I watched the live testimony Jim Comey gave to Senate Judiciary. I have only just now scooped my jaw up from the ground. In addition to the outright revelations (I mean really–the description of the Hospital scene was right out of some thriller movie?) there are many many breadcrumbs that raise lots of tantalizing questions.
For example, at one point he said that the reason the telephone call got through to Ashcroft's hospital room despite Mrs. Ashcroft's ban on such contacts, was because the President called. I guess the switchboard at the hospital didn't think patient privacy rights mattered any more. Later, he corrected himself and said it was "someone at the White House" — I guess because he had no direct knowledge that it was the President. But think about it, the White House called and said WH Counsel Gonzales and Andy Card were on their way over with something for him to sign.
Couple interesting points right there:
We know there was a "command center" set up in the room next door to Ashcroft's so if someone needed to get some info to him on the up and up, they could have called and left a message for him there and not run the risk of interrupting his sleep or a medical exam. But if Bush was trying to pressure Ashcroft without anybody knowing about it, he couldn't afford to leave messages with FBI agents (a/k/a witnesses who just happen to have chosen law enforcement as their life's work) and would have had to have called Ashcroft directly. With only the two of them in the conversation, no fingerprints.
Secondly, why did Mrs. Ashcroft blow the whistle to Ashcroft's chief of staff, who in turn blew the whistle to Comey? Did Ashcroft tell her to? Did all these folks anticipate that something like this might happen and already have some idea of what their response would be if it did happen? Cause not for nuthin' folks, but Comey seemed to have a pretty well developed rapid response ready to go on only seconds of notice.
Why did Director Muller immediately understand why he was being pulled out of a dinner party and not hesitate to get on the road at once? Why did he feel the need to telephone the FBI agents that were in Comey's security detail and order them "not to allow [Comey] to be removed from the room"? Hells bells! What were they expecting to do, have a shootout in a hospital corridor? OK, maybe the feebies were just supposed to be like bouncers at a bar?
Also, before Comey even leaves the hospital Card already knows about possible wholesale resignations at DOJ? Again, it sounds like there were events that led up to this that were sufficient for people to have time to make those kinds of life altering decisions and for word to get around. There has to be more here.
Now for Alberto. Comey completely contradicts Gonzales' own testimony about being uninvolved in the firings. He goes out of his way to describe Gonzales as engaged in the running of the department.
Little quote from Marcy's liveblogging
AS Are you sufficiently knowledgeable of USA purge to give statement about his claim that AGAG was not involved?
JC I am probably more versed than most people. I gather he has corrected that statement.
AS No, I don't think he has corrected that. I've said that if he would tell us why these USAs were fired, it would help. That can all be … "he can recant what he has said"
When asked about Gonzales' statement about that he was not involved in the firings — Comey not only said that he (Comey) was more well versed in that subject than most, but also stated an assumption that Gonzales had since "corrected" his testimony. I immediately thought were did he get an idea like that? Did I miss a news item?
Specter had to tell the world that AGAG had NOT corrected his testimony and then Specter puts out a plea for Gonzales to "recant". What's that all about? It sounded like a last ditch effort to get Gonzales to avoid Scooter Libby's fate.
It also makes me wonder about that 5th GJ appearance of Rove's. Did Rove "recant" his prior sworn testimony and therefor purge his GJ testimony of perjury and in that way deprive Fitzgerald of a nice clean plain vanilla case against him? Does Specter suppose that that would also apply to lying to Congress? The statute involving lying to the GJ has a special get out jail free card if you recant before the GJ expires, Without doing the research (yet) I don't know off the top of my head of any similar exception when you perjure yourself before Congress. Anyway, it seems not to matter, because Gonzales has evidently decided to do the Scooter Libby thing and stick to his story no matter how objectively disprovable.
It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that there is some monster backstory there. Was there a private conversation between Comey and Specter wherein Comey told Specter that there was no way Gonzales could be telling the truth? Did Specter tell Comey that he would get Gonzales to correct the records? What in hell was that exchange all about?
And of course the damning Gonzales while trying to avoid answering the question. The first time Kohl asked the question, off the top of his head, without pausing to think, Comey says he is not here to dump on the AG. That clearly implies that what he has to say would be something that would be construed as dumping on the AG. Thereafter, Kohl keeps at it, asking for Comey's opinion of the AG. Comey, very appropriately in my view, plainly states that it is not his place to offer that opinion.
Although the sound of crickets loudly chirping when he was asked to name a single example of an act of good judgment by Gonzales was tons and tons of fun for me–please let Colbert use that !– I really do think it was just the result of being put on the spot.
I note that no one has yet asked him about his own actual resignation from the Department and what triggered that. I still think there is some kind of story there as well. He once again made plain how much he misses being at DOJ. That does not sound like a guy who left for greener pastures, though I realize he makes a lot more money now.
Unfortunately, the link to the video feed does not allow for replays and CSPAN is not hosting. When a transcript becomes available (or somebody hosts the video in a more accessible way) I'm going to try to go over it more carefully. But it very clear to me that like the going away speech, this testimony is going to be a gift that keeps on giving.
On a more prosaic note, the difference in Comey's physical appearance between the House testimony and Senate testimony is striking. Clearly, there was much midnight agony right before that initial appearance. Today, he looked like himself only thinner than usual and a slightly lower energy. Also, he was snark free today. Maybe I am projecting, but it looks to me like he has come to terms with the possible consequences of his decision to testify, though what those consequences may turn out to be may be cause for some depression.
I wonder if Lockheed is not supporting his decision to do so?
(Video courtesy PoliticsTV)
Related posts:





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

TEAM FDL ROCKS!
Thanks LHP for another brilliant legal eye opener.
Zed?
there is so much encrusted in this one tale of scandal that instead of one movie a la watergate, there should be a box set.
Werent they going to a closed door session after the hearing?
Why was there only one Repug there? Sure was refreshing to stay on subject and not have to suffer through all the Gonzo praise.
I’m looking for a link to the testimony, even just audio. Does anyone have it handy? Thanks in advance.
dmg @ 2
It could go on and on—as long as the Sopranos or West Wing. Could we get Aaron Sorkin to write it?
Good Morning lhp and firedogs,
found this last night – Comey 5/15/07 testimony – it’s only 20 minutes, but it’s a juicy 20 minutes :)
Politicstv
Monster backstory indeed!
And then there was Whitehouse’s questioning re obstruction of justice and the interesting dance that ensued between the two prosecutors (I wasn’t able to completely follow the terminology and language–but I got the gist). I would bet dollars to donuts that whatever is motivating Comey to talk, he knows that there is no way he is going to take even an inkling of a risk by not being completely forthcoming with regard to questions he felt comfortable answering.
I wish they’d get McNulty up there. Get all the “real” lawyers with kids about to go to college up there, who have some good reasons not to throw their professional lives away for the likes of Bush/Cheney/Rove.
Lindy,
here is audio only mp3 – big phat FDL thanks to
technofabulous Seise !
Comey 5/15/07 – audio mp3
Glenn’s got 2 good ones up about Comey. Here:
(emph. mine)
and here
I kept thinking about the scene from “All the President’s Men” where Hugh Sloane tells Woodstein that he was ready to tell them the truth, he just didn’t get asked the question.
I think he didn’t sleep before the House hearing b/c he was ready to tell the truth but then no one asked him the right questions. Conyers’ committee members need to study the tape.
Bullies, bullies, bullies…
Yes. Riveting and scary testimony
From Slate:
“Specter does get Comey to admit that the president ultimately did the right thing by modifying the program. Also that nobody overtly threatened Comey. Or maimed him. But Comey gets one more chance to launch his main zinger: “They went ahead and reauthorized the program without my signature.” And that’s about all he needs to say. The White House went ahead and reauthorized a controversial, presidential-power-grabbing program deemed illegal by the Justice Department, after trying to extract permission from a critically sick John Ashcroft who didn’t quite know what day it was.”
snowbird42 @ 4
I don’t know, but suspect that there were no Republicans there because there was upside for any of them to be there and they are sick of being used as human shields for lame duck.
If they had no ability to score any points, why bother to cement the image in the mind of the public?
But how smart Comey was–always making sure that he had witnesses. And you know, he documented for his own use every last detail of that hospital encounter.
RevDeb @ 6
no, really, he’s too good for this crew — too high-minded, too articulate, too darn soulful.
maybe bernard mcguirk, don imus’s joke telling producer. i hear he’s not doing anything these days.
marty lederman is hosting the complete transcript.
and i recorded the audio as an mp3 (scroll down to #6).
there are partial videos posted, but no complete ones yet (as far as i know). this video clip is 20 min of the most dramatic portion.
Transcript of SJC’s May 15th hearing
http://gulcfac.typepad.com/geo…..script.pdf
lhp,
Thanks for the summary. I believe you are right on the beam.
Jane S. @ 11
There are still a lot of questions he has not yet been asked. I am very frustrated by that.
