Login Here
Anonymous Liberal went back over Gonzales' testimony before Congress to try and determine how strong an argument can be made (based on what is known) that he lied. The case is pretty compelling.
Basically, as I understand it Abu tried to get cute by saying that the program which Bush confirmed the existence of in 2005 (after the NYT broke the story) was one they called the "Terrorist Surveillance Project" (TSP). Gonzales told Congress repeatedly that it was a different program than the TSP that Comey, Goldsmith and others objected to. As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, prior to March 2004 the TSP was probably part of a larger, more far-reaching (and more frightening) program than the TSP.
Fine. Let's assume it was. He can't have it both ways. Let's say that larger program, which we'll call "Program X" included programs A, B and some incarnation of C (TSP). After Abu's midnight rendezvous at Ashcroft's hospital, they kill A and B. Gonzales might be consistent in saying that X and C (TSP) are technically different programs. But he can't then insist that the Gang of 8 were briefed on C (TSP) if they were actually briefed on X, and he can't say that "there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the President has confirmed" (C) because as Pelosi, Rockafellow, Daschle and others have said, they absolutely objected to what they were briefed on.
As AL says:
So Gonzales can't now claim that he was only testifying about the post-2004 version of the program. Both he and the President made it abundantly clear that they were talking about a program that had been in existence since shortly after 9/11. And by all accounts, it is that very program that the entire upper echelon of the Justice Department was prepared to resign over in March 2004. So when Gonzales testified that there had "not been any serious disagreement" about the program and that Comey and Goldsmith's objections related to "other activities," it seems pretty clear that he
committed perjurylied to Congress [again, he wasn't under oath]. If you are going to rely on implicit definitional distinctions, you have to at least be consistent with them. When Gonzales' statements are put in the context of his overall testimony and the President's statement (which he incorporated by reference), it's pretty clear that Gonzales intentionally misled Congress. And about a highly relevant fact, i.e., that there had been massive internal dissent over the legality of the program.
It's complicated, and making a clear, simple case for the public that Abu is an abject liar is going to be difficult But he needs to be in the employment line pronto. It's gotta happen.
Spotlight
Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
A zed?
Dogs!
Gone-zo begone!
My lady and I have decided that should Al Gore choose not to run, we shall support Senator Hillary Clinton to be the next president.
Actually, I think it’s much easier to make the case (that Abu is a liar) to the public than it is to the legalistic minds in Congress.
Abu - chickensh*t liar extraordinaire…
GordonM @ 5
Ain’t that the truth! All you have to do is show those clips of him repeating over and over and over again that he does not recall if he ever remembered or knew or said or did a damn thing!
Forgive me for disremembering, but since Gonzalez won’t cop to why he and Card were there…not to twist Ashcroft’s IV’d arm, what is the reason he gave for being there, after Comey’s dramatic version of that evening’s events?
And, I heard that Ashcroft spoke to the Oversight Committee, behind closed doors, but has anyone read or heard any of Mrs. Ashcroft’s remembrances of that fateful evening?
I have not read the transcript, or watched the testimony on television, but to allow the Bushies to set the debate by muddying the water with different programs being debated in the WH/Congress, and getting away from Comey’s statements that Ashcroft, in the ICU, was being bullied by the WH thru their lackys, makes the democrats look disorganized and weak. Stick with the bullying, stick with Mueller and Comey’s testimony–it directly refutes Gonzales’. That’s where you get him for perjury, not by letting the Bushies set the debate. Stay of the offensive with this stuff!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 4
Really? I am surprised. That is my thinking as of now; why is she your second choice?
If folks missed Rep Sheila Jackson Lee on Chris Matthews the other evening it is worth taking time to listen and watch her summary of the Gonzales and Muellers testimony. What an incredibly brilliant, articulate, graceful and diplomatic representative. Does not get any better than this.
Fired U.S. Attorneys
go to Gonzales potential perjury problem to watch Rep Lee
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/
“Let’s clear it all up” “The Rule of law has to be the most prominent and most important concern for U.S. members of congress and the President of the U.S. Appoint a Special Prosecutor”
Steve-AR @ 9
Why not Edwards?
Here’s Greenwald on distinct TSPs:
and I still think gonzo looks, in that picture, like a dog waiting for a treat. Or, I would think that if it weren’t an insult to all of dogdom.
I am for Edwards.
Get Tough @ 10
I must respectfully disagree with you. I don’t think they look disorganized or weak. The have a game plan. They have more information than you or any of us do (although many here Did watch or read about the hearings.) I choose to think that they are holding their cards close to their vests and are playing this thing for keeps.
oddmommy @ 12
WTF no need to choose now…what is the rush? Let them duke it out!
TexB @ 15
Me too!
I cannot recall recollecting that at the time it allegedly occurred, and I must recuse myself, as a witness in fact, from refreshing my remembrance of it’s recollectionas as that might unduly influence further testimony on my potential recollection of the events.
Oh, you meant the blood on my shirt? No, I cut myself shaving this morning.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 4
Wowie, OKK. Did Lahona convert you?
Resources for the case for impeachment against Gonzales are summarized on Priming the Pump. I just finished adding a reference to Anonymous Liberal’s case an hour ago.
If I have overlooked any other good resources for impeaching Gonzo, please let me know, or add them yourself in that workspace.
Bob in HI
Loo Hoo,
Who’s your Top Dem Dog as of today?
I am very conflicted by AGAG’s testimony. I am worried that it is a “shiny object”.
AGAG was very direct and determined to get this story out into the news cycle. He was interrupted and patiently asked to finish. He didnt speak off the cuff, but delivered a rehearsed monologue.
Question is, why?
Looking for a blurring of the issues?
Creating an alibi citing the difficulty of discussing classified programs?
Looking to shift diversion onto the program and away from Carol Lam?
I dont pretend to know, but it was a planned “leak”, and leads me to think we’re missing something. On top of all that, Bushco goes on the offensive now citing need for updated FISA. Why now? My spidey sense is tingling, big time.
Woodhall Hollow @ 7
Which Jon Stewart did beautifully. Lots of re-runs of that show, please!
The Democarts need to clear the Gonzales issue off the table as quickly as possible so they can get down to the critical business of bringing home the troops from Iraq. Gonzo gate seems to be sucking all the oxygen out of the efforts to end the war.
