Eric welcome to the Lake.

Welcome, Eric. Honored you could join us today.

Barbara Comstock is one of the most “under the radar” operatives in this administration. She’s probably had more influence indirectly than most people realize, and I don’t think even the wingnuts know who she is.

Being hated by her is truly a badge of honor, IMHO.

Eric,

I’m curious what you think will happen with the Fine investigation into the politicized hiring?

Glad to be here, and thanks for the nice intro.

Aloha, Marcy and Eric!

Hi Eric, and thanks for writing about these issues. You seem to be part of a very small minority in the news business these days. Any thoughts on how to get the word out that these things are going on, and how they affect us in our daily lives? The people I particularly have in mind are the ones who think that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t mind this sort of thing.

Good question. This is one of a handful of big investigations by the inspector general’s office that are now nearing completion and public release. You’ve got the firing of the US attorneys, the FBI’s reports about possible abuses by interrogators at Gitmo, and the Justice Dept’s involvement in the NSA wiretapping program. All three are likely to produce big news. In the past, Fine’s office has been less interested in focusing individual blame and instead has shed lots of new light on institutional failures. I’d expect the same here.

Welcome Eric!

Your writing is making people in DC nervous. Keep up the good work.

The book was a great read. It’s always nice to find new things in books for which you’ve read all the primary articles.

Here’s another tough question you may want to answer further down the thread (so as to maintain your studious neutrality).

Is the Bush Administration so secretive because they’re incompetent, because they’re willfully pushing their Article II issues, or because they honestly believe they need to be? Your treatment of SWIFT and the warrantless wiretap program make the case that the Administration is not succeeded at tracking financial transactions, and that all their data mining isn’t getting them many good leads. Are they trying to hide that fact?

Any estimate when they’ll be released? I know they’re due soon, but what kind of time frame is that?

Welcome Eric. So good to have you here.

Indeed, when it became apparent that something had gone horribly wrong at the Justice Department your work was invaluable. Thanks for all you do.

It’s tough to predict the public’s response to the news, much less try to shape it. We put out the best stories we can, and I think the media has done an exceptional job the last few years of exploring hard-to-get-at issues in the realm of national security. Which ones stick and which ones don’t is anyone;s guess.

Re the inspector general’s reports: We’re hearing soon, but in government-speak, we could all be dead by the time `soon’ rolls around.

Eric — Thanks so much for being here today — and for all of your very useful reporting. I’m certain it’s gotten you removed from the invite list from a few cocktail weenie soirees in the Beltway, but it’s better to do the right thing than be at the right parties, I suppose. *g*

I was particularly intrigued by the NSA domestic spying reporting that you’ve been able to do, especially when compared to some of the information that EFF has gotten from their AT&T whistleblower plaintiff along with other documents that have surfaced in that case and others. I know you cannot reveal sources, but one of the persisting questions is just how many of these domestic spying programs within the NSA and other agencies are still operable — and how many were at the time before your stories hit the wires? We’re all in such a difficult position with a Congress which is barely able to scratch the surface on discovery with an Administration which continually refuses to either cooperate or respond to lawful subpoena, and a justice department which is disinclined to do its duty under the law to enforce said subpoenas.

I wonder how it feels for you to be in the middle of this maelstrom. Do you see any unravelling of any of this? Or is it to be more of the same, just different names for the same activity (as we’ve seen with Adm. Poindexter’s many variations on a theme through the years)?

Thank you, Eric.
“these stories appeared in “the back pages of the A section..”
The only way I stayed nearly sane in 2002 and 2003 was by reading section A beginning at its back and moving forward.
Keep up the good work, and again, thank you.

I think the secrecy was a reflection of Cheney’s powerful influence. Even before 9/11, we saw the fight over access to Cheney’s logs on whom he had met with in formulating energy policy. The secrecy reached epidemic heights after 9/11, mostly, I think, out of the mistrust of Congress and the media. I argue in the book that the secrecy was, in the end, self-defeating, because it kept key people inside the administration out of the loop and bred suspicioun about many of these key programs, like the NSA wiretapping, SWIFT, and CIA interrogations.

