Why Mueller’s notes matter

Following up on an item from late yesterday, FBI Director Robert Mueller agreed to share (redacted) notes he took about the now-infamous hospital visit with John Ashcroft in 2004 with the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman Conyers emphasized revelations about the White House seeking Ashcroft’s authorization for Bush’s warrantless surveillance program.

But let’s not overlook that Mueller’s notes have also caught Alberto Gonzales in yet another huge, demonstrable lie.

Then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was “feeble,” “barely articulate” and “stressed” moments after a hospital room confrontation in March 2004 with Alberto R. Gonzales, who wanted Ashcroft to approve a warrantless wiretapping program over Justice Department objections, according to notes from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III that were released yesterday.

One of Mueller’s entries in five pages of a daily log pertaining to the dispute also indicated that Ashcroft’s deputy was so concerned about undue pressure by Gonzales and other White House aides for the attorney general to back the wiretapping program that the deputy asked Mueller to bar anyone other than relatives from later entering Ashcroft’s hospital room.

Mueller’s description of Ashcroft’s physical condition that night contrasts with testimony last month from Gonzales, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Ashcroft was “lucid” and “did most of the talking” during the brief visit. It also confirms an account of the episode by former deputy attorney general James B. Comey, who said Ashcroft told the two men he was not well enough to make decisions in the hospital.

Got that? Gonzales publicly testified (remember, lying to Congress is a crime) that Ashcroft was cogent and communicating when Gonzales and Card went to his hospital room to take advantage of him. James Comey has already testified under oath that Gonzales was lying, and now FBI Director Mueller is confirming Comey’s account.

I’ve long since given up keeping track of all the times Gonzales has been caught lying, so I no longer hold any hope that the mendacity will reach a critical mass that will force the AG’s departure. But I am curious how Gonzales’ backers can continue to rationalize obvious falsehoods. Do conservatives now believe Attorneys General are free to lie to Congress? Will this standard apply to a Democratic Attorney General, too?

Spencer Ackerman notes another interesting revelation.

[T]he only non-redacted portion of the notes concerns the Ashcroft hospital visit, which takes up only a scant four paragraphs. Ashcroft — who, contrary to Gonzales’ portrayal, is described in Mueller’s notes as “feeble, barely articulate, clearly stressed” — isn’t talking about what happened during the visit. But Mueller reveals something intriguing. According to the FBI director, Ashcroft tells Card and Gonzales that “he was barred from obtaining the advice he needed on the program” — again, note program, singular — “by the strict compartmentalization rules of the [White House.]” Now that’s cronyism! For the first time, there’s the suggestion that even John Ashcroft — the attorney general of the United States and by all accounts a loyal Bushie — didn’t know all there was to know about the warrantless surveillance efforts. Apparently, Ashcroft wasn’t considered trustworthy enough to be kept in the loop on the most legally controversial program of them all — though his counterpart at the White House, and eventual successor, clearly was.

And Anonymous Liberal has more on this in an excellent, detailed analysis.

I think the conventional wisdom is that this scandal has largely run its course. It hasn’t.

Well, I have given the Dem Congress a lot of crap on this site for not pushing hard enough and not impeaching folks like Abu G and Cheney months ago. And they should still impeach. However, I am happy that the Dem Congress is investigating these things even if the only good that comes from it are a clear and documented understanding of all the criminal and unConstitutional activities that have been performed by this derelict and out-of-control Bush/Cheney administration and a clear, documented and harsh repudiation of such activities by those currently runnning Congress, for historical and precedential purposes.

  • Over at the Great Orange Satan’s place drational has a post on Mueller’s notes. He notes that Cheney was the highest administration official involved in the meetings. OK, no real surprise there, but think back to Gonzo’s humiliating performance at the Senate hearings, when he pointedly refused to name Cheney as the person who sent him to visit the drug addled Ashcroft. I think Gonzo has some more lying ‘splainin to do.

