I swear the print media are the laziest sons of …. They must lurk here and other blogs and then claim as their own investigative journalism what the blogs and commentors have detailed. The WishyWashington Post Dana Millbanks has lifted from FDL written:
Ashcroft and the Night Visitors
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ailarticle
“…..Card called the hospital. He “demanded that I come to the White House immediately,” Comey testified. “I responded that, after the conduct I had just witnessed, I would not meet with him without a witness present.”
“He replied, ‘What conduct? We were just there to wish him well.’ “
Millbanks was up early this am reading the comments at FDL:More Breadcrumbs from Comey
By: looseheadprop
Comment #60 RockPaperScizzors says:
May 16th, 2007 at 6:22 am
What happened after Mr. Gonzales and Card left? Did you have any contact with them in the next little while? COMEY: While I was talking to Director Mueller, an agent came up to us and said that I had an urgent call in the command center, which was right next door…. And he said it was Mr. Card wanting to speak to me. COMEY: I took the call. And Mr. Card was very upset and demanded that I come to the White House immediately. I responded that, after the conduct I had just witnessed, I would not meet with him without a witness present. He replied, “What conduct? We were just there to wish him well.” And I said again, “After what I just witnessed, I will not meet with you without a witness. And I intend that witness to be the solicitor general of the United States.” SCHUMER: That would be Mr. Olson
http://gulcfac.typepad.com/geo…..script.pdf

I wonder if Card’s comment will make it to the Nightly News next??

Thanks for sticking up for my intellectual property rights. *g*

Honestly though, the reason I go to the trouble of writing these posts is in the hopes of educating the folks in the MSM so that they can get the story right.

I am trying to help them understand what is before them and help them to other sources of information so that they can see for themselves.

If Dana Millbank was able to write a good story because he read something of mine, I am happy.

Hell, if it didn’t involve outing myself, he could just call me direct.

I contacted the Majority Office this morning and was told they could not make a statement then but should have additional information later in the day. In speaking to a representative in that office about a half hour ago, they did confirm that Gonzal…

I wonder if Card’s comment will make it to the Nightly News next??

229 turkish bill says:

May 16th, 2007 at 10:34 am

Incidentally lhp – you’ve hinted, and maybe even said explicitly that you feel that it would be not simply imprudent but unethical for Comey to be more explicitly critical of AG than he has been (eg, to offer his opinion as to whether AG should resign).

Could you say more about why you see things that way (if I’ve correctly understood your POV)?

I’m neither an American nor a lawyer, though I have great respect for both, and can’t think myself into the mindset that would account for this. (Which is not to say there isn’t one – I found some of Christy’s posts on Fitz very illuminating on this sort of issue.

Quote This Comment

I don’t know if it would be unethical inthe sense of violating the cannons of legal ethics. I didn’t think about it that way.

I do think there is an ethical problem with character assasinating your boss in public. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s opinion of Gonzales is relevant because they have the power to do oversight on him.

As Comey pointed out, he is in the private sector and since Gonzales is not elected, Comey has no direct ovesight over him (ie, with a vote on election day)

I think he was correct to point out that it is not his “place” to offer an opinion. I thought it showed class, dignity and restraint.

It’s a personal ethics standard, not a legal ethics standard.

He invalidated the Constitution when he did that.

Think about it…

You know that this is the methodology that Gonzales would have used on Ashcroft in the hospital if Comey hadn’t raced to Ashcroft’s rescue. A man in intensive care is known to be succeptible to enhanced interrogation techniques. John, we have ways of making you sign this document.

Waterboarding Ashcroft

Re Comey and his role as a whistleblower.

I think the guy is VERY shrewd, and he was keeping his powder dry. He only had one shot at this–and it was to his benefit–as well as to the country’s–to make sure that when he did speak, it had the maximum impact. Don’t forget that he was dealing with classified info. That is, he was bound by the same laws and rules which should’ve bound Libby and Rove. Had he done the typical whistleblower thing, he could’ve been prosecuted, but worse, the value of what he had to say would’ve been comprimised.

It is also worth noting that revealing this program while the rethugs maintained control of congress would’ve been useless. In fact, it is concievable that they would’ve responded by circling the wagons and trying to pass legislation to make the gutting of the constitution legal, somehow.

My guess is that he has thought about all of this very very carefully, and has been willing to wait for the “right” time and place to come forward. As he did yesterday. The guy has prosecuted racketeers–and he knows that sometimes it pays to sit back and wait for them to hang themselves, as Gonzales et al have done with the USA purge. Etc.

It is also worth remembering the amazing exchange with Whitehouse regarding obstruction of justice (I am hoping that LHP will follow up on this point , hint, hint, hint!).

Thank you for putting into words what I could not.
When I hear people who have no freakin’ idea of the web of obliagtions a guy in his position works under spout off because he was unwilling to break the law in the name of saving it–I get all vaporlocked.
I don’t want some cowboy of a “Whistleblower” who is going to break the law (and secrecy laws do serve a valid purpose) and then not be able to get their story out anyway because of greymail problems.

Sybil Edmonds injured herself, the rule of law, and stopped no one and nothing.

I used to do “whistleblower determinations” for a government agency I worked for (not DOJ) and I was amazed at how many people who saw themselves as whistle bloers were more interested in expressing their own outrage at the abuse they had seen (to wit, venting) than they were to make the efoort to soberly strategize how to actually change things.

There is intellgent targeted whistleblowing, which we saw an example of yesterday (as well as with Ambassador Wilson), and there is stupid vanity whistleblowing, in which the whistleblower is unable to prove anything.

Do you think we can talk about election fraud now? My God, Bush stole 2 elections without a peep out of MSM and liberal blogs. He is a dictator. Not talking about the problem makes US complicit. Bush began his first day acting like a dictator and does to this day. Minus several brain cells which makes it even more embarrassing.

Exactly. The ‘consitutional crisis’ that we are supposed to be so afraid of happened when the SCOTUS installed the chimperator.

But we *have* been peeping.