Hello, Mr Lichtblau, thanks for joining us here at FDL.

How does it feel when your boss comes from a meeting with the President where he’s been told that publishing your work will jeopardize national security?

Thank you for your terrific reporting; I look forward to reading your book.

There’s still an awful lot we don’t know about the NSA program and other operations like it. Two-and-a-half years after our initial story, Congress still hasn’t been able to answer many of the central questions, but the NSA legislation passed by the House a few weeks ago (in denying immunity to the telco companies) would require a congressional investigation with subpoena power to try to get at some of the basic facts. That’s seen as a start.

Since you raise Cheney, one of the most oblique comments in your book is when you say that Cheney decided to stay home from one of their attempts to persuade NYT not to publish the warrantless wiretap program, because of Cheney’s difficult relationship with the NYT.

Would you care to elaborate?

Also, how much of the issues that we still see at the DOJ are going to have substantial, lasting impact, given that so many of the hires were not for political hires — but for regular, tenured hires which will long outlast the Bush Administration in terms of policy implementation and internal dialogue. I know this is true for other agencies as well, but DOJ in particular — especially in the hiring and civil rights sections, has had some serious wholesale changes, with so many longer-term employees forced into retirement or buyout through adverse work conditions or switches in job portfolios to more undesirable sections.

I know folks who had worked long-term for the OLC, who have not been there for quite some time because they could no longer hold out to make it through to the next administration based on what they were baing asked to argue on behalf of the current one. It’s a tough spot to be in, knowing that your job will end up being filled by someone who likely is more than happy to be the next Yoo or Von Spakovsky.

I would bet that you have seen that a lot covering the DOJ, and wondered if you have any thoughts on how that gets resolved in what will likely be a very long-term process?

Well, I was at meetings with the White House where they delivered essentially that same message. They just went to higher levels when Bush told Sulzberger. I get into the whole narrative of that episode and the intense debate over whether to publish the NSA story in a chapter of the book entitled “Blood on Our Hands.” (Spoiler alert: we decided to publish the story!) I’m pretty confident in saying I’ll never be involved in anything quite like it in my career again. I can’t do it justice here, but read the chapter. Hell, read the whole book!

Given how hard the Administration has been pushing for telecom immunity, one wonders just how much they want to keep this information under wraps — and what they really have been doing under the legality net. It’s one thing to protect national security secrets, it’s another thing entirely to silence people for your own CYA — and the feeling is that the latter is a helluva lot more motivation for the crew surrounding Cheney and Addington and all the folks who have pushed a lot of this from the start.

You mean, other than when Cheney had them kicked off his plane? *g*

Attaturk calls Page A-17 the “Walter Pincus page.”

Different paper, I know, but same principle.

Re Cheney: We didn’t know that at the time. I learned it, in fact, only in reading a book out last year on Cheney written with the VP’s cooperation. (and footnoted it in my book). Cheney was the key to the entire NSA operation, but you can see why the white house would have thought it counter-productive to send him to lobby the New York Times not to run the story. After all, things had gotten so tense in our relations that Cheney had actually banned our reporter from his press plane in the ‘04 campaign.

No doubt that was weird experince.

As you got deeper into the Bush subversion of the DOJ did you ever wonder how much further and deeper this all went? Were you shocked or numbed by this at all?

In the end, all will depend on what the citizens think of all this. The first steps, being taken here with this and other books about the issues, have begun the process of ferreting out those who need to go. Professor Yoo, a favorite choice of mine, should no more be able to work at UCB’s Boalt Hall than I who have no legal expertise.

I believe when he, and others like him, have the harsh light of truth shown on them and their actions that they will cease to be a threat. I am not however fully confident that this will happen.

Certainly it will not without the efforts being made here.

Hello Eric. How many time do you Empty Cache and Reset Browser? Do you know if anyone has started a messenger service with hand delivered memo’s and sealing wax?

I intend to!

Are you touring in support of this book and if so when might you be on the West Coast?

Not to get into a side discussion, but I think the DoD has also been heavily politicized, and the implications of that process are as bad as in the DoJ.