To paraphrase David Broder’s comment about Clinton that so aptly describes the Bush/Cheney destruction of the Constitution – ‘they came in and trashed the Constitution and it wasn’t their Constitution’.
There’s a transcript up at the WaPo. Not as good as seeing and hearing it, but not bad either.
Thanks LHP for the morning analysis — and to EW yesterday for the great live blogging.
selise @ 16
Selise, you are my hero. A transcript? Verbatim?
Be still by beating heart! Something to ananlize! Yippee
Lindy @ 5
here it is (EPU’d) Comey Audio
and howz ’bout ‘dem programs ?!?!
last night’s Frontline was ALL about NSA spying -
Frontline – Spying on the home front
was too busy linking, but usually there is a “transcripts” link to these programs if you want to just skim through – usually excellent bonus materials too – eg – interviews can be found on the page :)
oh. I see selise is here. all’s well. enjoy!
LHP — there is a YouTube of Comey up at PoliticsTV.
lhp–I have really enjoyed your Comey comments. I am in Richmond and one of my husbands colleagues was pretty close to Comey. On the morning of his house testimony, I asked my husband–if he should bump into Comey’s friend in the hallway–to ask him if Comey would “speak truth to power.” He replied that Comey would and he would not care who was asking the questions.
What are your other questions?
dmg @ 14
It’s got to be written well to tell the real story. Though they seem like cartoon characatures to us, this is a real story that has hurt real people.
I know I am naive but what happens when the AG breaks the law. Who is there to make laws stick and assuming its the Congress will they act?
I posted this off topic downstairs and just KNEW it would be on point sometime today and here it is
the post FINALLY gets SOMETHING right regarding abu torture;
but then they go OFF the deep end with this BIZARRE statement, emboldens are of course mine on this entire post but check this out;
what the HELL does THAT mean?
the PRESIDENT reauthorized the program HIMSELF ?
?
?
?
and then the post has the NERVE to write the problem WAS AVERTED?
what the FRIG is WRONG with the post?
I read the WaPo editorial last night and the writers were almost in shock and disbelief concerning Gonzo’s trip to Ashcroft’s hospital room. Surprise, surprise, something finally got those guys to open their eyes. I guess they couldn’t ignore this story.
looseheadprop @ 22
yup.
many thanks to EW and LHP for the liveblogging and analysis! i’m still in a bit of a state of shock from this hearing.
i see comey as one of these longstanding republicans willing to do some of the political dirty work that they can attribute to the ways of washington, but who realized, earlier than many, just how lawless and criminal and antiamerican this authoritarian claque running the government is.
comey isn’t spotless — no one in the higher reaches of government can ever be said to — but there were lines he would not cross, and threats to american institutions he would not participate in.
in the bush era, that makes him something close to a hero.
I may do a full fledged post about it later in the week, but I want to put up an EPU’d comment by Mr. Murder from the late night thread.
I have terrible audio on may laoptop and missed whole chunks of what was said yesterday (which is why I am so excited about the transcript), but Mr. Murder caught something I did not
The sub-committee that Schumer chairs is Administrative Oversight and the Courts.
Is that the sub-committee that sat or was it a specially constructed sub-committee just for this occasion? If the former, the missing Repugs were Sessions(ranking member), Grassley and Graham. I’m surprised Sessions was a no-show, as he is such an apologist for all things Bush. Any insight on this?
LHP, check your email
looseheadprop @ 18
I’d call him back and have all of the committee members, the d’s of course, cede their time to Whitehouse and let him go to town. I’d bet if he had time, he’d ask all the right questions.
Jane Hamsher @ 26
This day is getting better and better. I really want to go over that with a fine tooth comb.
good morning lhp. Very provocative questions.
wrt the surveillance authorization — I’m tyring to catch up from yesterday, but the impression I get from the live-blog was that there was a question about why the DoJ needed to “authorize” the program in the first place. After all, nothing in FISA contemplates that — you’re supposed to go to the FISA court for permission and warrant,, not to DoJ. So the DoJ authorization seems to have been an ad hoc process dreamed up by ???? to provide some “legal” cover for what was, on its face, a felony. Was Comey hinting at this?
Who dreamed up the notion of getting continuous DoJ authorizations? DoJ? Or WH? Or ADD?
If the DoJ authorization was the legal figleaf, what does it mean for that period in which there was no DoJ authorization? Even under their own “legal” theories that they could authorize this without the court, this implies there were continuing felonies committed every day of that unauthorized period.
How did it come to be that the Office of Legal Counsel was asked to look into the legality of the program? Who asked?
It seems to me, we have another smoking gun, with twin barrels. This episode shows why the current Attorney General committed felonies while at the WH, so it’s grounds for his impeachment, and the fact that he did this at the direction of the President is grounds for Bush’ impeachment. Why aren’t we calling for initiation of impeachment proceedings against Gonzales — and that would lay the foundation for Bush too?
LHP and all the Researching Commenters, wow!
First, LHP posts a bang-up piece on Comey, although I think “breadcrumbs” vastly underrates the gold nuggests in Comey’s testimony.
Then, a bunch of other prospectors here in the comments stake claim after claim with discoveries of their own.
What a community!
looseheadprop @ 38
it’s good to watch comey testify, it shows the integrity of a man who loves his country and who takes his oath of office with the weight of the world on his shoulders
I can’t wait to see the utube of the ovation at the end of his testimony, when it goes up on youtube someone make sure to put that at the top of a thread here at the lake so I don’t miss it
What I find to be most troubling is Comey and Ashcroft and presumably other “rule of law” types at DOJ were ultimately forced out. Gonzo gets rewarded with the AG spot so he can be the rubber stamp man for the unitary executive. Disturbing to say the least.
What I want to know is why this informaiton did not come out during Gonzo’s confirmation process? Was it simply because the GOP controlled Congress?
So we have a White House counsel who broke the law with implementing the NSA wiretap program without DOJ approval and he in turn is given the keys to the hen house to head DOJ. Bush’s legacy will be: “I broke it, you fix it.”
Nice summing up LHP. I missed the testimony yesterday, but looked through the threads here. It looked very interesting all the way through.
It was strange watching Frontline yesterday, which was basically, all the lead up to yesterday’s testimony on the NSA tappings. Yoo is a seriously sinister character who has no regard for civil rights, and contempt for the Constitution.
Anyone have any news on how Congress is going to follow up on Gonzo’s documents, which didn’t appear yesterday, after subpoena? Or any other documents from WH, DOJ, RNC, etc?
RevDeb @ 28
of course it has hurt real people — it has hurt everyone whose concept of the country includes the fundamental premises of checks and balances, individual rights and freedom from tyranny.
but the folks in the white house? absolutely they are cartoonish. their naked grasping at power has stripped them of whatever mitigating humanity they might have had. draw them arrogant, bullying and malignant.
perris @ 30
perris, I read that differently. I saw the “crisis” in this case being the mass resignations, not the illegal spying. It was averted when Bush agreed to change the program. (still not up to what I would call legal, however).
Jane S,
the Hugh Sloan analogy is wonderfully apt!
and yes perris – authentic patriotism and integrity – the hotness !
too embarassed to tell y’all how many times I’ve watched it in the last 12 hours ;)
The scene in the hospital room is another memorable Machevellian Mayberry moment.
But to be fair to Mayberry, I really think Barney and Goober would have exercised better judgment than Gonzo and Card.
The other thing I found strange was how Ashcroft came off. I always assumed he was a Bush lapdog, fairly incompetent and definitely ready to abuse power. When he left, I didn’t think it could get any worse.
But here he is, in this story, standing up against the Bushies in a big way.
DOG, just think of the world of sh*t we’d be in if we DIDN’T have wonderful people like Jane, Christy, Marcy, and LHP running around. Thank you all and thank you inventors of the TOOBZ!
{{{{{{{{{{JANE!}}}}}}}}}}
{{{{{{{{{{CHRISTY!}}}}}}}}}}
{{{{{{{{{{MARCY!}}}}}}}}}}
{{{{{{{{{{LHP!}}}}}}}}}}}
Jane S. @ 27
Too many to list, but I would start with the circumstance of his actual resination from DOJ. I never bought the kids need college money story at the time. In fact, I think it hillarious that McNulty who has not yet lined up a more lucratve job has trotted out that same explaination.
It holds about as much water as wanting to spend more time with my family”
I would also want to knw more details about the two USA who were fired for cause.
And I would have questions relating to Mr. Murder’s comment which I have just reposted.
I also would want to know the backstory of why the Thompson Memo was gutted and what is going on within DOJ with repsect to Sarbanes-Oxley.
Those are the things I have no clue what the answer is.
Then I would have a slew of questions that the Committee should ask where I DO know the answer, but the Committees and the American people would have no reason to.
This goes to DOJ written practices and procedures. The particulars of the EARS Program
The restraints on what USA’s and senior DOJ people can say in public, etc. All of this is publicaly availbale information, and AGAG has been fibbing about it. That or he never bothered to read his own Dpeartment’s manuals and procedure guides.
