Bush and the DoJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility — Day 2

Yesterday, Attorney General [tag]Alberto Gonzales[/tag] acknowledged for the first time that the [tag]president[/tag] personally blocked [tag]Justice Department[/tag] lawyers from pursuing an internal probe of the White House’s [tag]warrantless[/tag]-[tag]search[/tag] program. As it turns out, this is a story that may have some legs.

Bush’s decision represents an unusually direct and unprecedented White House intervention into an investigation by the [tag]Office of Professional Responsibility[/tag], the internal affairs office at Justice, administration officials and legal experts said. It forced OPR to abandon its investigation of the role Justice officials played in authorizing and monitoring the controversial NSA eavesdropping effort, according to officials and government documents.

“Since its creation some 31 years ago, [tag]OPR[/tag] has conducted many highly sensitive investigations involving Executive Branch programs and has obtained access to information classified at the highest levels,” the office’s chief lawyer, H. Marshall Jarrett, wrote in a memorandum released yesterday. “In all those years, OPR has never been prevented from initiating or pursuing an investigation.”

That is, until now. Part of what made yesterday’s revelations especially interesting was the White House’s inability to defend the president’s decision to [tag]interfere[/tag] with the [tag]investigation[/tag]. Tony Snow was asked about the move during yesterday’s briefing and argued that Bush simply showed some discretion.

“There were proper channels for doing legal review, and in fact, a legal review was done every 45 days, and the Attorney General, himself, was involved in it. The Office of Professional Responsibility was not the proper venue for conducting that.”

But this doesn’t make a lot of sense. As Justin Rood explained, the Office of Professional Responsibility is responsible for making sure Justice Department officials are “adhering to the law as they…make sure the rest of us adhere to the law.” Snow’s argument intentionally misses the point — Gonzales and other Bush allies at the DoJ approved the program, but the OPR wanted to check to make sure they were right. That’s not only the “proper” venue; it’s the only venue.

Except [tag]Bush[/tag] intervened to kill the investigation. That’s a real problem.

Some congressional Dems are saying the right things.

Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat who had also sought an O.P.R. investigation of the surveillance program, said Tuesday that she was shocked that Mr. Bush had blocked the clearances of lawyers from that office.

“The president’s latest action shows that he is willing to be personally involved in the cover-up of suspected illegal activity,” Ms. Lofgren said.

That really is the point here. Political appointees at the Justice Department gave the White House some questionable legal advice. The OPR was going to check to make sure that advice was sound — so the president personally intervened to ensure that certain questions weren’t asked.

Murray Waas’ item on this is a must-read.

The statement by Gonzales stunned some senior Justice Department officials, who were led to believe that Gonzales himself had made the decision to deny the clearances after consulting with intelligence agencies whose activities would be scrutinized, a senior federal law enforcement official said in an interview. […]

A senior Justice official said that the refusal to grant the clearances was “unprecedented” and questioned whether the clearances were denied because investigators might find “misconduct by those who were attempting to defeat” the probe from being conducted.

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who had helped request the OPR investigation in the first place, told Waas, “It was the president of the United States himself who prevented this investigation from going forward. In obstructing the investigation, he was protecting the people around him, and not protecting the Constitution.”

Stepping back, it’s worth noting that Bush believes a) he can tap phones without a warrant; b) he doesn’t need judicial oversight; c) he doesn’t need to notify Congress; and d) he can personally shut down a legal review of the program at the Justice Department. If the cover-up is always worse than the crime, the president’s decision to shut down this investigation is at least as big a deal as the warrantless searches themselves.

Indeed, it shifts the political debate in a way that the GOP may find unhelpful. For months, Republicans have seemed to relish this issue — they get to tout their defense of the so-called “terrorist surveillance program,” while arguing that Dems care too much about the rule of law. But this revelation is a curveball. It’s not about monitoring suspected bad guys; it’s about the president interfering with a legal investigation.

Even for Dems who were unnecessarily sheepish about warrantless searches, yesterday’s revelation is worth following up on.

Man, comparisons to Watergate don’t cut it at all. This is way, way worse. This is more like Stalinist Soviet times, minus the Gulag (Oh, wait, Guantanamo Bay… nevermind…)

  • It’s amazing that the Bushites don’t even trust the Executive Branch to review their grab for power.

  • From the day when we first learned of the warrantless wiretaps, my paranoid side suspected Bush was spying on political opponents. The only reason I could ever see for not getting a warrant, is the certainty that no court would ever issue such a warrant. This new bit makes it all but impossible to believe anything else.

    At the very least, Bush owes us a plausible explanation. More importantly, congress owes us a real investigation. I expect Arlen Specter to be along any moment to express his temporary outrage at the preznit’s behavior. That is, before rubber stamping it with his approval.

  • Political appointees at the Justice Department gave the White House some questionable legal advice. The OPR was going to check to make sure that advice was sound — so the president personally intervened to ensure that certain questions weren’t asked.

    That’s the nugget right there.

    How so?

    Well “B” obviously doesn’t know the written rules of law from Charmin bath tissue…

    That means: Someone TOLD HIM to halt the investigation.