Re long-term impact: I think the effect of many of these changes will be lasting. I don’t say that in a judgmental way, but the instruments of government have been re-calibrated these last six years. The FBI has been remade into an intelligence service, with half its agents doing counter-terrorism. The NSA is now doing some domestic intelligence, which was never in its purview before. And as you note, divisions of the Justice Dept that were once largely immune from political influence are not anymore. Those are the kinds of long-lasting changing I try to explore in my book.

Hi Eric,

Hope to read the book soon

Doing this on the fly and don’t have much time to use the google, but is it you, or is it your colleague James Risen whose phone records are being analyzed to get an idea on who might have leaked things to you re: the unconstitutional wiretapping on Americans by the Bush admin.?

And what as a journalist do you find the most troubling about this?

I did book appearances in San Francisco and LA two weeks ago right after the book’s release, and I just got back from Harvard and Syracuse University. No immediate plans to return to California, but I can always be persuaded. For upcoming book appearances (including Philadelphia, Miami, and others, go to:

bushslaw.com

Eric, I’ve been wondering how you make the decisions as to what gets printed in the NYT (albeit among obits and lingerie), and what goes into a book?

I never cease to be fascinated that these negotiations about the warrantless wiretapping program were going on at precisely the same time when, per they NYT’s own reporting, they were discussing with Libby’s lawyer whether Judy would testify or not, knowing full well that her testimony would refute Libby’s. And, at the same time, publishing Libby’s name as Judy’s source in an editorial.

The trial evidence proved pretty strongly (albeit circumstantially) that Cheney had ordered Libby to leak Plame’s identity to Judy–and that that is what Libby was hiding with his lies. So in the midst of the warrantless wiretap discussions, you’ve got the question of whether Libby will succeed in covering up that order from Cheney. Fascinating.

It was my colleague, Jim Risen, who was subpoenaed recently for information about his 2006 book, `State of War,’ although the material the govt is seeking does not relate to the NSA program.

Short answer is that these are troubling times for reporters, with subpoenas and the threat of them (there are two fbi investigations ongoing into our NSA story and the SWIFT story) changing the way we operate. Congress is debating whether to approve a federal shield law, and reporters are hoping they do.

I have to admit I never thought of the timing in quite that context. Fodder for the sequel.

Pretty much precisely the same time frame, I think: 10/16/04 is when NYT published Libby’s name in an editorial complaining about the subpoena for Judy. 10/28/05 was his indictment.

A book offers the chance to include things of a more personal perspective than you could get in the newspaper. As a general rule, if I came across something big enough in my reporting for the book, I felt duty-bound to put it in the paper, and there were several times during my book leave that I came back to write stories for the paper in the interim.

Speaking of Cheney and his fight to keep the logs of the Energy Task Force secret, how accurate is this statement…?

It wasn’t a mistake that, in 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney’s semi-secret Energy Task Force set itself the “task” of opening up the energy sectors of various Middle Eastern countries to “foreign investment”; or that it scrutinized “a detailed map of Iraq’s oil fields, together with the (non-American) oil companies scheduled to develop them”; or that, according to the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, the National Security Council directed its staff “to cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the ‘melding’ of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: ‘the review of operational policies towards rogue states,’ such as Iraq, and ‘actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields’”; or that the only American troops ordered to guard buildings in Iraq, after Baghdad fell, were sent to the Oil Ministry (and the Interior Ministry, which housed Saddam Hussein’s dreaded secret police); or that the first “reconstruction” contract was issued to Cheney’s former firm, Halliburton, for “emergency repairs” to those patrimonial oil fields.

WOW! The anti-Bob Woodward!

Speaking of which, I just noticed this Ars Technica article on Sen. Kennedy’s proposal to more clearly define what constitutes an official secret. Do you think this would have much positive effect on James Risen’s work?

You can always count on emptywheel to illuminate something sweet about a timeline.

