the blogging, it sounds like Comey was trying to be vague on which program, but the question asked seemed to want to pin down which program by referring to whether it was a statutory or non-statutory sign off. I wondered how it came across to those who listened to it.

You think it was pretty clear it was the NSA’s “TSA” program (aka, per Gonzales, as “the specific program which the President has disclosed” – as opposed to whatever else may be out there I guess) as opposed to NSA’s telecom program?

But given Comey’s reticence, could there have been another program that was more deeply classified, that we don’t yet know about, that hasn’t hit the news yet? Scary.

Yeah, I was thinking this: If real terrorism had been at issue–tracking a nuke in a city, or a second 9/11, etc.–all these guys (Comey, Mueller and other “rule of law” types) would have stood down. I think the ethic–in this fear-driven law enforcement atmosphere–is, you do what you have to, and, if you’re honorable, you’re willing to take the legal consequences. If it’s real–a real threat that is being tracked.

But they wouldn’t stand down on the type of spying that Gonzo and Cabal were up to. So, a) the good guys didn’t think it had anything to do with real national security threats, and b) fought it like the devil, at the risk of their careers (and, who knows?, maybe their lives.)

Which raises the question: WHO were Gonzo and Cabal so hot to spy on, and WHY? Or, who were they already spying on, that they needed the legal cover that DoJ could give (via the sign-off), and, apparently needed it quite desperately?

Also: Why the rush, the panic? It reminds of the panic I sense in their actions around Plame and Brewster-Jennings. (–so many other ways to punish Joe Wilson, including simply ignoring him, and letting his dissent get swallowed up into the corporate news stream of forgetfulness).

Rushing to Ashcroft’s hospital bed in the middle of the night, to compel a signature from a very sick, drugged AG. ??? Why the rush? What was so compelling in their need to spy on people that they had to have an exemption from FISA rules RIGHT NOW, and/or that they couldn’t have taken to a FISA court for review afterwards (which the law allows)?

I think these are the two most important questions: Who were they spying on, that got people like Mueller and Comey so alarmed? And why were they exhibiting this bizarre behavior toward Ashcroft (that Mueller/Comey & Co. also clearly felt alarmed about)?

Something there we can’t see. The story as told by Comey today is NOT a story about legal niceties. It is a story with meaty underpinnings, causing people to rush around in a panic, either to force a questionable authorization from a sick AG (Gonzo et al), or to stop them from doing that, in a mode of alarm that indicates fear for the sick AG or fear for the country, or fears we know not of.

POSSIBLY all this was related to the deadline for the re-authorization of the spying program, but governments deal with deadlines all the time. They plan for them. Why did this come down to the wire in such a bizarro way? Someone upthread suggests they were spying on Comey and Ashcroft, and were thus alerted to their decision not to sign off on the spying program. That does make sense. And if they were spying on their own appointees, who WEREN’T they spying on?

March 2004. Two big things about to happen–the Abu Ghraib photos exposed (May 2004), and, of course, the election in November. (Also, the CA Sec of State Kevin Shelley was about to sue Diebold, decertify their touchscreens, and demand to see their source code–May 2004. By Aug. ‘04, he was hit with bogus corruption charges, and was driven from office in winter ‘04.)

Were they spying on Kerry (a la McGovern ‘72) and on anyone who could make trouble for them like Shelley, or like those who obtained and disclosed the torture photos or were in any position to witness/whistleblow on Bush Junta crime (a la Daniel Ellsberg)?

If they WERE doing political spying (and black ops), this would account for the REACTION of very, very establishment figures like Mueller and Comey. Just a guess, but I don’t think that legal niceties or CYA was THEIR motivation. Comey’s tale rings too true. He was not just trying to keep the Junta out of legal trouble, or save his own skin or his Dept.’s. And the scene he describes at the hospital does NOT seem like a struggle over mere legal principles, over differing philosophies, or proper or improper ways of fighting terrorism. That’s the sort of thing you do at the office and in meetings–not in desperate dashes up the stairs of hospitals in the middle of the night, while calling the head of the FBI on your cell phone to provide you and the sick AG with protection FROM TOP WHITE HOUSE AIDES.

This is via Balkinization, and it’s the pdf transcript of the Comey hearing.

I don’t know if this post is going to land well. But I’ve been wondering if anyone thought of compiling all the portrait pictures (like the ones shown at the end of NewsHour) like the ones done of the VT victims?

Is there any acknowledgement anywhere of those who have fallen? Does anyone have a link. I’m thinking along the lines of the AIDS quilt, or similar. If any one knows I’d appreciate hearing about it. Thanks.

WaPo has had this running tribute from way back. It’s interactive. You just click on any face and it gives you all the particulars.

It’s also in chronological order. It’s also very sad.

Equally unbelievable is that Ashcroft was apparently on Comey’s side, or at least unwilling to override his decision. Despite being a talking in tongues bible thumper, Ashcroft (perhaps in his drug-induced state) did the right thing.

This little revelation ought to accelerate the end of the current mal-administration, but this has been stated nearly every week for the past two years, and there’s been no end in sight. So as horrific as the crimes alleged here, I suspect we will continue on as usual, in hopes that Dick finally vapor locks or we all simply survive until January 2008.

I think if you read between the lines of Whitehouse’s questions you’ll see the move to call for an Special Prosecutor….

I HOPE SO! About f***ing time!
And I hope an SP with b r o a d authority!

Bob in HI

A person I know who covers the DOJ for a news organization claims that Gonzales is smart and not a bumbling fool.

His bumbling act is to cover the absolute depraved levels of corruptness that he has enabled.

-GSD

my suspicions had been growing…
just wow!!!