Good Morning, LHP. You’re right, there’s more. Interesting times we live in.
Egregious, have you heard from the Iraqi doctor?
can you imagine Comey’s reaction to the Gonzo nomination for attorney General after this late-night fiasco? is it any wonder he had nothing good to say about the man?
When do we get to hear from Monica?
Anybody want to take odds on how far into the testimony she’ll get before she breaks down and cries?
snowbird42 @ 29
I would put that question to John Dean. Remember AG John Mitchell was no prince either.
and where is Senator Rockefeller on this? where is that Phase II report???
Scarecrow @ 38
Glenn goes into this in detail.
He ends thusly:
dmg @ 33
Fact check, he is not a “long standing republican” he used to be a Democrat
Jane S. @ 14
That is something that has been bothering me all along. Don’t attorneys as a rule jot down just about everything that transpires in their working day? I just cannot believe McNulty, Sampson and the rest never jotted anything down wrt recommendations for firing USAs.
GeorgeSimian @ 43
what i found disturbing — and i’m displeased hedrick smith failed to really press this point — is that yoo’s entire argument is based on an interpretation of constitutional power that has never had any discussion, let alone standing.
just because he says something doesn’t make it so. THAT’S the bushies’ true contempt of america coming through.
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
The WH Mafia makes Don Corleone look like a street thug
looseheadprop @ 54
this is a GREAT question I would like to hear an answer from one of the lawyers here at the lake
can’t the ag refuse prosecution of a case against himself?
we know as a fact he won’t recuse himself and I don’t think aside from impeachment of the ag anyone can recuse him from another office besides the presdident
from Glen Greenwald
We talk and talk, I guess Im just not patient but why isnt there any action? Will there ever be?
OT. Someone yesterday on one of the threads after Falwell died mentioned deaths coming in threes. I guess here’s the second:
Martin Luther King daughter dies
I put the YouTube of Comey from PoliticsTV on the head of the post. It should be there if you refresh.
snowbird42 @ 29
that’s what impeachment is for.
GeorgeSimian @ 48
my thinking is, this was finally a line even HE understood couldn’t be crossed.
if you support the 2d amendment (in your n.r.a. way), it’s mighty hard to ignore the plain language of the 4th.
looseheadprop @ 57
Monica would have caught that — or maybe she did.
GeorgeSimian @ 48
The thing to remember about Ashcroft is that he was a very powerful Senator in his own right for quite some time. He was also very well liked and respected by people who didn’t agree with him while in the Senate,–such as Feingold. Senator Jeffords of VT also comes to mind. A hint that he was seen as an honest adversary–liars are sleazes may be feared, but they are not respected, even by their natural allies. A man like that–while rigid and indeed very wrong in some of his own views–does not become anyone’s lapdog. So even with him, there were lines he was not willing to cross.
looseheadprop @ 57
preciate the correction. i guess i didn’t know that. was he civil service, or political appointee? and he had served in both rep and dem addmins, right?
methinks Director Mueller is due for a nice chat with the SJC. Subpoena anyone? btw, Senator Leahy is considering more subpoenas tomorrow morning at the weekly business meeting. hope it will be televised.
Drive-by, sorry. WaPo chat, 11am ET:
My take on Ashcroft was he was that he knew how deep he was in the doo-doo and was trying to get out while he still could. Patriot my arse, he was saving his skin, knowing he had his golden parachute waiting for him. He had done his job already gutting the peer review hiring process in the DOJ. Plus, acquiring a taste for Ms. Goodling’s “brownies”. Those ARE roots you see in all her pictures, you know, not blond.
yellowdogD @ 35
Sessions (former USA) seemed genuinely pissed about the firings of USAs. This hearing with Comey was ostensibly about the USAs (funny, but it took quite a while for that issue to even come up, didnt it?). Maybe he was asked not to attend?
looseheadprop @ 38
and a hanky. (I was gonna make a bad joke about combs, but decided not to).
dmg @ 59
The trouble with people like Yoo is that they decide what they want to do, and then they go about “interpretting” the Constitution, or the law, in a way that justifies whatever they want to do. What they should be doing is figuring out how to do the things they want to do within the scope of the law.
Jane Hamsher @ 36
Sorry, it took me so long to get the email. AOL went crazy and crashed on me. Got them now.
Thanks for the You Tube
Thanks lhp for answering my question and for the great post.
As for lawyers jotting down…My husband is an attorney and my reaction to Comey’s testimony is that he wrote a memo to himself about what happened in the hospital. A good lawyer–esp. one who knows that this will come up again–would want to record all the facts early on. But I do wonder if the lack of record keeping in the Abu Justice dept. was a deliberate CYA thing.
I have to go read to first graders! Hope everyone has a great day!
Bugboy @ 72
language is important when we refer to domestic spying by the administration, I don’t want to give them some kind of “national security” highground when in discussion and I want to stop using the term “domestic spying”
instead I want to use;
“stealing my information”
“taking my trade secrets”
“looking under my wifes dress”
“finding out my personal and private preferances”
much better, much more effective then “domestic spying”
Scarecrow @ 39
pretty strong hints – as Acting AG, he made it clear DOJ could not certify that the program was legal. if it ain’t legal, what else is there? the only question left is, who is gonna do something about it?!?!?!?
I still want to see if someone can prefer charges against the ag if he refuses to either recuse or charge himself
GeorgeSimian @ 75
This layperson’s understanding of the legal system is people like Yoo come up with off-the-wall assertions like he does, then test it in a court of law. Then it sticks to the wall, or it does not. In Yoo’s case, he did not have to pass that test, King George said “Looks good to me!” and it was good to go.
Does that sound about right, Oh Glorious Legal Bloggers Of Residence?
drive by – lhp, I finally saw some clips last night. Comey did a remarkable job and I wouldn’t have envied being him yesterday – the amount of adrenaline pumping alone would have been exhausting. He and Schumer did a great job on it.
Bugboy—you forgot the part about how they threatened members of Parliament.
Boy Glenn is a must-read this morning:
Thugs. That just about sums it up.
Scarecrow @ 39
IIRC, the decision to get DOJ to certify was done to stave off a revolt on the Hill. I think the fig leaf analogy is correct.
—-BECAUSE Comey said it took the Office of Legal Counsel a long time to reach the conclusion that the program was not legal.
If I understood correctly, that means that DOJ took the default position that the program WAS legal and certified it, until such time as OLC finished its analysis and concluded that it was NOT legal.
At which time DOJ refused to certify further.
So, Unless I am confused, that would mean all the previous certifications were in error.
Program illegal from day one.
Loo Hoo. @ 51
No word. He’s not on my immediate team, but the loss of a congenital surgeon means 300 more newborns will die every year. Sure glad we’ve brought them democracy and freedom.
My jaw hit the floor when I heard this.
As Jane @ 84 says, they’re thugs.
KestrelBrighteyes @ 53
speaking of Monica, if anyone has questions that you would like the HJC to ask, please leave them here or at TheNextHurrah TNH Monica Thread I’m planning on sending them to John Conyers.
cbl @ 46
Not to burst your bubble or anything,but his wife is a beauty.
Thank you for the great analysis, lhp. I keep thinking that all this was playing out in the context of the 2004 presidential campaign. Hadn’t Kerry just come out of the primaries looking strong? The WH political operation was no doubt on overdrive, even for them, with the same paranoia of the Nixon team in 1972.
NYTimes abstract: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/…..94DC404482
More than the usual urge to shut down all dissent, fix the game, etc. And maybe explains even more Bush stepping back from the brink when faced with a possible insurgency at DOJ.
TiredFed @ 52
It’s a wonder he stayed on as long as he did. They I note htat Comey had Andy Card playing the most sinister role here. I am very interested in the whole Card angle
looseheadprop @ 0
Someone somewhere said that while Ashcroft was hospitalized, Comey was legally AG and was opposing the signing of the wiretap document(s). So it’s natural to assume he’d be kept out of the picture (albeit not by some sort of physical restraint). That’s what I understood, but I admit to not following this part of the story very closely.
i.e. feel free to tell me our government doesn’t place it’s officials in a dungeon to enable its’ illegal conduct; until then, I’ll assume they do.
KestrelBrighteyes @ 53
At the risk of seeming flippant. I think we could get a betting pool going. I am in for 1/3 of the way through the second Dem Senator’s questions.
ya mean like this Bugboy ?!?!?
(emphasis cbl)
Frontline:
John Eeewww:
I have learned from the legal minds here, Glenn, & Prof. Turley that “reasonableness” is something constitutional scholars will always argue about – but the bold stuff above – geesh!
it’s actually even more maddening to see his smarmy little face when he says it –
said it before – this is the Intelligent Design of Constitutional ’scholarship’
and to think this clown is tenured at Cal and Juan Cole was denied the Yale gig &*^@#!%!
It speaks volumes that the nation’s #2 Attorney refuses to meet with the President’s Chief of Staff without a witness, and demands that the witness be the Solicitor General.
looseheadprop @ 91
I remember seeing Card in his aw-shucks role on the Daily Show. Be nice if someone would ask him some tough questions now.