I do think that is the most important part of what you are writing — and something that the public needs to understand much more critically. When you take a law enforcement agency and you put its mission not as dispensing justice or enforcing the rule of law, but as enforcing a political mandate? You fundamentally shift the entire purpose and perspective of the agency. And you completely skew it’s mission away from impartial application of the facts to the law — but to pursuing an agenda no matter what the law or the facts might say.

This is a huge sea change from what they used to do — and it needs much more public discussion if it is to ever be changed.

I wouldn’t want to comment on the accuracy of everything in there without researching it further. The Cheney bio I mentioned earlier (the author’s name is escaping me at the moment; Haynes, I think) is a sympathetic but interesting and well-researched portrait. The Post’s four-part series last year, of course, had a ton of good stuff (with a much more critical tone) and just won the pulitzer.

I haven’t read it. But as a close friend of Jim’s and his constant critic, I’m always looking for ways to have a positive effect on his work.

1,824DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Eric Lichtblau:

Thank you for you extraordinary work on Bush corruption of the law from the very beginnin…you get a Norske Citizenship Award and more importantly I’m gettin yer book on Monday.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THE BASTARDS AREN’T DONE YET!!

Buy a couple. They make great stocking stuffers.

But the melding of the two disparate policies does ring true…?

Mr. Lichtblau, do you have any information, or heard any rumors, of the Administration executing indemnification agreements with the participating telcos in order to get their assistance. You might find this interesting in that regard.

That is such a great answer. One of the first things W did was to extend the time for keeping Presidential papers/records secret. He would not have had the smarts to do that on his own, IMHO Thanks for that view.

Okay, now that this far in, I’m going to indulge in two weedy questions.

First, you describe FBI agents providing descriptions of their proposed wiretaps to FISC pre-9/11, only to have the judges return blank stares. Do you think the technical complexity of these programs is one of the reasons the Administration fought (and is still fighting) allowing FISC to review whether DOJ has minimized the wiretap data the way they said they would? Or is it just another attempt to avoid any meaningful oversight. And if it’s the former, do you think there any way to make sure FISC has better technical backup for their review of these programs?

Second, when you were at DKos, mcjoan asked if you knew whether the record of briefings on the wiretap program was accurate. Her question came out of a conversation she and I had had: that document in fact shows that the Administration was briefing ONLY the Intell leaders, not the House and Senate leaders–the Gang of Four rather than the Gang of Eight. I’m wondering whether you’ve had a chance to review, yet, whether it’s accurate. And if so, whether you know whether the House and Senate leaders didn’t attend the briefings bc they weren’t invited, or didn’t want to attend?

There’s been a proposal in congress (led by specter) to indemnify the telcos against liaibility against the current 40 lawsuits related to the NSA’s warrantless program and essentially have the govt replace them as defendants. That hasn’t gone anywhere. As far as standard, court-ordered wiretapping, the telcos already have immunity for that, and their cooperation can be compelled if they refuse, although it can be a cumbersome process.

Marcy, saw you on “Off the Record” on WKAR (PBS) “debating” the two right wingers. They were really quite whinny and petulant. Surprised you were able to constrain yourself from leaping over the desk to throttle them. Are they the future of the right wing?

Re technical complexity: Yes, there’s little doubt that was a driving force in the decision to order the NSA program. The NSA was doing complicated pattern analysis and data-mining sifting that no court had the ability to really digest in a judicial setting, much less approve through traditional warrants.

As far as the briefings, I remember the question coming up. I haven’t had the chance to really look into it, but my recollection is that house and senate leaders were excluded at first, but that it was widened pretty quickly to include the gang of eight (though not the full intell committees.) McConnell’s office put out a detailed listing of all the briefings a year or so ago; I’d point you to that for the full breakdown.

I’m looking at that, I think (though it came before Negroponte left). That’s my question–is it, as far as you know, accurate? Because, if so, then the first briefing the House and Senate leaders got was the March 10, 2004 one (though of course Pelosi had already gotten a briefing as HPSCI Ranking).

you’re right, it was negroponte. That’s the most official accounting I’ve seen, and I haven’t seen anything to contradict that log of the briefings. Now, of course, what was actually said in the briefings is a whole different matter and open to wide interpretation (see Harman’s response to the scene in my book, in which she posted a statement saying that they weren’t aware that FISA was not being followed.)