There’s also this, from John Solomon in the WaPo this morning:
demi @ 16
Of course they have more information then us. My point is that there is being detailed oriented, and then there is over-thinking and wrapping yourself up in a tizzy that in the end nothing is accomplished. The grownups, as Tweety calls them, are doing a find job, and I think are adequately applying enough pressure to the Bushies. There are more defections everyday. But the whole TSP/other spy program distinctions were Tony Snowjob’s boilerpoint answers at his first press conference after Abu’s latest testimony. Comey’s and Mueller’s testimony, and Jackson Lee’s great direct with Mueller are the keys. Stick to the basics.
Steve-AR @ 10
The environment, the Iraq business and some other reasons make Gore our first choice. As to Clinton? We like the fact she changed political parties and that the Senator worked to elect Eugene McCarthy, and for other reasons as well. We realize there are some negatives with the Senator. But we’re not expecting perfection from any candidate. Including Mr. Gore. ;0)
Loo Hoo. @ 20
Holy cow. I’ll have some of whatever you’re smoking. :)
“It’s complicated, and making a clear, simple case for the public that Abu is an abject liar is going to be difficult But he needs to be in the employment line pronto. It’s gotta happen.”
Maybe in the unemployment line?
TexB @ 15
Moi too!
TeddySanFran @ 26
And since Solomon is one of the finest stenographers in DC, you know somebody is feeding this info to him.
Was this the neo-cons plan?
50,ooo Iraqi’s a month leave Iraq. Close to million dead. Give this disaster 10 years and a good portion of Iraqi’s will either be dead, injured or displaced. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6916791.stm
A dear friend from Athens Ohio Peggy Gish http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4066835.stm
http://vitw.org/cat/voices-from-iraq/peggy-gish/ who has been to Iraq with the Christian Peace Maker Team for close to four years (she was there before the invasion). Has said that the majority of Iraqi people believe that chaos, destruction and death is what the neo-cons wanted. Sure looks like it.
Get Tough,
Who’s working themselves up into a Tizzy?
And, I don’t give a rat’s a** what Tony Snow say’s about anything.
KathieinMN @ 31
Me, too
demi @ 16
Not only that they have 5 trump cards on the Supreme Court. At least that is their thinking.
Jane is right when she says it’s complicated, and that it would be difficult to convince the public that Abu is an abject liar. Here’s more Greenwald:
Abu is lying and telling the truth at the same time.
The NYT also makes the point this morning that one reason for their delay in publishing the story about the illegal warrantless wiretapping — from summer 2004 until December 2005 — is that the government told them repeatedly that there was no internal dissent as to the legality of the program.
I wonder if the Gang of Eight’s objections were lied about, or only internal DoJ objections? Anyway, the lies kept the story under wraps until after the President’s “re-election” and that’s what mattered.
Loo Hoo. @ 20
Well I wouldn’t say Lahoma converted me. But she is the smartest person I’ve ever known. Plus she’s almost always right. I’ve found. It just takes me awhile to figure that out sometimes. ;0)
demi @ 8
Is OfAshcroft allowed to have an independent recollection, within their Pentecostal faith?
oddmommy @ 12
For me, as of of now, I think Hilliary has the motive and the ability to cut the guts out of the Republican Party. For me, that is the first and next nine things that I want a Dem President to do. Expanding the Dem. majorities in both Houses with Progressives is the way for us to shape foreign and domestic policy. As of now, Obama talks like Lieberman lite, he will try to be nice with the Thugs.
The future of our Country depends on the destruction of the Republican party as a National Party.
Kathleen @ 33
Interesting. Run off or kill off the educated, leaving behind an impoverished population to work for “the company”, Iraq Inc. International. That is pretty much what Kuwait is. Cheney was on the board of Kuwait Inc., International prior to the first Gulf war. That would explain the bizarre behavior of building the world’s largest “embassy” from which to run it. Halliburton moving to the Middle East now, perhaps waiting to move to Iraq, once things pan out over time.
demi @ 34
Well, it appears that the grownups are paying attention because they seem to be concentrating on that aspect of the testimony rather than Comey’s and Mueller’s testimony that directly refutes Gonzales. Snowjob is setting the debate with all of this other spy program crap. What do the grownups want from these hearings: more hearings, dragged out for the next two years, and more facts coming out to be investigated, and the Bushies leaving office and laughing the whole way? Or, focus the inquiry, start knocking off the pawns to get to the back row of the board before 2009? I vote the latter.
KathieinMN @ 30
Both work. Employment line: waiting to be employed, to submit employment app. Unemployment line: waiting to collect benefits.
demi @ 16
Lots of reports that the WH is in chaos, barely under control; the DoJ can’t fill 17 top spots, DHS can’t fill a huge number of positions… I believe that Harriet was told not to show up because they didn’t think she was capable of doing the required misdirection (lying)…
Gonzo is being extremely careful and lawyerly in his testimony. In the game he is playing, it takes only one wrong word and it’s over.
I absolutely do not believe they are playing “for keeps”. They are trying to run the clock out. Two years ago they thought they could pull it off; now they’re just trying to save their sorry asses.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 28
Thanks; I value your opinion.
Demi, right now it’s Hillary. First and foremost, it would be a twofer. Bill is well-respected world wide, and would give an immediate signal to the world that Americans reject all things Bush. Hillary is smart. Of the two debates I’ve seen, Wolf and YouTube, she won hands down, and gave the correct answer regarding meeting with Iran, Venezuela, N.Korea and Cuba. She is willing to speak honestly even when she knows (and her staff know) that it may not be the answer that the base wants to hear right now. They know there is a general election to contend with, and that anything she says in the debates will be used in the general election should she win the primary. I think she has proven that she cares about healthcare and education, and aside from the 2002 vote to allow Bush to use the military vs. Iraq (which is no insignificant vote) her voting record has been stellar. She has the experience to do the job.
I am not sure Mr. Bush has the guts to fire his AG.
TeddySanFran @ 40
I dunno, but wasn’t she sort of in charge of who got to see the Mr.?
And, did we ever hear why Mueller called his FBI agents and told them Not to let anyone escort Comey out of the ICU?
demi @ 18
As I’m I, but its early days yet.
Alecia @ 25
If and when our Reps get down to the bottom of potential election fraud and the wiretapping program (and how it was “allegedly” compromised) and who they may have been listening to some rumors say Colin Powell, Kofi Anan, the American people may be for even more shocking news.