Just popped up to say again, you are saving the sanity of many of us. We left the country, knowing that there were those who thought like us, but where were they? Why weren’t we hearing of them, from them? The lake has broken the isolation. And aren’t you all so intelligent and capable of writing fine and reasoned prose? Yes, all of you, those who comment and those who post the commentaries, are not only the lake, but the lighthouse and I thank you mightily. And, even from this window, I think I hear a grand chorus of Amens!
yellowdogD @ 58
I don’t. And when I worked for the Government and didn’t ned to keep billing records in 1/10’s of hours, I never ever did. Iwas too busy.
Every time I think I can no longer be shocked by the lawlessness of this administration, something like this bubbles up. Dear lord in heaven above. What does it take for the general public to become outraged? I guess it depends on how much media spin something like this will get.
But the “sexiness” of the drama surrounding the attempted strong-arming of a helpless Ashcroft, lying in a hospital bed, to do something illegal, well that’s the stuff of movies. Except for the delusional, woefully uninformed 30%, this should be a bombshell. But leave it to me to overestimate the shrewdness of the general population.
But, again, maybe it will get some well-deserved airplay. If so, it will be next to impossible for the punditocracy to pooh-pooh the significance of same in the way they have treated all previously reported lawlessness rampant in the DoJ (and somehow managed to get away with it).
Paging George Will.
TiredFed @ 47: Aw, come on. A Wolfowitz joke? Please share. What a total sleazebag. Every one and thing this administration touches turns to sh!t, except for Rove, of course. Not that he isn’t a steaming bag, nonetheless.
SPECTER: Well, Mr. Comey, did you have discussions with anybody else in the administration who disagreed with your conclusions?
COMEY: Yes, sir.
SPECTER: Who else?
COMEY: Vice president.
SPECTER: Anybody else? COMEY: Members of his staff.
SPECTER: Who on his staff?
COMEY: Mr. Addington disagreed with the conclusion. And I’m sure there were others who disagreed, but…
COMEY: Mr. Addington. The vice president told me that he disagreed. I don’t remember any other White House officials telling me they disagreed.
SPECTER: OK. So you’ve got Card, Gonzales, Vice President Cheney and Addington who told you they disagreed with you…..
What was the timeline of Comey’s meeting with the VP and VP staff? Before or after the hospital visit, after meeting with Card and before seeing Bush?
Mandrake @99–In part, it was unfortunate timing, with the press much more in a frenzy over the demise of the Reverend Falwell. Maybe over the next few days, esp. as the testimony reverberates. WH press corps needs to ask Snow about this every day.
yeah, that and the 6 kids may prove something of an impediment as well :)
cbl @ 94
i am stunned at hastings for giving yoo tenured. very unhappy with the golden bears of cal.
looseheadprop @ 93
I hope this doesnt happen. The Dems need to handle her with kid gloves. One of the women on the panel needs to lead her through the questions like a kindly aunt. All roads lead to Rove and a broken, teary-eyed, slobbering witness will be a huge roadblock. The Republicans and the MSM will have a field day with that picture. JMO
looseheadprop @ 85
I’m not sure.
Comey said the impetus for the change was a new AAG (Goldsmith?), who had been reviewing a bunch of things. And that, with that review, they could not come up with a legal basis for it.
I doubt it was a figleaf for the Hill, because the only person on the Hill who knew and was concerned about it (Rockefeller) was resorting to writing himself letters.
I was interested in that exchange with Card on the phone in the hospital as well. IIRC, Comey said that when he got to the Whitehouse he did actually agree to go into Card’s office without Ted Stevens present. I keep wondering how he was convinced into that. (Although he also noted that Stevens was directly outside the office door).
Also, what has Stevens been doing or not doing as SG? I was surprised to find my respect for Ashcroft go up a little after Comey’s testimony. I’d really be disappointed if there were reasons to find TS more palatable…
dmg @ 69
He was career DOJ. Started as an AUSA in SDNY. The class immediatley before my law partner’s. They were both in the Narcotics Unit at the same time which is how I met him. He left SDNY to move back to Virginia where his wife is from.
He reprtedly hated private practice and went into the USAttorney’s offcie in VA as an ASUA (career).
He was appointed as merit appointment as USA (a political appointment) as a co promise candidate to avoid a fillibuster by Schumer who did not want crony of Pataki’s (nice guy, reputed to be a good lawyer, but zero federal experience) to have the slot. Schumer was trying to avoid having the flagship politicized.
After being USA SDNY he was tapped for the DAG spot at theime Ashcroft recuded himself from the Plame investigation (I again suspect Schumer’s protective hand in this, but actually have zero proof to back that up)_
Jane @ 84,
It seemed that Mrs. Ashcroft thought they were thugs too, or she wouldn’t have called out the cavalry.
I’ve seen bosses come in before to patients’ rooms, but never like this. Never.
One of the reasons I love to read Glenn’s columns is that, like KO, he really knows how to express the outrage and fundamental questions we all have:
My bold.
It’s so hard not to become totally frustrated with every aspect of this administration. I can’t help feeling that we could help the “cancer” that is this administration by cutting out the two most toxic parts of it– Rove and Cheney.
Citizen Jane @ 106
I think you mean Ted Olson. not Sen. Toobz
Citizen Jane @ 107
not to worry. you can still detest a guy and note that there are limits even he acknowledges.
just because a guy makes one right call out of 100 doesn’t make him someone of high esteem.
RockPaperScizzors @ 60
“We were just there to wish him well.” Now this is a complete and utter [b]lie.[/b] Why lie to Comey? Presumably Card called from the car. Who was with him in the car who would be listening to Card’s side of the conversation? Or was the call being recorded?
Also, I’m thinking that the meeting at DOJ before the trip to the WH included discussions about resignations. Maybe there was a mole there, or the room was bugged, because the next morning the Preznit knew about resignations. Will someone ask if the data mining system in places includes taping high gov’t officials?
Jane S. @ 77
Oh yeah. Evey lawyer (or gov’t official with any sort of responsiblitiy) keep what is known as a “pearl Harbor File so that if something that thye found troubling at the time later blows up, they have all their facts organized and at their finger tips.
I still have mine.
let’s remember, they’ve already admitted to doing this before the 11th of September – which is STFU 101 to Yoo
RevDeb @ 111
AIIIIIIIIII!!!!
Yes, Olson, not Stevens. ARGH!
Mary4 @ 82
You are vary gracious, you know that?
Lockheed did very well to get Comey. In the aftermath of this war there will be numerous investigations, they have credible legal representation. That is worth a great deal. That Comey isn’t popular with the Bushiviki won’t matter in 18 months.
Bugboy @ 81
Yep
STUDY: Feds Prosecuted Only 38 Cases Of Voter Fraud Between 2002-05, 14 Were Thrown Out
Jane Hamsher @ 64
Just watched it.
Just…I….just WOW!
GeorgeSimian @ 75
That’s pretty much the entirety of modern conservative reasoning — decide what answer you want, and look for evidence that supports it (and justify it by assuming everyone else is doing the same for their views.) Feh.
looseheadprop @ 108
a sib of mine is career doj. i would love to find out her take, or what she’s heard. unfortunately, she never discusses anything from the office.
which, when you think of it, is how it’s supposed to work.
I think the answer to the some of the failure of the members to sharpen their questions must be that they can see the outlines of the future of this inquiry– the President acted illegally and continued to pursue warrantless wiretaps that were clearly outside the law, even broadly and generously interpreted in favor of executive action between 2001 and 2004. There was no legal justification for his actions once the DOJ and Comey refused to sign on, but he refused to relent until it was apparent the matter was going to blow up in a very public manner. Bush was ordering massive violations of the law, and Senators like Whitehouse can see plainly that this is leading to an impeachment inquiry. I believe they have not secured enough support for that action at this point nor have they overcome the objections of some members who rely on the “inherent authority of the Commander in Chief” theory. As it stands, as this mess unthreads itself, there will be members who will see they have no choice but to stand by the rule of law, or they will be forced to agree publicly that the President has the authority to break laws and commit felonies without recourse. That is the definition of a constitutional crisis and is abhorred by the majority of both parties. Ergo, the awkward dance we are witnessing.
GeorgeSimian and Redshift–but exactly how the fundies quote and use scripture as well–a la the Falwell comments yesterday and last night.
To add to what TRex said, Jesus is much nicer than a lot of fundies make him out to be–and more loving.
Possibly the creepiest revelation of all. It would be great to hear Andrew Card questioned under oath about this.