Just to add some texture to that

There are 1.88 trillion reasons the Bushies go through ATT

Principal uses of Daytona in AT&T:

* Hawkeye, the database of record for all of AT&T’s call detail, consisting of over 312 terabytes of information and 1.88 trillion records.

And one of the programs they use to sift through the data is Narus

Thank you. I am aware of the Specter bit, but that is not what I was referring to. There is a whole boatload of activity engaged in by the telcos that clearly was not done pursuant to court orders under FISA (50 USC 1801 et. seq.), the general criminal wiretapping statutes (18 USC 2510 et. seq., specifically 18 USC 2520), the Communications Act (47 USC et. seq., specifically 47 USC 605) and the Stored Communications Act (18 USC 2701 et. seq., specifically 18 USC 2707 and 2712).

I suggest that the telcos would have wanted some “protection” for all that activity done out of the formal statutory framework. By the nature of your response, I truly think you would find this article interesting on this issue. Thanks again, your work is appreciated.

Eric — I guess the unanswered question is “why?” Everything they did to violate the law would eventually prevent them from prosecuting those they spied on, kidnapped, tortured, etc. Surely they understood this; their senior advisers were all attorneys. Did they set out to create a lawless regime? Or did they just slide into it because there was no one who had the courage to say no? Any thoughts?

For anyone who wants to get deeper into this whole subject, I wrote a story in the times in december (with scott shane and jim risen) that talked about the nsa program as only the most controversial example in the expanding partnership between the federal government and private telcos the last few years, from drug surveillance operations to terrorism. I’m having trouble linking, but worth a read if you’re interested.

So a follow-up to both my FISC minimization question and the question about the briefings.

How do we improve oversight? If Congress allows the Admin to say, “no paperwork” and FISC can’t handle the tecnical data to oversee minimization, how do we ensure they can do reasonable wiretaps, but control it?

In addition to all teh problems with DOJ and politicization, we really need to get better oversight, particularly in teh Intell committees.

There needs to be a mechanism for the Intel committees to notify the country of lawlessness afoot, besides putting a hand-written letter in a tempest safe on Capitol Hill for several years.

Mr. Lichtblau, thank you so much for what you’ve done. Can you please, please mentor some of the other “journalists”. Please, take them under your wing and show them how it’s done!

Just out of curiosity what reason did they give you for burying your stories at the back of the paper?

Are there any BIG stories in the pipeline due to come out soon?

Any idea why the NYT & the Post have not used any FOIA requests on the torture issue?

That’s a tough one to answer. I think these were people who believed in the righteousness of their cause and truly believed the president, in most of these now-controversial operations, had the legal authority to what he was doing. There were certainly warnings to the contrary even from within the administration, but they were often disregarded, and Gonzales and company seemed at times almost blind to the potential legal and political fallout that could result from charting a course of unchecked presidential power when a more conciliatory approach might have gotten them the same result in most cases.

There is. All they have to do is have the guts to go on down to the well of the House or Senate and say their piece. They can even make it a closed session if need be. It is NOT a case of them having no method to do something, it was a lack of duty and desire.

Agreed.

Is it this one?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f.....A9619C8B63

Hi, Eric and EW and firepups: just had to add my compliments on the book. I’m about halfway through-it would be faster but I keep having to pause to damp down my anger. And please know that I’m another of your many readers in the Times—if your byline is on the article I tend to believe the contents. Not so true for all bylines.

Mr. Lichtblau, have you run across any Dems or Republicans who privately say that Bush & Cheney should be impeached?

A lot of it comes down to the question of what role we want the judiciary to play in areas of national security. The post-Watergate period saw an increased role, but the pendulum is now clearly swinging the other way with the Protect America Act and its more recent incarnations. The consensus in Congress, even among some Democrats, seems to be that the court should be a backstop to make sure nothing truly sinister is going on. Whether that view holds, we’ll have to see.