It looks like our Reps think this is the way they may be able to take the Bush administration down down down to hell where they belong. The American public and the whole world will be a great deal safer if and when this happens.
We can’t take much more of this groups “compassionate conservatism”.
dakine01 @ 32
Why do we have to believe the admin leaked it. A lot of stuff is coming out now, and it might be an instance of the dam starting to break. Even if this is attempting to distract us from another issue, if this will allow Gonzales to impeached,what do you see as the harm? I haven’t thought this through yet, and I am curious why people think it is one or the other or potentially something else entirely.
Folks, I think AGAG’s dicey testimony is a good start, but, lets focus more on the actual illegality of the Program(s), rather than on AGAG! As Lederman so adroitly points out:
“What Congress and the public should be investigating now is not so much what the meaning of ‘program’ was in the Attorney General’s hamfisted attempts to deceive the legislature since January 2006, but instead just what the NSA (and the FBI) were up to, both between 2001 and March 2004, when the program must have been unthinkably broad and unlawful; and also from 3/2004 to January 2007, during which period it was ‘limited’ in the two respects noted above. What were the legal justifications and theories for both versions of ‘the program’?”
Biodun @ 44
True - but I doubt if he would have any trouble getting new employment! But I like the picture of him standing in line with all of the ‘inferior’ people who need benefits! (-;
Get Tough @ 43
I think I agree with you, but our discussion started with you saying the Dems look weak and disorganized…huh?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 39
Al is going to run, just watching the rest duke it out right now. Smart
Kathleen @ 56
I agree. He’s going to run.
argosfalcon @ 50
Yes these days are early. But, I really like the way Edwards talks sense without being pedantic or preachy.
(oh, yeah, he’s very easy on the eyes)
Micheal Moore basically begs AL TO RUN on Bill Maher’s program. This is a great interview.
I love Micheal Moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_QoffvYQpw
CTuttle @ 53
In a sane world, yes. But it’s all so deeply classified you can’t even directly ask about it.
demi @ 55
Weak and disorganized may be too harsh, but the grownups are doing a heckuva job right now–they have Spector bitching about Abu on Air Force One!–and I have worked on too many multi-million dollar antitrust litigation cases to see what Snowjob and the Bushies are doing by throwing more facts into the situation than need be concentrated on. That’s all.
LS @ 57
I agree, I think he’s waiting until he wins the Nobel Peace Prize in October :)
LS @ 57
I believe that he will NOT run. Look at the Thompson campaign already falling apart because all the big money is already committed. I think it’s too late for Gore - however much I might want him to run.
janda @ 52
janda,
I’m not saying the admin leaked it, just that someone leaked it to Solomon as he does very little reporting and large amounts of regurgitating what he has been fed.
CTuttle @ 53
good set of questions, it seems they can’t/will not answer specific questions, and thats they weak point. If you ask broader questions the more weasel room (my apologizes to weasels in non-human form).
LS @ 57
A littlewhile back, and FDLer said she has friends who socialize with the Gores who say Gore is not going to run. His family, especially Tipper, doesn’t want him to run.
It’s complicated, and making a clear, simple case for the public that Abu is an abject liar is going to be difficult. But he needs to be in the employment line pronto. It’s gotta happen.
I disagree somewhat. “Gonzo is lying” is not a hard sell to the general public (wingnuts excepted.) He’s already been pushed deep into “what the meaning of ‘is’ is” territory — any normal person who’s watching already knows he’s lying, and the entire administration is on the defensive trying to tell us that what we’re seeing is not what we’re actually seeing (succinctly summed up at TPM by “Snow: Mueller Didn’t Mean What He Obviously Meant”.)
In an administration with the slightest sense of shame, Gonzales would be long gone. The problem is not convincing the people, it’s overcoming an administration that will never fire their firewall, and Congressional Republicans who have long since abandoned law and honesty for party power. It’s proving to the necessary legal standard (impeachment, I hope) what everyone already knows to be true — that our country’s top law enforcement officer has lied repeatedly in violation of the law.
CTuttle @ 53
Impeaching Gonzales may be necessary to fing out anything about the program.
Kathleen
From your mouth (fingers) to Mr. Gore’s Heart.
We can All Pray on that one!
(and, I’m sure Michael says nice things about you too. :))
A little while back, an FDLer said she has friends who socialize with the Gores who say Gore is not going to run. His family, especially Tipper, doesn’t want him to run.
RE: Solomon
dakine01 @ 64
Agree. Where ever the real power in the GOP resides, it is no longer held by Junior.
OfT:
California’s new Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, does her job:
snip
GordonM @ 60
The SSCI and the House Intel Com.’s could get to the bottom of it if they so desired! I think Rockefeller and Harmon could set the record straight without jeopardizing the methods used!
dakine01 @ 64
Sorry, I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. But I am curious what people think about who leaked it. My naturally optimistic side and my overly cynical side are currently duking it out in my mind.
Make no mistake about this. If Mr. Gore runs Lahoma and I will be on the front lines for Al. But as I indicated, should he decide against a run, then we will be on the front lines for Senator Clinton. The view here is that with every candidate there are trade-offs, practicalities and considerations.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 75
I know slick Willy campaigned hard for Joe Lieberman against LaMont. Clinton=more of the same.
Get Tough,
(whispering) I just don’t like to give any power to what the press secretary has to say…or that male blonde msnbc anchormouth either. shhh…Let’s not bring them up, give them postive or negative credibility. Know what I’m sayin’?
Looks like all the decisions will be made before Texans cast a ballot. I will support the democratic candidate.
Wow, OKK! — I would have though Senator Clinton was quite far down on your not-Al list, with her DLC credentials and all. I’ll happily support her as the nominee, but another President too stubborn to admit a mistake isn’t progress, as far as I’m concerned.
janda @ 74
My guess is the leaker is a senior career DoJ who has been royally p*ss’d at the trashing of the Constitution and the DoJ and has access to the pertinent info.
CTuttle @ 73
Not so sure. With the 9/11 madness, the admin tricked the Congress into passing some extremely onerous penalties for even opening their mouths. Rockefeller writing out a letter by hand (twice) and putting one in the safe? That’s damn near Harry Potter material!
Twain @ 63
Over the last few months Howard Fineman and a few others on Chris Matthews Sunday news program have said that close sources say Gore will run.