RockPaperScizzors @ 101
I was wondering that myself. And I waas wondering if Cheney was flinging threats around, big bully that he is. Is that why Comey and Muller were turning on sirens and racing through the streets to protect Ashcroft form manipulation?
cbl @ 103
They had anothe baby? I thought they had 5 girls?
fyi -
TPM had a camera at the hearing and is advertising “lengthy excerpts” from yesterday to be posted over there today – so be on the lookout
CityGirl @ 102
Oh, brother, you do have a point there. Honestly forgot about that already. A friend at work here who has to travel to Atlanta every week just got back and said he saw flags flying at half-staff all over the place. *sigh*
And you’re right about the press. At least they seem to a tad more interested in getting at the truth these days, so perhaps there is reason to hope.
looseheadprop @ 38
Thanks for finding this. Seeing Comey’s testimony the first time was brilliant! But I will enjoy it even more the second time around…his testimopny just raised so many more questions!
GeorgeSimian @ 48
I don’t remember the exact quote but Russ Feingold explained his vote to confirm Aschcroft by saying Ashcroft was the best AG we could get under Bushco.
PunchPrincess @ 113
No, they were saying it’s your word against ours, which is why Comey needed Ted Olsen at the WH meeting.
Mutant Poodle @ 96
I saw him on Bill Maher and he was still spouting all the old obviously false lines — I couldn’t believe that no one was telling him “c’mon, they’re not paying you to lie any more; you don’t have to keep doing it.” I think if he was asked tough questions in an interview, he’d still go with the old “me or your lyin’ eyes” approach.
There is no one that has established that anything illegal occurred. We have a Democrat disgruntled career guy who stands to benefit from a future Democrat Administration. No illegality has been asserted. Tony Snow’s comment was snark to a reporter’s question and should be taken in the context in which it was asked…you needed to hear that reporter’s surliness…Comey is NOT a credible witness and therefore not entitled to much media play in view of the greater news value of the GOP debate, the search for the Iraqi evildoers who have captured our soldiers, the Falwell Death, and even the FL fires.
Here is the White House Comment Line phone number: Comments: 202-456-1111.
I just called and expressed my displeasure at the behavior of Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Card and Mr. Snow.
I encourage you to do likewise, although the woman who took my message said she was unfamiliar with yesterdays testimony. (”I was answering phones, not watching television.” To which I replied, “The Internet is available 24 hours a day to stay informed.” To which she said, “I do not watch television 24 hours a day.”)
My head hurts; still Im glad I called.
Redshift @ 122
The only disagreement I have with your analysis is use of the word “conservative.” There is nothing conservative about this administration. There is nothing conservative about utter contempt for the Constitution and the law. I refer to them as right-wingers but they are actually radicals.
It’s a shame that that term has been bastardized by the media in the same manner as the term “liberal” has been turned into a smear. The msm is an utter disgrace.
quake @ 132
it’s the one vote i hold against feingold, actually.
but he was probably right.
Saw Keith Olberman last night and he and Fineman noted the little smirk that was on Gonzales’ face during the press conference when he said that McNulty “did it all” re: USA firings. Fineman believes that Gonzales is pretty sure of himself that he’s indispensible to chimpy and won’t get thrown under the bus. It’s going to take a heckuva lot to make that lying SOB resign. I am beginning to think Gonzales is Rove’s equal.
Thanks for the insightful and, if there is justice alive and well in this country, hopeful analysis. I surfed all our favorite blogs until well after midnight hoping for this kind of analysis and there it was on FDL this am.
I should have just been patient, you always come through Looseheadprop! properly, too
A remark about a hospital story detail that may not be important and a question about the implications of Comey and AGAG’s afternoon speech.
Remark
Re: Call from WH.
Just possibly, though unlikely: the call to Mrs. Ashcroft could have come through via the command center asking her to pick up the phone in the room. Or on her cell, since the hospital would not have prevented a VIP guest from keeping one on. Or, if the WH called the hospital and said it was the WH calling AG on matters of national importance, there probably are –esp. in DC–rules where significance overrides patience privacy. In any case, there are White House phone logs if ever this should come to trial, as we learned from Libby–and from West Wing!
Question: recanting
Isn’t that what McNulty did more or less when he wrote SJC to correct his initial testimony, saying that he was inaccurately briefed?
I remember a lawyer on this or on Daily Kos blog explaining that Goodling would be responsible for causing him to perjure himself in the initial statement, and that maybe the crime for which she will plead the fifith. But does the correction do away with his crime (and not hers)?
Remark and Question re AGAG yesterday remark on McNulty:
Comey happened before AGAG threw McNulty under the bus in public.
a. Does this return of recall and of the actual person responsible for the list when he expressly said that McN. was not its author make his statements PERJURY? Does it matter where his recall returned?
b. Could there be a connection between the two events? One of the commentators yesterday observed AG high-fiving his aides after his speech and then disguising it as a hand wave. Surely he thought he had accomplished something important, more important than gumming up the works?
c. With Comey have we arrived at grounds for censure, in the very least? Or is the fact that AG AG is no longer at WH introduce limitations re time?
quake @ 132
Damn, and wasn’t that a prescient remark. Feingold, as usual, is light years ahead of the rest of his party, with the exception of a few.
mui @ 138
Which is exactly why he needs to be impeached. NOW.
Here are a few key dates that I find interesting:
–Ashcroft departed 2/05 (wiki)
–Abu started 2/3/05 (wiki)
–Comey had a 15-minute chat w Sampson about prosecutors who were considered weak managers on 2/28/05 (AP re Comey’s House cmte testimony)
–Comey announced his departure 4/05, left 8/05 (wiki)
To LHP’s point, why did Comey leave? He’d withstood a helluva lot before 4/05. He & Ashcroft and others were prepared to resign together.
Looks to me like Karl’s shop was trying to wait out Ashcroft & the ‘04 election & swearing-in, and then Ashcroft was gone. Then they were free to move Abu from the WH to Main Justice (still doing the same job of WH counsel, just in a different office).
After that, they could cross all the lines they wanted. Abu was either complicit or grossly negligent in looking the other way. (I’m now quite convinced he’s in up to his eyeballs.)
Ashcroft looking like a hero. Who’d a thunk it?
Question: I wasn’t aware that you could recant
your GJ testimony? Why would Fitzy allow this for Rove?
Why didn’t Libby recant?
To me, perjury is perjury?
It actually starts making you adjust your tin foil hat thinking….maybe Ashcroft really wasn’t sick but just wanted to be somewhere safe to turn down the 45-day program, allowing his deputy to make the decisions.
Oh, and great thread LHP, as usual.
LHP @ 133
They must have realized that Comey had 2 other DOJ witnesses at Ashcroft’s bedside visit. I wonder if Card’s call to Comey was about shutting him (and the other 2) up, to make sure they did not leak any of this to the press. You certainly don’t want witnesses when you threaten someone; hence Ted Olsen in the hallway for the first bit.
despairing @ 125
The example that crystallized it for me years ago was reading an account of a creationist fossil-digging trip for kids, in which the leader asked them to think about how the things they found fit into the Biblical account of creation.
Stunning video. Just stunning.
Woops. a typo. Remove the question mark after properly.
no doubt about how good you are!
snowbird42 @ 4
I’d like to think that the rest of the Republicans on the committee were trying to send Gonzalez a message my shunning an opportunity to score points on his behalf. I suspect that the real answer is somewhat less flattering to the Republicans on the committee.
Oh.My.God. What an amazing hearing. Made all the more damning by the usual trenchant FDL analysis. I am in awe, both of Comey and of Team FDL. Thanks.
LibertyLee @ 135
I think you might find a more appropiate audience for your propaganda here: Backing Bush
SPECTER: What did you make of Kyle Sampson’s testimony that he had recommended calling for the resignation of Peter Fitzgerald?
COMEY: Of Patrick Fitzgerald.
SPECTER: Patrick Fitzgerald. Peter Fitzgerald was the senator.
(UNKNOWN): No relation.
SPECTER: No relation.
Specter’s freudian slip, will never forgive exSenator Peter Fitzgerald (IL) who recommended Patrick Fitzgerald for USA in Chicago and Comey got the last laugh in recommending Patrick Fitzgerald as the Special Prosecutor in the Plame investigation in 2003. “In December 2003, Fitzgerald, who is single, was appointed by Deputy Attorney General James Comey as special counsel in the Plame case….Fitzgerald was named to the Plame probe after Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…..FCQJ61.DTL
I think Comey has opened the book of Revelations. Onward to the Apocalypse (a prophetic revelation, esp. concerning a cataclysm in which the forces of good permanently triumph over the forces of evil.) of the Bush/Cheney/Gonzales empire.
dmg @ 138
Ashcroft is still an incredible wingnut to me. He only had the good sense to rely on Comey. That’s it. So much so, he wouldn’t let Comey resign before him.
Action plan development time, I think, don’t you?
We need to ask SJC members and SSCI members to submit a reauthorization of the Office of Independent Counsel, to investigate this situation and any other criminal behavior uncovered in the course of OIC’s investigation.
BTW, also wanted to point out a “F*ck You” from the SJC to the White House and OVP; the SJC was originally scheduled to hear testimony yesterday 15-MAY-07 from Bradley Schlozman , that lying sack of crap USA that replaced Todd Graves in MO (the so-called 9th dismissed USA, also favored by Ashcroft). Schlozman, you’ll recall, was also responsible in no small part for trashing the Civil Rights division of the DOJ prior to becoming USA-MO, and has recently been named to a role in DC.