Sorry I wasn’t clear on my last question:

Mr. Lichtblau, have you run across any Dems or Republicans in Congress who privately say that Bush & Cheney should be impeached?

thanks. hope you finish the rest!

no, I cant say that I have. I did a panel recently with Bruce Fein, the former Reagan Justice Dept lawyer, and he called for it.

Amen.

yes, that’s the story I was talking about. thanks

Bruce Fein has been great on that issue.

Is there a video of the panel discussion or a transcript available?

Oh, I will, I will. I have the same problem w/ most of the books about this administration.

Eric — are there other critical national security/intelligence issues that you think need more investigation, beyond those you’ve covered? What are you exploring next?

Which journalists work do you read on a regular basis?

Not sure. It was done through NYU’s Brennan Center. I’m pretty sure there was a transcript or video for another panel I moderated in San Francisco on the NSA program on April 8 at the RSA conference.

Great book, Eric!

The image you use in the preface — “the drift net of government” — is one of the best metaphors I’ve seen to describe the approach of the Bush administration to anti-terrorism efforts.

I’m going to have to cut out early in about five minutes, so if there are any last questions, fire away.

Thanks to you and your publisher for not putting Junja’s face on the cover of your book — it makes it much easier to keep around the house, especially on the bedside table.

Eric, given the kinds of stories you’ve been writing, like those described in the book, you obviously work with anonymous sources a great deal, and go to great lengths to protect them — as well you should.

One question that has come to my mind more than once in the last six years, however, is how do reporters deal with an anonymous source that lies to them. Not gave the reporter some information that they believed to be true but later it turns out to have been false, but actively and intentionally lied to.

If you discovered, in the course of working on a story, that one of your sources tried to play you by feeding you false information, would you name them in the story as having tried to do so?

I’m sensing a little bit of anti-Bush hostility out there (I pick up on the little things), but I think it’s worth noting that this book wasn’t intended to be, and I don’t think is, an indictment of the president or his people. It’s meant to be an even-handed accounting of how people responded to a remarkable time in American history. People can decide for themselves how they did.

If a source knowingly lies to a reporter, that’s a breach of our confidentiality. Whatever terms we had going into the relationship would no longer apply.

Gotta run, but thanks for having me. It’s been fun. Lots of good questions. Go to Bushslaw.com if you need more info on the book….

We would expect no less of you.

I’m glad to hear at least one reporter say that.

From the way the Bush administration tried to spin things in the Valerie Plame episode, it is clear that reporters were lied to by “senior administration officials” — yet none of them stepped up and named any names.

I actually have to say I appreciate that. In general, the effort to do the “on the one hand, on the other hand” journalism is failing miserably these days because no one wants to act as an arbiter of truth. WAY too many reporters let people in power–including Democrats–get away with spin, so long as they have two sides in there. I guess it helps when, as in your case (I think Dana Priest is this way as well, in similarly important stories) you have many many sources, many with nuanced views.

So I appreciated the fact taht you still manage to pull off what objectivity is supposed to pull off. I just think in many many cases, it doesn’t work anymore. (And one of the reasons is the one Peterr points out–that people keep going back to, and protecting, sources that lie.)

Thanks Eric–thanks!

Well, at least in the case of the Washington Bureau Chief for NBC News, that’s because the source didn’t permit the “journalist” to go on the record.

Thanks, Eric, for your time today. Great intro, too, e.w.

Eric, thank you for spending the afternoon at the Lake with us.

My pleasure

EW, good review, and good questions.

Again, thank you for all you efforts Mr. Lichtblau

Seconded.

This is a very informative post. Thanks Eric and everyone! Wow.

I’ll second what Emptywheel said — you did not refrain from pulling punches, and told your narrative in ways that demonstrated that your conclusions were based on the facts you present.

Thanks so much — and I’m looking forward to more.

Yea, Thanks Eric

You and your colleagues opened up millions of people’s eyes to what was going on in the inner, dark sanctums of our government. Your series of articles have blown up in the blogosphere, and not only there, but most importantly, around people’s breakfast table, with facts that could not be denied.

We’re supposed to have “a nation of laws, not of men.” And history shows that t