RUN AL RUN
Gore will run right over Hillary (her yea on the 2002 war resolution will take her out) and the rest of the candidates. Gore all ready won once, his solid stance against the invasion, and allowing the world to see his deep and sincere commitment to enviromental issues will take him over the top.
A Tidal Wave is coming, and Al Gore will be riding that wave! The wave is made up of Republican, Democrats and Independents disgust and anger about an unnecessary and immoral war and the endless corruption that the Bush administration has been involved with.
demi @ 58
must be that $400 haircut…..
[primal scream]
We voted for Bill Clinton twice. And we voted for Al Gore.
TeddySanFran @ 40
While you are obviously entitled to your own views on religion, making fun of others is a great way to antagonize others and is not particularly effective in convincing them of your political views.
For the record, I like Edwards over anybody. Even Gore. (And I’m in Maine, so southern accents make my skin crawl.)
demi @ 77
I hear you, demi. That’s my point. By delving into the nitty-gritty facts about these other spy programs, which my little voice is screaming probably don’t exist anyway, AFTER Snowjob brings them up makes it look like the “oversighters” are giving him credibility. Set the debate, don’t react. I am an abrasive chap by nature. No hard feelings.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 84
still curious as to why Edwards isn’t your no-Gore choice??
oddmommy @ 83
Get. Over. The. Haircut.
There are Really Important Issues to focus on.
We are hoping Mr. Gore will run. And we think he will. But we have a plan B.
TeddySanFran @ 79
I am with you, Teddy! Also, she has a LOT of people (Dems) who say they will never vote for her. That may change - but . . . I also do not like the dynasty thing: Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton. We are talking probably 28 years of these two families!
Did you see Micheal Moore on Jay Leno talking about his subpoena.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....M&NR=1
Heres something that has bother me the AG is a political appointee, a lawer yes but has no intelligence (CIA, FBI, NSA) type background. The only things he could really give away are existence of programs and their mismanagement, the tradecraft should or can be protected. If we (as in we the people and their elected representatives), press on the point issues around the programs, and remove the cover of national security, as well as focus on the on going lies. Could we make more progress? I know “I can shut up now”.
GordonM @ 86
WHY?
demi @ 89
I know that. I was, like, kidding.
GordonM @ 81
It could easily be handled within closed sessions, Harmon was one of the original Gang of 8, so she would be able to refute any BS at those hearings, similarly, Jay!
Get Tough @ 87
None taken.
I sorta figured about the abrasiveness from your handle. And the harshness, but, my dear, I’m an Aries and have been accused of being over the top from time to time my self.
janda @ 68
Win-Win!
Recall that Rockefeller’s handwritten epistle was directed to the Vice President, outlining his objections to the program. What’s up with that?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 4
After reading an interview with Al Gore in Fast Company, I think that the chances of him running are slim to 0. He’s worth $100 million and is an adviser at Google (pre IPO 2001) and at Apple on the board since 2003 with stock options, He enjoyed a big payday as vice chairman of an investment firm in LA., and recently started a cable tv company and a asset management firm. Not to mention six figure speaking engagements. Life is good for him without the ridicule and crap.
As for Hillary, I don’t trust her, Bill help sell american jobs down the toliet with NAFTA, opened trade with China which gobbled up the rest of industry and Walmartized US citizens. “Clinton Hails Senate’s Passage of China Trade Bill”
http://english.people.com.cn/e.....50928.html
And then there’s telecommunications…. The United States doesn’t need another republican lite in office to finish the job of corporations to turn the middle class into serfs and become the United States Banana Republic in the interests of global corporations. Hillary is anything BUT a democrat.
info junkie @ 85
That part of the religious spectrum has injected itself in American politics and is receiving a lot of our tax dollars. I think it is a legitimate question.
TeddySanFran @ 99
Suppose he wanted to go straight to the top.
Biodun @ 66
I remember that too. He still has not said that he won’t run, and I would think he would have by now. If he’s playing games, his supporters will be ticked off.
oddmommy @ 88
We like Mr. Edwards very much. And would be comfortable with a President Edwards. We are primarily interested in getting rid of the Republicans. And along that line we are concerned about electability. John Edwards would be a fine president or VP.;0)
OK, I don’t get it. I don’t know why Obama gets no respect in this post. Edwards is disingenious–his daughter is classic example of new money conspicious consumption bobo, she edits a Manhatten magazine that discusses which shoe store is best to shop on which days–and he talks about two americas, and that he is for the working guy, then goes out and buys the biggest house in the Carolinas. Plus, he got his ass kicked in the VP debate with Cheney, whose debating skills are about as good as Dubya’s skills. Yes, Obama has corporate backers–all of them do. But he has the best judgment of any of the candidates, does not back down from a fight, and will bring a fresh perspective to the WH. Yeah, he has his faults–but I never see any love for him in this blog. I don’t get it.
TeddySanFran @ 99
Rockerfeller has been deeply worried for quite some time. I think we are witnessing another tip of another Bush administration iceberg.
Get Tough @ 105
I like Obama. I went to hear him speak, and he was incredible.
Oddmommy,
Ahhh….whew. Sorry I missed the oddhumor. Must be the heat here.
If not cutie-Edward, then I’m still thinking about Biden.
TeddySanFran, ‘member Demi’s Biden Dream Thread?
Not as cute as Johnny Boy, but the guy’s got sumpthin’.
I hate to be dense, but “Abu” and “Gonzales” are the same person? I’m really having trouble parsing some of this post…
demi @ 108
gimme
Bill Richardson/Wes Clark
TeddySanFran @ 99
Jay knew exactly who was/is behind the entire Intel apparatchik, Cheney! Remember the ’stovepipe’ of all Iraqi intel directly into OVP? Why do you think Cheney has shredded every visitor log that covered his residence? Add it all up!
LS @ 107
Alright, LS. You are on my “blogger radar” and I respect your posts. Good to know.
OT..But I wonder what Lieberman is go to say about his BFF Bush and his plan to sell $20 billion in arms to Saudia Arabia.
America has devolved to the point where Senators are writing notes like they are being held hostage for God’s sake.
That people don’t burst out laughing in Alberto Gonzales’ face is beyond me.
This callow shit-heel should be ridiculed and mocked and laughed at until he slinks away in disgrace.
Then on to Deadeye Dick Cheney with the scorn and abuse.
-GSD
TeddySanFran @ 99
Presumably because the VP is the invisible spider sitting at the center of a web of surveillance that does not respect any difference between domestic and foreign.