Schlozman, however, begged off the hearing due to vacation schedule. You can imagine how that obviously cooked-up excuse to deliberately avoid oversight went over with the SJC majority members.
So they pulled a “Fuck You”, a very pointed one right in their faces. And I bet they’ve got more where that came from.
Mandrake @ 130
The flags in Atlanta are NOT for Fallwell, but for MLK’s daughter (also not appropriate reason for flag to be at half-staff, though).
Bay State Librul @ 144
It’s in the statute. you can correct your testimony at any time until the GJ you testified before expires and it is not perjury.
NH – New Hamsher upstairs But the zed is gone. ;})
Kinda wondering why Comey didn’t think all this was important enough to mention to his good buddy Schumer at the time that AG was in the confirmation process … surely the incident at the hospital was a clear enough indicator that Gonzalez was no more qualified to be AG than Monica Goodling is.
Bay State Librul @ 144
Remember, the GJ isn’t investigating perjury; it’s something that interferes with the investigation. I suspect the reason the law allows this is that it’s better to encourage witnesses to correct their testimony and stop the obstruction rather than encourage them to stick to it once they’ve done it because they’re already screwed.
laurie9 @ 147
That’s what I am wondering
Bay State Librul @ 12
Dahlia did get off some zingers in Slate, but I think the best take on the whole thing comes from Marty Lederman at Balkinization, who analogizes the Comey hospital scene to the Don Corleone-in-the-hospital scene from “The Godfather.” It remains to be seen, however, whether Michael Corleone (Comey) will really get his revenge on McCloskey (Gonzalez) and Solozzo (Card).
looseheadprop @ 133
Agreed, lhp, but Mrs Ashcroft witnessed the bullying of Ash so it would be Card’s word against hers, too.
ok, rev up the slow hounds!
it’s time for another Beltway Democrat investigation!
That’ll sure show ‘em!
You’re gonna get investigated oooh! scary!
No, how about impeachment proceedings for the clearly illegal NSA spying in violation of FISA?
Off the table is it?
Well I guess that makes further support for this sham opposition party Off the Table, deal?
Rayne @ 156
I agree. Didn’t Fineman say that the WH doesn’t
respect Congress and what will ultimately
play out is a Consitutional Crisis?
Let’s move to a CC…
Pachacutec @ 149
I just watched it for the second time. I’m in shock. And that’s after seeing the hearings yesterday.
laurie9 @ 146
Does anyone know how the original version of this story got out to the press (was it in the NY Times NSA reporting)? That story was slightly different in that it was implied that the WH succeeded in getting Ashcroft to sign the order while in the hospital.
What that says to me is that someone high up in the DOJ was talking to the press. Was that the “leak investigation” that Comey was referring to, perhaps?
Also–was this monster of a backstory the reason that Bush called the publisher and editor of the NY Times into his office to personally ask them not to publish their NSA wiretap-data trolling story.
I would really love to have some of these dots connected. What “new” programs have been instituted and signed off on by Abu since he took over from Ashcroft? And does any of this have anything to do with the docs that the DOJ is refusing to turn over to Leahy?
I think Whitehouse’s line of questioning about obstruction very revealing, and I think it points to the appointment of a Special Counsel. I think timing is going to play a role in all of this as well. I think the Dems will let this smolder until the fall, right in time for election to heat things up.
One question I have is what happens after the current administration is gone? Can all of this criminality be investigated? Will it be ignored? Did they ever get the retroactive indemnity proposed by Spector for the illegal wiretaps?
Don’cha just love how these wingnuts assert that you have to cite clearly illegal behavior before Congress starts investigating? Oh, and how being a Democrat automatically makes you “not a credible witness” against a Republican?
terrific, LHP. Very illuminating. I learned a lot. Thank you.
despairing @ 125
I think you’re right. I remember this video from Jesus’ General.
AJ @ 160
I have no reason to believe thatComey and schumer are “buddies”. I also have little reason to believe that they have backroom chats.
The DAg was not asked to comment on the AG’s confirmation and is not authorized to go up to the Hill to offer unsoliced opnions.
He is still not offering opinions, you will note
Nola Sue @ 143
When Ashcroft left, I wondered what offense to his conscience would make him leave the job. I never thought about maybe BushCo pushing him out.
Scarecrow @ 67
LHP – Did Scarecrow just answer one of your questions? Why did Comey resign? Forced resignation by Rove/Shrub via the new Monica?
Gonzo’s behavior with Ashcroft leads credence
to a story (unconfirmed) that Gonzo made a visit to Fitzy re: Rove and that’s why
we had a sealed document… (sealed v sealed)
I know it’s a conspiracy theory but with that
scary testimony yesterday, anything is possible
Funny how everyone is OHH! SOOO! concerned about Ms. Goodling turning into a wailing, mascara smeared, clown-faced pile of goo when asked what day of the week it is, when she has gained the nick name of “Buzz Saw”. Brings to mind the antics of the wife of a certain SCOTUS nominee during his confirmation hearings, no?
looseheadprop @ 133
There were many witnesses in the hospital room. Card was just being a smartass and trying to intimidate Comey.
“COMEY: So the three of us Justice Department people went in the room. I sat down…
SCHUMER: Just give us the names of the two other people.
COMEY: Jack Goldsmith, who was the assistant attorney general, and Patrick Philbin, who was associate deputy attorney general. I sat down in an armchair by the head of the attorney general’s bed. The two other Justice Department people stood behind me. And Mrs. Ashcroft stood by the bed holding her husband’s arm. And we waited. And it was only a matter of minutes that the door opened and in walked Mr. Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Mr. Card. They came over and stood by the bed. They greeted the attorney general very briefly. And then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there — to seek his approval for a matter, and explained what the matter was — which I will not do. And Attorney General Ashcroft then stunned me….”
http://gulcfac.typepad.com/geo…..script.pdf
dmg @ 112
true enough, esp. for Ashcroft (you know, the guy who lost his Senate seat to a dead man). but how bad could the situation have been for him to refuse AND threaten to resign over?
Woodhall Hollow @ 167
I think this is the answer to AJ at (159) — there were a lot of threats to reporters all along, probably more veiled threats to law enforcement at the time as well. Not to forget the more obvious threats bordering on attempts in the form of anthrax sent to both Dems in Congress and media members. Of course there were likely appeals to logic, attributing the need for secrecy to wartime necessity, but there may have been implied threats, too. Maybe Comey had been threatened, and maybe he knew they were listening in on his every move; not what I’d want to deal with if I had 5 or 6 kids to support.
AJ’s worldview that Comey could have headed this off with a word to Schumer also neglects the fact that the SJC was led by Republicans at the time, as were all other Congressional committees in both houses. He might well have leaked to Schumer, leaked to the media, but the majority at time had the power to lock it all down.
And the program(s) are probably much, much bigger than the average American could ever imagine, and worse as well; they were likely spying not on potential terrorists, but on political opposition, making clumsy plumbers breaking into offices look like child’s play.
looseheadprop @ 114
haha. me too, and IANAL.
Bugboy @ 176
F*ck Monica and the butt-fugly horse she rode in on. Nobody gives a flying feck about that obsessed b*tch’s mascara.
It’s the media’s manipulation of her pinched, sobbing hag’s visage that is the problem. You want to try solving that issue for us?
Greenwald passionately asks
To which I add, if we had a functioning opposition party, these kind of actions would clearly lead to impeachment, especially following the precedent set in the 90’s by the impeachment brought against Clinton, ffs.
What is the matter with them? has someone bought them off and/or blackmailed them? Unlimited domestic spying maybe brought up some interesting leverage against our Beltway Democrats perhaps.
LibertyLee @ 135
Jane? could you please stop letting this troll in? thanks much.
Punch Princess @113,
This account is interesting, although I’m not sure it’s true.
Echelon
Rayne @ 182
Well I think it’s very strange that the only images of Goodling are old, grainy, years-old ones. Sampson doesn’t seem to be able to avoid getting his picture snapped going to and fro, does Goodling have a Super Secret Bat Cave entrance she’s moved in and out of DOJ and the WH? The vacuum of images means the press can start with a clean slate, ain’t she an angel?
Sorry if this is getting off topic.
mui @ 155
it’s the one vote i hold against feingold, actually.
but he was probably right.
Ashcroft is still an incredible wingnut to me. He only had the good sense to rely on Comey. That’s it. So much so, he wouldn’t let Comey resign before him.
yeah, isnt that funny? “Wait for me!” that sure seems odd.
sporkovat @ 183
You do understand the concept of “veto-proof majority”, yes?
The blame is with progressive voters, who did not ensure themselves a solid majority that will overcome any obstruction to impeachment proceedings as well as legislation to end the war.
Bugboy @ 186
The fact that the media has so few pics of Goodling to use should tell you something about their complicity, along with telegraphing what they will do when the time comes.