  • As Atrios would say, simple answers to simple questions:

    1.”Do conservatives now believe Attorneys General are free to lie to Congress?” Yes, but only if they are Republicans.

    2. “Will this standard apply to a Democratic Attorney General, too?” See answer to question 1.

  • The criminal terrorists have been in the WH all this time. Historical accounts of this presidency will be accompanied with qualifiers such as corrupt, sinister, liars, rogue operators, Constitution shredders, authoritarian, partisan, hack, and yes, even treason! These are the people who outed a CIA operative to gain political points. And finally, we will all fondly come to know one Karl Rove as anus mist, in perpetuity. -Kevo

  • If I thought that Gonzo could be removed from office, I would be screaming for impeachment. But removal from office takes 67 votes in the Senate, and those votes just aren’t there. Too many Loyal Bushies on the Republican side. And Lieberman.

    What can we do? Keep the pressure on! Leahy has done fairly well, but I think he should be more aggressive. Have Gonzo in to testify weekly about his previous lies until the stink gets so bad that even the loyal Bushies can’t stand it any more.

    Bush has done many, many things that are in-your-face outrageous, but Alberto Gonzales has to be up near the top. His name will live in infamy.

  • The “compartmentalization” aspect of this is what caught my eye, as well – and I think this may be the most revealing aspect of what transpired, and confirms a suspicion I have long had that there were very few people who actually knew the totality of what was going on. And it explains why Gonzales is still the Attorney General: he is one of the few who knows the whole story. If you add the US Attorney firings to the mix, add in Rove and Miers as being in that inner circle. It’s the only thing that makes sense.

    It’s diabolical in its implications. A very small group knows the full story. Information about the program is handed out, piecemeal, to those who have to be told something in order for the program to get what looks like “official” approval. So Ashcroft gets told enough so that he can brief members of Congress, who give it their blessing. They don’t know that their OK is being used to justify aspects they have not been told about, because Ashcroft wasn’t told. The hope is that if questions ever arise, they can point to the briefings and the authorizations as “proof” that they went by the book on their due diligence. Which is exactly what happened. THE NYT reveals the existence of the program, and the WH’s response is that Congress was fully briefed.

    But then there was that darn FISA Court, and those pesky judges asking all those questions. There was the small matter of whether information used to support warrants was itself illegally obtained and the further problem of whether that improperly obtained information was used in legal proceedings.

    It is my belief that this “new” legislation on the surveillance is not so much about the surveillance, it is about cutting the FISA court out of the process, so there is one less element to question whatever it is the WH is doing, or wants to do. The tighter they can draw the circle, and close out the nosy courts and the inquisitive legislative branch, and the more they can foreclose the possibility that anyone will have standing to litigate the constitutionality of the program (doesn’t it make you wonder how many other things they’re up to that we have no inkling about?), the better. They’re closing the loop, which is what they thought they had done initially by only briefing bits and pieces to people as needed. That they are now doing that with the cooperation of the Congress just blows my mind, and the day they realize – as a lot of us already do – that they have been complicit in actions that have weakened our Constitution and imperiled our democracy, it is going to blow them away, too.

    I think if it were possible to get to the bottom of all of this, it would be a veritable cornucopia of impeachable offenses, on top of the ones that I think ought to be obvious enough for the House to begin proceedings now.

  • Lying to congress, a crime? Well, maybe if you had an affair or something. Doesn’t anyone realize Gonzales is lying for our NATIONAL SECURITY!!! Please let’s have no confusion here, if the president does it it isn’t illegal, if the AG lies about it, he’s a hero for saving the children! Now, congress can just shut up and get back to passing some new tax cuts!

  • Harriet Miers keeps popping up in the backround of all this legal/doj skulldudgery.Anyone still wondering why she was nominated for SCOTUS?Perhaps it was a sort back door way to get a true believer on the inside.Not so stupid Bush eh?

  • Comments are closed.