GordonM @ 86
I’m starting to feel the same way - sans the southern accent thing. I like a lot about the south.
ps thanks for the book recommendation last night.
I am so happy that Debra Bowen won. It’s so seldom I vote for a winning candidate, it feels mighty good. Thanks for that info, Teddy.
“Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.”
No mention of surveillance outside of the U.S.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.....026-5.html
LS @ 103
He has said that he sees no reason for these campaigns being focused on 500 and some days before the election. There are many other critical issues to be focused on by Clinton and the other candidates who hold offices.
Steve-AR @ 113
Bring it on, I am sure General Dynamics is in on the cash orgy.
-GS
GordonM@86
Aren’t you going to tell us why southern accents make your skin crawl?
Get Tough @ 105
don’t feel qualified to respond as to Obama, but as for Edwards’ use of his money…….give me a f******g break. It’s all more $400 haircut shit. ALL of these people are fucking millionaires. The lifestyle of himself and his family has nothing to do with his committment to help the poor. Fer Chrissakes, the repubs do all of that to the nth degree, and no one calls them on it…..because, what the hell, everyone knows they don’t give a shit about the poor anyway.
Twain @ 121
You mean like “Frayed Tomson”
TeddySanFran @ 99
You haven’t seen the letter, have you? Gotta be classified, but how do you know it was written to Chinny?
I see Senator Clinton as having a significant, negative downticket effect. Rabid GOPers will come out to vote against her, and will elect GOP candidates to Congress. That must not happen. We need 60 Senators, and a larger House majority to marginalize the BlueDogs. Electing other Democrats has never been a Clinton priority; most recently, see her lack of assistance to House candidates in New York during her re-election walk last year.
John Edwards understands the need for working progressive majorities in both Houses of Congress; I’m not sure Senator Clinton will even want them, given her funding from Pharma and BigHealthCare.
Twain @ 94
Why Edwards? Because I think he is authentically fighting for economic justice, which ends up being the basis for all other types of justice. (Plus his foreign policy position paper was way better than anyone elses.) And which explains why he gets slimed and smeared so regularly by the powers that be. You can’t call someone a “traitor to his class” anymore (as they did with FDR), so they go with the “inauthentic” line, or harp on his haircut, or go all concern troll over his wife. Look at who they smear with manufactured dirt - that’s who they fear. Who they fear is who I want.
LS @ 103
The chance of Al Gore running is as likely as Gonzo kneeling before Congress asking for forgiveness. Read the article, it ain’t happening.
http://www.fastcompany.com/mag.....-gore.html
demi @ 108
If by “sumpthin’” you mean hairplugs, well — okay.
*g*
Get Tough @ 105
Too preachy. Feels like you’re at a revival meeting.
GordonM @ 126
Me too, I’m for Edwards (But look out, I voted for McGovern) Edwards resonates with me, and is genuine… war sucks, let’s begin with peace
PB @ 109
He’s nicknamed “Abu” for the Saddam prison where the Geneva Conventions were rendered quaint, as per his memo.
You’ll also see him called AGAGAG (Attorney General Abu Ghraib Alberto Gonzales)
TeddySanFran @ 100
I think it was because the VP was the most senior briefer.
Bob in HI
Twain @ 121
I live in the South, both sides of my family have lived in the South for 300 years..but when I travel through Mississippi and Alabama; the Southern accent makes my skin crawl. Too many images of Jim Crow and lynching.
New thread:
http://www.firedoglake.com/200.....wn-crimes/
PB @ 109
Same. Marcy Wheeler nicked him Abu Gonzoles.
The neocons need a Great Evil to fight, against which darkness they can define themselves as the light. (al Qa’ida, gays, liberals, evolutionists, take your pick.) That rarely exists outside of a therapist’s office, so they substitute political theater.
The president’s latest rendition of All al Qa’ida All the Time contorts multiple groups into a shadowy single entity. His picture of a school of fish formed into a monolithic greater danger is really a motley collection of antogonists of many species that don’t naturally coalesce, many of which we created only after invading Iraq.
Bush’s political rhetoric reduces our ability to fight credible threats because he misdescribes them and refuses to rank them - a risk and sensitivity analysis that would be second nature to anyone who had actually earned their Harvard MBA. (As with any CEO, he needn’t remember how to do the technical analysis, much less do it himself; he need only remember that it should be done.)
But then Bush’s rhetoric isn’t meant accurately to describe the danger for his citizenry; its purpose is to rally the domestic troops as they hum and nod their heads in unison.
oddmommy @ 122
Obama is a millionare based on his book deals, his books that were extremely well written and personified what this country needs in a candidate. He just doesn’t “appeal” to the poor, he worked with the poor, for years. I know someone who went to law school with him, and he said he thought Obama would stick to academia or civil rights litigation. He isn’t just preaching about it from ivory towers, he has done it—for years. He is a geniune a candidate for social change, the middle class and the poor, as Edwards. And he wasn’t pulling down a 1/3 cut on the verdicts, either. Don’t confuse Edward’s trial laywer ways and fighting for the “little guy” with genuine altruism for “his people”. Yeah, Edwards seems like a fine guy, but he gets WAY too much love, and Obama gets none. I don’t get it.
TeddySanFran @ 125
agreement here.
I have to take issue with this. This is a prime example of using their “framing” and rhetoric. To use “TSP” or Terrorist Surveillance Project or Program is a NeuroLinguistic Programming (NLP) technique. Tom Hartman writes about this
Remember “Don’t think of an Elephant”?
What happens when you say that?
You think of an elephant
When Nixon said, “I’m not a crook” everyone got an image in their mind of what? … That’s right, a crook.
To say TSP (terrorist surveillance program) puts an image in your mind of some guy in a ski mask holding an AK-47. And repeating that NLP technique (framing) is reinforcing the “fight or flight” mechanism that they want to convey, to promote FEAR in order to control.
These programs have nothing to do with carnivore or echelon or any of the myriad other spying or wiretapping programs they use, because they already have the ability to spy on people outside this country — conversely, this has everything to do with Spying on Americans and those in this country legally — NOT terrorists. Why? Because again, it is already entirely legal for them to surveil foreigners outside this country, but once they’re in this country they have to abide by due process which Alberto Gonzales would say is quaint. They can use the laws already on the books but they won’t. (Any lawyers see anything wrong with what I just said? Please correct me)
This has absolutely nothing to do with the boogeymen in the Mid-East.