Just look at what they did to Valerie Plame; it became all about her appearance once she testified in public, when it wasn’t about distorting the facts of her outing. Which do you think the average American (that gets their news from snippets on television shorter than 30s) will remember?
kdh22 @ 175
I’m thinking this would have elicited a giant guffaw from Mr. Comey. same for any such suggestion from Kyle “Superman” Sampson.
TiredFed @ 184
what’s the harm in letting a troll post every then and now?
Bugboy @ 177
HJC staff needs to bone up on the real Delilah. Get some interviews with former (and current) DOJ staff who allegedly ran into the “buzz saw.” Would want this persona completely exposed before attempting to question her. Would NOT want her to dissolve in a puddle of tears (or other liquids) in a public hearing. I would much rather she have to repeatedly plead the 5th in front of the SJC first, then let HJC question her under immunity.
This doesn’t make sense. There are probably enough votes even now for the House to impeach (simple majority) but unless there’s enought public pressure to flip 17 rethug senators (to get a 2/3 vote to convict) what’s the point?
What’s needed now is a buildup of evidence to swing public opinion enough to flip 17 of the 22 rethug sentaors up for reelection next year. Patience, patience.
Thanks for posting the video. I watched it again just to see if I would interpret it the same way. IANAL, but my take was that when Comey and Mueller and a lot of other DoJ folks had the meeting at DoJ that same night after the hospital visit, when Comey says the talked about what action they would take, they all (or most) said they would resign if W went ahead with the program. They couldn’t talk to the public about the program, but if Mueller and Comey and a lot of other people at DoJ resigned en masse, they would be making a huge statement that something was terribly wrong. The next day, Comey writes his resignation letter. Then after he goes to the WH and talks to W, Mueller goes in, and when Mueller comes out of the meeting, he says W says they should do the right thing. Am I the only one who thinks that Mueller told W that all these people would be resigning and that would draw attention. It wasn’t because Mueller or Comey persuaded W to do the right thing, but to avoid the public questions that would arise from news of the resignations.
Bugboy @ 72
Mr Ashcroft now has a lovely position at Regent U. Nice reward, I guess, and also, a place where they can keep an eye on him?
I understand that if at in order to do something, first you must try it, ok?
Recent history, the (R) party of the 1990’s did not have the veto-proof majority you understand so well, but they did it anyway.
And it was a huge success from their point of view- it unified and motivated their people, and it was a huge distraction and impediment to the popularly elected President.
So, can you Pragmatists stretch a little bit and imagine what might happen if the Dems grow a trace of a spine and try simply standing up for what is right for once and heeding the oath they took to defend the Constitution, against a Pres and Vice pres with approval ratings lower than tapeworms?
LibertyLee @ 135
This is strange language especially “evildoers”. As Ron Paul (winner of last night’s debate) said, we had a war with them, bombed them for 10 years, then we have another war based on false pretenses. Resistance to Military Occupation is allowed by international law. So LLee is using “talking points” from Karl’s Shop. Or LLee could be Hannity since he has criticized FDL.
Rayne @ 188
Rayne, we voted as hard as we could. Look at the exit polls (where permitted), the caging lists, the super-duper-secret software and the late-night rerouting to RNC servers. We were fighting Karl’s machines, and looks like we will do so again since it’s not yet investigated, let alone fixed.
To get veto-proof we’ll have to get the R’s voting to impeach. I think that might happen.
Even if it’s too late, we must investigate everything. Impeach even after they are out of office, cooperate with international courts for war crimes and put these criminals away for ever.
That which does not kill them makes them stronger. I’m talking about Watergate and Iran/Contra.
Emma @ 194
Exactly…
looseheadprop @ 158
But wasn’t Rove’s last appearance 4/26/06 and didn’t the GJ to which he gave most of his testimony have an expiration in October 2005 (the day of PJF’s presser)? If accurate, how does he get around that?
Bay State:
Thanks. It really annoyed me when, later in the testimony, Spector used the phrase ‘the president said do the right thing’ (or something to that effect), as if hearing Comey & Mueller’s side of it, W was convinced that what the DoJ wanted was the right thing. He was just boxed into a corner because there might be questions when they all resigned.
Many have been suggesting thath the eavesdropping was done to blackmail Dems. It also, keeps the Repugs in line as well. With the way lobbies pay for elections do you think any of them are clean?
Scarecrow @ 39
Long time lurker (and admirer) here.
For the Bushies the pushback by Ashcroft, Comey and other professionals at DOJ as exemplified by the hospital scene and ensuing events may have crystallized the need to replace the pesky professionals at DOJ with political operatives. Bush must have become convinced that it was more important to have Alberto as the AG rather than as Supreme Court Justice. I think that yesterday’s testimony makes it clearer that there was motive for improper personnel decisions. SJC is laying out a criminal case.
From Mr Comeys testimony after they just had stared down Card and whats its name.
‘And within just a few moments after that, Director Mueller
arrived. I told him quickly what had happened. He had a brief — a
memorable brief exchange with the attorney general and then we went
outside in the hallway.’
Has anyone asked what was said during this ‘memorable’ exchange? or am I reaching?
And by the way Comey and his guys/gals are the true GOOD GUYS…
Can you imagine if they had got there, only to have to watch as Card and Co walked out with Ashcroft’s signature .
quake @ 193
My point was that an independent, special prosecutor, impeachment proceedings and withdrawal from Iraq could have been a fait accompli with a solid, veto-proof supermajority aggressively seated by progressives in November of 2006. But lacking that, we have no choice but to fight around a neo-con owned media to persuade the public to beat on the 17 Republican Senators we need to be rid of these criminals in office.
HotFlash @ 198
No, we didn’t vote hard enough. Michigan, for example, is living with the results of a crappy effort on the ground last October-November. We would not be faced with defunding public education to the tune of $225/student in a mere couple of weeks if we had won the state senate and not just the house.
We lost it by 600 votes. I know of 6 precincts in particular that undervoted, and I know exactly where to place the blame.
If we lost the state senate by that much, how many other races at federal level could have been salvaged by a better organized effort?
And it’s not as if we didn’t know about or expect Rovian politics in 2006; we’d had 6 years to get smart. Nope, we still bear a big chunk of the blame.
dmg @ 191
Exactly. I think it provides comic relief. It’s also somewhat like an outrigger on a canoe in a small way. It keeps the whole thing from blowing over in a high wind.
And even though he is so wrong, as long as he’s (or she’s) civil and articulate, let him be. Just don’t feed him. I apologize for this as that may be what I’m doing here.
I also apologize if i broke any margins
Welcome Rita!
Hope you will share your thoughts with us often.
Rita @ 203
Thanks for delurking — and yeah, it sure looks like a criminal case could soon be made based on SJC’s efforts. I’m actually quite glad now that Schlozman blew off the SJC, since he made room for Comey’s appearance with his absence.
But how to prosecute a criminal case against the DOJ, without a special prosecutor or independent counsel?
Frank33 @ 197
I would be honoured to be in Hannity’s or Karl Rove’s Rolodex, but I’m not. I hope some of you will be going to the Freedom Concerts though to at least help the children of the Soldiers who have fallen for ALL of us Americans. We are NOT occupying Iraq. We are engaged in supporting the legal Iraqi government who have requested assistance in restoring order falling the truly evil Saddam Hussein. If you DON’T see Islamo-Fascists as evil-doers then I wonder what colour glasses with which you are viewing the planet.
jackie @ 204
But, other than the nausea factor, would that signature have had any legal standing given that Comey was acting AG during that period?
Here’s what I say we still don’t know…
At the very end of the clip above – and let’s see if I have this right – Comey says…
a. The “program” was re-authorized without DoJ approval, but later…
b. “We had the president’s direction to do what we believed, what the
Justice Department believed was necessary to put this matter on a
footing where we could certify to its legality.
And so we then set out to do that. And we did that.”
Okay, I understand Ashcroft and Comey and others refused to “certify the legality” of the “program”, but since we really know none of the details of what finally WAS “certified” – and the basis of the “certification” – what does “legal” mean in this context?
I’m not knocking Comey here. I’m saying we know some things Yoo thinks are “legal”… what do Ashcroft and Comey think is “legal”? We don’t know.
Jeebus, there is NO way I am going to financially support a third-party group organized by people I don’t know, can’t trust, so that they can screw over the children of troops the way they’ve already screwed the troops themselves.
And I’m saying that as a stepmother of a veteran who served in Iraq. I’ve already had to step in the gap and help out our service member to the tune of 8000 bucks this past year when the VA stiffed him for his educational monies. I’ve already had to talk him off the edge many times because of his PTSD acquired in Iraq. We are so glad he does not have children or a spouse yet, because they’d have to pay a price that no f*cking so-called Freedom Concert run by chickenhawks like Hannity will ever repay.