    Who?

    It is obvious:

    “The statement by Gonzales stunned some senior Justice Department officials, who were led to believe that Gonzales himself had made the decision to deny the clearances…”

    Yep. “Led to believe…”
    By who?
    By Gonzales himself.

    So here is what happened:

    Gonzales told “B” that he needed to kill the investigation so “B” could continue to do whatever he pleased…

    And “B” said: That’s right, I am the Decider. Make it so Abu.
    (assuming here that that’s B’s nick for Gonzales…)

    The psychopathology of this White House is indeed that cancerous. The only thing keeping this malignancy fertile is:

    1) A republican congress
    2) The corporate corpulent media

    Otherwise: Bush is in the dustpan with tricky Dick.

  • I’m wondering what greater outrages the Bushies have to commit before anyone beyond this blog notices.

  • Ali,
    If it comes out that the White House rigged the “Amerca’s Got Talent” finale, that might generate some outrage.

  • President Bush doesn’t care about the effects of his actions/inactions because he doesn’t feel the need to be held to account. At the moment that someone–anyone–challenges his efforts, power-broker attack dogs gnash at their faces, while he preaches on about terrorists and freedom.

    “Vast Carelessness”

  • This is what I remember reading about in a series of articles written by Harry V Martin in the 80’s, about the INSLAW case and about the Reagan version of FEMA. INSLAW was the first “profiling” software created for the DOJ, with the power to profile political opponents. The developers were killed, mysteriously, and their software magically appeared at DOJ. FEMA was to have the ability to declare martial law, should such a national emergency arise, like a terrorist attack!!
    Reagan quashed any investigations then, also.
    These authoritarian figures conducting covert subversion of our government have been at it for a long time. This has been the goal of the far Right for some time. Like the Taliban willing to endre a 1000 years to install their Caliphate, these same type of religious zealots are now in our government, attempting to install their supreme holy leader. This is not the end. Until we are willing to shed our lust for money and matierial
    things(or pursuit thereof) and wake up to our true roles as citizens, these political perverts will get away with it, again!!

    We must stay vigilant!!

  • This is the issue that needs to be thrown in the face of every last GOP flying monkey who’s running for Congressional re-election this year:

    ***The President has broken the law, repeatedly, and then obstructed justice by preventing federal investigations into this matter. What are you going to do about it? If you want our vote, then do something about it now.***

    (The “candidate” mentions something-or-other about Hezbollah, the War on Christmas, our need to get to Mars, and the sensitivity of ongoing investigations.)

    ***No—the President blocked the investigations. He has used his office to commit a felony. What are you going to do about it?***

    (The “candidate” mentions something-or-other about the Pledge of Alligiance, gay marriage, flag-burning, and the need to keep things from terrorists.)

    ***No—this has nothing to do with “terrorists.” The President broke the law. If I break the law, I go to jail. What are you going to do about the President?***

    I’m trying to imagine just how bad the GOP bloodbath is going to be, if the GOP majority cannot grow some collective cojones and drive the Bush-Cheney creature from office….

  • Let’s see here…. Clinton lies to a grand jury about sex, and he gets impeached for obstruction of justice.

    Bush squashes a legitimate DOJ investigation into potentially serious lawbreaking by his administration, and that’s OK.

    Anyone else here detect a faint whiff of hypocricy?

  • CB writes: “Snow’s argument intentionally misses the point…”

    Yes, CB, and that encapsulates the M.O. for how this administration contiinues to subvert the Constitution. The only question is how they continue to get away with it.

  • Alibubba: I’m wondering what greater outrages the Bushies have to commit before anyone beyond this blog notices.

    i’m pissed off at and frightened of the damage this bunch has done and will do in future (up to five years back, i never frightened easily). |-(

  • There is some good news. Gonzalez does not seem willing to lie for his boss and these hearings are bringing out a lot of juicy information about bush’s thought process.
    He has his apologists, but every day that group is shrinking or at least making more and more incoherent excuses. Little by little the curtain is getting pulled back.
    I don’t feel a wave of change, but I do feel very suttle changes and things they would have pulled three years ago are not happening, which is good news.

  • Gonzalez does not seem willing to lie for his boss

    He was under oath yesterday. I’m sure he is aware of what became of Scooter.

  • I’ve been reading David McCullough’s wonderful biography of John Adams. Adams had some great stuff to say back in 1770 for a proposed political oration he didn’t give, though he obviously kept the ideas and put them to use a few years later.

    Here’s a great quote, that should be used as often as possible:

    “The preservation of liberty depends upon the intellectual and moral character of the people. As long as knowledge and virtue are diffused generally among the body of a nation, it is imposible they should be enslaved.

    “Ambition is one of the more ungovernbable passions of the human heart. The love of power is insatiable and uncontrollable.

    “There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

    Adams was speaking exactly of George Bush, who is absolutely the most dangerous man to have ever emerged in American politics, and his “movement conservative” supporters the most dangerous political movement to have ever emerged in American politics. They are absolute proof that “it can happen here!”

  • Comments are closed.