Why do I say that? Because of what Sybel Edmonds has testified to — that they haven’t acted on — and also the fact that it was leaked from Richard Shelby’s office that they had intercepted OBL’s satellite phone calls in the days preceding and after 9 11 that he boasted about what was going to happen. I.e. they had and have the ability already, to surveil in ways we have no idea. What is needed are analysts, good old fashioned people, properly trained to know what they are doing, and less political bureaucracy.
This is a Spying on Americans Program
Twain @ 94
You are a real Yankee. What about those Kennedy accents?
Do you know about the anti-war rally in August in Maine. Join the President for his vacation in Kennebunkport
http://www.zmag.org/content/sh.....emID=13376
http://www.kportprotest.org/index.html
Shiela Jackson Lee is a GREAT lady!
She is so articulate and clear. I loved when tweety said Dumbya went to Yale and that it is not an indicator of smarts…She just laughed!
Loo Hoo. @ 118
more here
RockPaperScizzors @ 127
It sounds inconclusive to me. Why has he not said, “I’m not going to run in 2008″? Good business deals give him the luxury to jump in late. JMHO
Franco @ 141
Lee politely and articulately ripped!
Loo Hoo. @ 124
letter
john in sacramento @ 139
Excellent point.
Someone, a couple of threads earlier today, posted this link to a fascinating Kos diary that deconstructs the conflicting info about the various surveillance programs. Here is the link, with my apologies to the FDL’er who first posted it for not going back and IDing him/her:
drational’s diary
I don’t understand why rich people who enjoy their wealth are automatic hypocrites if they want to do something about poverty. Who cares whether Edwards has a big house, and if his daughter is into high fashion, so what? How do Edwards’ specific proposals stack up to others and would he carry them out? That is all that matters.
As a practical matter, I don’t think a non-rich person could make poverty a focus of a campaign for national office. The corporate money people would make sure that person was depicted as a radical thug, a cross between Pol Pot and Hugo Chavez and Mao, the press would destroy such a candidate, and that would be that, pretty darn quick.
Were Teddy Roosevelt and FDR hypocrites re their progressive agendas because they were wealthy? Would you like no TR or FDR in our history because they came from super wealthy social dynasties?
If Edwards is not the best candidate, that’s fine with me. His triangulating schtick about his personal struggle with his religios beliefs and gay marriage is pretty oily, and it showed at the YouTube/CNN debate. But I think this line that his anti-poverty agenda is hypocritical because he is rich and enjoys his wealth, is naive. Read some Buddhist teachings on the spiritual problem of what wealthy people should do with your money and whether they should sell everything and live like a monk, that is a more useful practical wisdom on the topic.
And I hate them damn rich people, so my gut says “Edwards… dman hypocrite with his ginormous house… I want that house”, but that kind of resentful nonsense I try to keep to myself.
demi @ 18
What is about Edwards that the press dislikes so. It seems to me that they are treating Edwards the same way they treated in 2000 and Dean in 2004. They try to marginalize him at every opportunity and ignore him as much as possible.
Twain @ 121
That’s true for damn near anybody north of Philadelphia. No joke. I’m comparatively immune, since I’ve spent time in the South. But there have always been 2 countries, and most of the national figures in the last 50 years who spoke with southern accents have not exactly enhanced it’s reputation.
TeddySanFran @ 128
You mentioned those last time too.
Do you think he paid more than $400 for them?
But, you forgot to mention his teeth now.
sh*t eatin’ *g*
Oddmommy said:
“I don’t feel qualified to respond as to Obama, but as for Edwards’ use of his money…….give me a f******g break. It’s all more $400 haircut shit. ALL of these people are fucking millionaires. The lifestyle of himself and his family has nothing to do with his committment to help the poor. Fer Chrissakes, the repubs do all of that to the nth degree, and no one calls them on it…..because, what the hell, everyone knows they don’t give a shit about the poor anyway”
THANK YOU for saying this! Besides - he builds a house - who benfits? Workers who are builders and craftsmen, NC taxes, etc. Do people think that he should live in a tent? What does he do with his money, besides build a large house? He gives a lot of money to a foundation that provides quality education to young people who couldn’t afford it. He has supported more than anyone (possible exception is Gore) to the recovery of New Orleans, including donating his time and sweat to work with the college students he brought down there to shovel out those destroyed homes.
All the Kennedys were/are rich - and so are many of their children. There are indeed these wonderful Democratic examples of people who use their comfortable financial situation to give their lives to our society instead of the Repubs who use their situation to just enhance their largesse.
Let us not buy into the Repub denigration of Edwards (and Clinton).
Al Gore is Hillary’s worst nightmare. She can take on the Liebermans, the Thomspons and the Lewinskys. But only Al could take away her top billing in a heart beat. Would he be a better president?
I thought Hillary saying “The power and prestige of the presidency” when talking about meeting with world leaders…spells out her thinking VERY CLEARLY….it’s all about power and prestige with the Clintons…they don’t care about electing other democratic senators or house members…..Of course the president is powerful and has prestige….BUT….you don’t use that as a platform to relate to anyone on a personal level, even IF they are considered an enemy…you go in and tell people what you think….if that POWER/PRESTIGE meme is in the forefront of your thinking and sensibilities…YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST!
I really don’t want her to get the nomination….albeit she is getting more polished…but when you get her going, and slightly off message, she reveals who she really is, A POWER PRESTIGE MONGER!
xargaw @ 149
Instructions from their media-owning overlords.
KathieinMN @ 152
The word is disingenious, not hypocritical or a traitor to his class. I am a HUGE Theo Roosevelt fan, particularly on his trust busting stance, and FDR fan, and yes, it takes people from the ruling class, people with money, to affectuate change. MY POINT IS that Edwards gets WAY TOO MUCH credibility about helping the “poor” and middle class by JUST TALKING ABOUT IT. Obama, who gets no love for this in this blog, has worked for the poor and disadvantaged for two decades. Edwards smacks of demogauge to me. He is a fine guy. I just don’t get why Obama doesn’t get the same amount of respect for what he has done in relation to his work with social change and justice.
Franco @ 154
Hillary Clinton can’t wait for the power.
Another thing about Obama not being experienced…….At least he has a brain and uses it unlike the LOSER we have had this 6 longggggggggggggggggggg years!