Get off your high horse and stop calling us traitors; many of the folks here have paid their dues to this nation and then some. The real traitors are the ones who’ve lied us into an unnecessary proxy war while finding ways to rip off all taxpayers and our children, simultaneously continuing to expose troops to unnecessary hardship, injury and death. And if you’re supporting that, you can wear the label you are insinuating in your trolling.
Jim @ 212
Comey did not at any time yesterday during the hearing make a statement as to what was legal or not legal; that was not his job. However he did say that the OLC did not find the program to be legal, and that is the role of the DOJ’s OLC.
Ditto for Ashcroft. You’ll also do well to remember that the program was supposed to be classified and secret, that Senator Rockefeller as a member of the SSCI was dismayed and concerned about what he saw about the program that he wrote a note and put it in his office safe to document his concern, but that even as a member of the SSCI (ranking minority, if memory serves), he was barred from divulging any details. I think you’re going to have to focus your attention on OLC and why the White House, its counsel and the OVP pointedly rejected the opinion of the OLC.
jackie @ 204
hence my suggestion Director Mueller get a front row seat (at the table) at the next SJC hearing.
LibertyLee @ 209
now look what you’ve done.
Nice post LHP.
Weren’t Ashcroft and Comey obligated to go to the courts when they saw the Whitehouse breaking the law as they understood it? At best, they just covered their own butts by getting out and at worst were complicit in their silence.
lhp — several press reports noted a friendship between Schumer and Comey.
I didn’t forget that the SJC was controlled by Republicans — but the SJC Republicans always follow Specter eventually — and he was clearly offended yesterday — do you think he’d have been less offended had he heard about this at the time of the confirmation? It’s not every day you see him parallel an administration action to the Saturday Night Massacre.
I know he always caves at the last minute (which makes you wonder what they have on him but that’s another story) but I remain surprised that Comey apparently didn’t mention it to Schumer when it could have done some possible good.
This is speculative, but wouldn’t you take the Solicitor General with you if you had sworn-out an arrest warrant?
Say, for instance, for unlawful political influence?
Wouldn’t that be why Meuller was willing to order the FBI Agents to keep Comey in the hospital room?
Comey and Meuller had anticipated the White House end-arounding them by going straight to the ‘not in command’ Ashcroft.
What was ‘witnessed’ in the hospital room was seen BY MANY – Gonzo and Card exerting ‘political influence’ on the critically ill Ashcroft to over-ride the OLC’s binding finding that ‘the program’ was not legal.
Depositions taken, a warrant gets sworn for Card (the mouthpiece?) for ‘unlawful political influence’ and the trip to the White House happens the next day.
The President intervenes directly to protect Card and makes Olson wait outside while agreeing to meet privately in succession with Comey followed by Meuller. This move satisfies Comey, who then sits with the President and has a ‘full exchange.’
When Meuller comes out from his private meeting with Bush, he tells Comey that Bush gave them the go-ahead to ‘do what’s right’ to satisfy their concerns and make the Program ‘certifiable.’
Less than a year later, Gonzo becomes the new AG, 2/05.
Six months after that, Comey resigns.
Two months later, 10/05, the Libby indictment is announced.
It looks, imvho, like Comey fought and ‘won’ on the challenge to the Program, but ‘lost’ and resigned over Gonzo big-footing the Rove indictment – eg, ‘pocketing’ the Rove indictment and sloughing-off the Rove/Cooper Conversation charges on Libby, if that’s what happened.
Rayne @ 214
Yep, I think I understand most of that. Comey was relying on the findings of a DAG who had been tasked with reviewing the “legal standing” of the “program” and some other “programs”, that Comey had discussed that review with Ashcroft, and that Ashcroft from his hospital bed surprised Comey both with his grasp of that conversation they had had and the rigor of his defense of Comey’s stance.
And I understand that the WH gang had a definition of “legal”. What I’m also saying is we DON’T know what the “amendments to the program” were, and what “legal” means in the context of those “amendments”, the “amendments” DoJ WAS willing to certify as “legal”.
If the “program” was the wiretapping, it’s apparently still occurring. Many think it’s both “illegal” AND “unconstitutional”. What DID DoJ finally “certify”?
Jim @ 220
I’m sure they are barred from disclosing this.
And I’m sure they are continuing to spy on us, even though a court has ordered them to stop — no matter the terms.
Bay State Librul @ 176
Gonzo did make a visit to Fitzgerald at about the time his 4 year term was expiring. It was all very ominous. ANd it was reported on TV. I saw footage
ElGato @ 200
I think he recnted before the expiration of the first GJ which is why he was not indicted along with Libby. The fact that he may have appeared and/or given depostion testimony thereafter does nto explain why he was not indicted AT THE SAME TIME AS LIBBY.
Thanks for another thought provoking post, LHP. This video clip is stunning. I’d thought I couldn’t be surprised by any thuggery perpetrated by chimp’s henchmen. I was wrong. This was powerful and moving testimony on Mr. Comey’ part.
The contrast between Comey’s testimonty, and Gonzales’: Comey struggling to be forthcoming while guarding the classified information that he had, clearly deeply troubled by what he witnessed; Gonzales with the perpetual smirk. I’ll say no more about Gonzo, as this is prime time FDL, and I have nothing to say that is civil.
AJ @ 218
Got any linkys? I have never heard that Schumer and Comey are friends. That is toally new information to me.
carolyn urban @ 224
Seconded.
LL way back
‘We have a Democrat disgruntled career guy who stands to benefit from a future Democrat Administration.’
I’m sure Lee knows this, as will anyone who has been paying attention. But just for the benefit of those who have just switched on to this
As DAG Comey was a political appointee. In other words he was serving ‘at the pleasure of the President’. Remember the talking point?
So maybe not just a disgruntled Dem?
(OK, ok, I only know this because lhp answered a query about it last week (thanks). But anyone who’s following should know by now, because McNulty is also DAG and his replacement is going
to need Senate confirmation)
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.
Dammit – EPU’d again.
Fitting I supppose, in a way.
I too think you’re absolutely right, looseheadprop, that Comey and Friends had to have been expecting the other shoe to drop before Comey got the call from Ashcroft’s chief of staff in the car on his way home that night.
It was the day before that fateful call that Comey/DOJ relayed the detailed ‘bad news’ to the White House about the lack of legal basis for their beloved spying program(s). The feedback DOJ received would not have been pleasant. Consider: this spying program had apparently been conducted with Bush’s authorization during 2002 and 2003, without any particular interference from DOJ to date, and suddenly in 2004 the acting AG is claiming that there’s now a (Constitutional/legal) problem with it just when the Attorney General himself happens to be incapacitated. That would have gotten the paranoids like Cheney very hot under the collar very quickly. No doubt Comey explained that Ashcroft had concurred with this position before he fell ill – but crooks expect others to use their tactics, and the White House doubtless thought that was just a covering alibi from Comey. So DOJ no doubt heard a lot on Tuesday, and enough more on Wednesday to realize that they were facing a Constitutional showdown of major proportions – a realization that led to open discussion of resignations (either before or right after the hospital scene).
Thankfully for all of us, Comey and DOJ planned accordingly, and were able to execute a stunningly-successful ambush of the White House’s attempted ambush of the DOJ via the hospital, at a moment’s notice. So I definitely agree – there’s a lot more context here than we know, and that context led to the DOJ showdown with the leadership of the Executive Branch that night. It’s ‘not for nothing,’ as lhp likes to say, that Jim Comey remembers and told the Senate that he was on Constitution Avenue when he received that call from Ayers the night of March 10, 2004.
I’m very glad that the Senate Judiciary Committee will be following up with Comey in closed session, and that the Senators are also trying to obtain the OLC opinions, which would answer some of the questions raised by Jim @ 211 & 220. [I’m also of the opinion, having carefully read the transcript, that Senator Schumer had previous testimony from someone (Card?; he was asked by Congress about a month ago to testify) leading him as he questioned Comey.]
Finally, I sincerely hope that the Senate will consider how important the waiving of their ridiculous five-minute-per-Senator committee rule was to the detailed power and impact of Comey’s testimony. That arbitrary five-minute rule is simply deliberate muzzling of witnesses, and defeats any effort to follow a train of thought or line of questioning to its truthful conclusion. Schumer is to be commended for recognizing this yesterday and allowing the witness to tell the whole truth without regard to artificial time constraints.
P.S. Scarecrow @ 39 – Feingold tried to pin down why the OLC review happened when it did, and the gist of Comey’s answer seemed to be (as EW indicates @ 106) that Goldsmith, as the new OLC director in the fall of 2003, undertook a thorough review of ongoing operations, this spying program among them, and the end result was the March, 2004 ‘no legal basis’ conclusion. Mary thinks maybe a FISA judge order or directive may have been the impetus for such a review or change in procedure. I do agree with lhp @ 85 that the 2004 OLC opinion seemingly would also apply to everything that went before (in 2002 and 2003) regarding the spying program(s). That whole spying program timeline with its OLC opinions is definitely in need of more thorough investigation, and further, closed-door, questioning of Comey and others ought to help in that regard.