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.

Fitting I supppose, in a way.

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.

‘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)

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.

Seconded.

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.

Got any linkys? I have never heard that Schumer and Comey are friends. That is toally new information to me.

looseheadprop @ 158

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.

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?

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.

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

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