KathieinMN @ 152
He is down sweating in NO for publicity.
I think it’s a political question now with Gonzales. I have to hope that Leahy has enough votes on the Democratic side for impeachment. The case is tricky to explain in detail … even though AL made a yeoman’s effort, that’s going to be tough to parse out on the evening news.
I think it’s going to come down to, can they get about 10 Republican Senators to agree with something straightforward like “he’s lying to us”. Once that happens, I think Bush will tell Gonzales to resign, but Bush will hold out until enough Republicans are clearly going to vote against him. It’s up to the voters in the swing districts now to put some pressure on their senators.
Franco @ 158
Abe Lincoln spent two years in Congress before being elected as President. Hmmm.
Edwards fought, and beat, big corporations throughout his entire trial-lawyer career. That work for the downtrodden, poor, and middle-class (against Big Everything) counts for a lot in my book. There wouldn’t be safer suction drains on pools and hot-tubs, except for John Edwards. That the market values this work at one-third the payoff bothers me not at all — there would be no safe toys, pools, cars, cribs, or medicine if it weren’t for the plaintiffs’ bar.
I value Obama’s work as well. I simply prefer Edwards as an orator, a candidate, and a leader. I will work happily to elect Obama if he’s my party’s nominee. But I think Edwards will do the best for our country — and our party — in November 2008.
xargaw @ 149
Cannot figure this out. Maybe he would want to throw some of them in jail for being a huge part of the problem in our country.
LS @ 143
“As a political figure, Gore may be more palatable as a possible dark horse than an actual candidate–precisely because he seems incapable of turning his passions into sound bites. And in any campaign, he might find himself on the defensive for his business activities. In his slideshow tour, he has been paid by many companies, which could be used to challenge his integrity. (He routinely cuts or eliminates his fee for schools and other nonprofits.) He also headed the Apple board committee that cleared Steve Jobs of wrongdoing in the stock-options backdating scandal.
Sitting where he is, his outsider status makes him a potential kingmaker among the Democratic candidates. He has said he expects to endorse someone eventually. Whoever gets the nod can expect Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection to run its own campaign on the issues.
Gore sees no reason to apologize for not wanting to jump into the electoral fray. As a businessman, he can speak with a candor few successful politicians can maintain. He has made an enormous amount of money and achieved positions of influence from technology to financial services to media. He and Tipper are even setting themselves up as angel investors for a few early-stage tech companies they believe in. In doing one end run after another around the status quo, he has created a new life: a perfect amalgam of environmental activism and a new type of capitalism in which there is more than one bottom line to consider, more than one master to serve.”
TeddySanFran @ 142
Thanks for the link
What happened to the Total Information Awareness program?
http://vision.moundalexis.com/pipermail/saic/2006
-February/000644.html
Apparently, TIA was folded into the NSA, hidden behind the “black budget” wall.
Could this be the NSA program, the latest incarnation of the highly illegal TIA, that the Bush administration is trying to hide?
Is this “warrantless,” FISA-skirting domestic data-collection program what top Justice Department officials objected to and wouldn’t reauthorize unless changes were made?
It is obvious that the incoming Bush administration in 2001 didn’t feel that Richard Nixon had gone far enough in his illegal surveillance activities thirty years earlier. So Dick Cheney and his evil neo-con ilk decided to pick up where Nixon left off and “do it right” this time, in essence conducting a right-wing coup of our democracy, with the goal of a permanent Republican one-party-rule federal government.
However, now faced with a Democratic-controlled Congress, the Bush administration is trying to hide their criminal activities behind a wall of weasel words.
I’m not fooled.
Get Tough @ 156
I think you make an excellent point. I like both Obama and Edwards, but I have to say I don’t trust Edwards’ latest hoopla about being all concerned about the poor. It’s an easy thing to say, and I’m sure to some degree he means it, but I’ll have to see some real action before I believe it’s anything more than rhetoric. Whereas Obama has clearly been there. Right on, he ought to get more credit.
TeddySanFran @ 162
Yes, I am for trial attorneys effectuating change, too. And in fact are a nice substitute for the beaurocrats in Washington dragging their heels. And I know you aren’t disagreeing with me Teddy, and I value your blogging, but Edwards gets a lot of traction for his social stance where Obama gets skewered because he accepted campaign contributions from a hedge fund manager.
FDL folks know more than anyone that the Bushies have left a huge mess for his successor to clean up. A watershed moment in politics has to take place, and Obama represents that moment.
RockPaperScizzors @ 164
I know what you mean, I guess I just want him to say, I’m not running. If the above was solidly the case, why wouldn’t he just say, I’m not running. That’s all I’m saying.
Get Tough says: July 28th, 2007 at 4:17 pm:
re Obama gets no love…
I do agree with you about Obama. I haven’t read FDL regularly enough lately to know whether he gets enough love here. In my opinion, a big problem is that anything that is not right absolutely in line with a reactionary maximize corporate profits, regressive taxation, line is not covered by the press. And when I mean reactionary, I mean reactionary compared to any mainstream opinion between the depression and Reagan. Thatperiodhad the highest real per capita GNP growth in our history, by the by, but it didn’t all go into the suits’ pockets so they hated it).
Edwards gets coverage onhis poverty workprecisely because it is inescapable with his background, and provides cheap gotcha points for the media. They wouldn’t cover Edwards on it if they could not use it to paint him as a stinking hypocrite. I think itwill be hard for Obama to get big media coverage for his work on it because it is not glamorous. But I think the wingnut press has been exploring ways to pain him as a naife or unstable extremist, and as soon as they figure out how to work his community organizing work into aveiled attack, I am sure we will hear a lot about it.
Maybe a balanced blog forum, or a series of posts, on the candidates’ anti-poverty and social justice and democracy histories and proposals would be a good idea.
The Oracle @ 166
This is very likely exactly what happened to TIA. And if this can be shown to be the genesis of TSP, there will be hell to pay.
wespgc @ 170.
This is the only blog I blog at. Out of all of the blogs out there, I believe the most informative and sharp writers and commentors reside at the Lake. I have other things, as does everyone else, that prevents me from blogging all day, so I stay in here when I want a lively chat. I am a one-blog guy.
As such, Obama just does not get any love in here for some reason. It’s nice to see some people responding to my posts, but time and time again, it is either Gore (which I don’t argue with, really) or Edwards that gets the most love. No one comes out and says, “Obama is the best” (except me, I guess).
Who ever the candidate is for the Dems the one necessity is that the Republican Party experience electoral euthanasia. Do it for the health of the nation.
Obama is certainly far far superior to any Republican candidate. My concern is that he is interested in only tweaking the system and not actually initiating fundamental change to a system that is clearly broken in so many areas.
Bluetoe @ 174
He is moderate on fiscal issues, and foreign policy, that’s for sure. But you have to be a realist when it comes to foreign policy. Not that I am accusing you of this, but I think people sometimes associate his chance to be the first black President, and the watershed moment that epitomizes, with the notion that with that he also needs to change everything. The Constitution, if followed and applied, suffices. The Bushies have sh** on it so much that it appears change is a necessity, when it is sound judgment, conviction, some sharp elbows, while following the Founders, that is needed. And I will bet the farm that if legislation comes across his desk that benefit only a small class of people, his track record proves that it will die on his desk if he is President. Again, Edwards is a fine guy. But Obama is a revelation.
demi @ 8
This whole thing sounds like the Godfather hospital scene with Comey as Michael Corleone and Fredo as the crooked cop. I prefer the Fredo nickname although Bush misnamed him; Gonzalez is more of a goon than a weak brother. Why were they there? And why was the wife so upset, if everyone was in agreement? Also I seem to remember Fredo lied about a bunch of other things before Congress besides the Spy program.
Get Tough @ 172
I have rapidly become a “one blog” person, too, and the one is the Lake. And I also like Obama. But I am for the moment reserving judgment. I have been a big Clinton (Bill) supporter, and I don’t find Hillary off-putting, but I am leery of supporting someone who could be unelectable in the national race. I like Gore, who’s not running. I like Edwards, too. I am conflicted. But at least I am not leaning toward “none of the above” which is where a majority of Rethugs are, at the moment. Awwww….
I am a big Obama fan, and I am reading his biography right now. His writing is pristine, as one would expect, clear and moving. I have been a little surprised that he has not been more colorful in the debates. His convention speech was powerful and visionary. I know it’s early, as said, but I do hope he begins to transmit a little more energy. Most everyone has been so impressed by the ease and clarity of Clinton’s performance; more poise, less abrasive, I guess. I know he can be more commanding than he has shown.
I just want to offer my agreement of the skin crawling thing with the southern accents. I was raised in a small southern town where the townies had the pronounced drawl and the people who worked at the medical school or university didn’t. To me, a deep southern accent has always sounded ignorant and I have to say, Dubya hasn’t helped me overcome my prejudice. I’m not proud of feeling this way, but It is an honest emotion based on experience. Never met a proud member of the KKK that didn’t have that accent.
If the story I read is true, that Hillary supports torture in the exceptional circumstance of the “ticking time bomb” scenario, then this and her vote on Iraq makes it impossible for me to vote for her, even if she is the Democratic nominee.
Cheney had gobs of “experience,” and we all know how well that’s going for the country.
Cut to the chase. There was an illegal program he admits existed. We need to go after that.
why does that picture of Abu and aWol remind me of this
Dennis @ 182
And not only did Bush authorize this illegal program and run it for 6-months…he continued to attempt to IMPOSE it after the DOJ told him that it WAS ILLEGAL. Even after the Gang Of Eight told them that they had serious issues with the program when they were FINALLY informed of its scope. Bush even tried to get the non-acting AG, under sedation, to put his signature on it.
AND when he couldn’t…they got it ILLEGALLY AUTHORIZED (unless there are secret Executive Orders out there changing the authorization system) by the President to keep it running.
AND they attempted to run with this ILLEGAL LAW until the Acting AG Comey, Ashcroft, and FBI Director Mueller as well as Senior staffers in their Departments threatened to resign en masse.
Then, and only then, did Bush back down.
And then he announced that all these articles in the NY Times and Washington Post were in error…announcing a “revised program” (the TSP)…which was NOT what these articles were actually about (for all it’s flaws). He thus lied about the content of the actual program in operation to the Public and most of Congress.
But the Gang of 8 were restrained from telling their fellow members in Congress the difference between the ORIGINAL OPERATION and the revised announced” program. But someone should tell these Congresspeople that they can, in fact, reveal this information…as it deals with illegal activities. In fact they are compelled to do so as government officials.
It is clear that the DLC is an enemy of citizen-based (as opposed to corporate-based) government. Now Bush is an even bigger enemy, as are the organized fundies. But, Bushand the fundies are insane. You have to crush them to make them stop.
But, the DLC are just a cynical bunch of corporate whores. They even pretend to be reasonable. I submit that the DLC are our weakest opponent. We should go after them right now. We
should crucify them for pandering to Bush and adopting his secrecy over the trade bill.
We should put them on record as opposing any change in the status quo in Iraq. Weshould make them admit that Iraq Government Benchmark #1 is to write a law that letsour OIL companies rip off their profits.
And, even if we get rid of the DLC, we then have to win an election during which the whole”You lost Iraq” meme will be played at full volume. It will take real guts for a nominnee tostand up to the lies the media and sell-outs like Liebereman will throw at them.
So, yes, I’m outraged. And, I am not at all certain that we can pull this one out. If Hillary gets in, we will have something like 36 years of the country being run by two families whose “pater familiases” are joined at the hip. That’s not a democracy in my book…….
We absolutely NEED a non-DLC set of candidates nominated!
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/ar.....p#comments
I think that what the WH has done is to split the programs, as mentioned. Both are SAP (special access programs) which means that even revealing the existence of a program that is SAP means instant jail time.
Make no mistake, Mueller and others understand the threat to them, and so do the questioners. If Mueller says, “No, it was another program,” he goes to jail, put there by the Administration.
What’s even more fun is that the gang of 8 isn’t approved for some of these SAP programs.
The president has the authority to declassify whatever he wants, and presumably Gonzales is using that authority. Hamsher described AG as “selectively declassifying” material to bolster his case.
There’s something really ugly being hidden here. And it’s quite a chess game going on, too, since lots of people, Senators, Congressmen, and civil servants, know things that they can’t say in public.
Doesn’t there have to be some way, as mentioned above, when we are talking about illegal activities to get around some of the sanctions/protections etc. Whether the Special counsel, some sort of immunity, in camera, whatever; the catch 22 is too disgusting & gives way too much protection to the bad guys, coverup. Who can say enough; the game is over