What Comey’s revelations mean for Gonzales

May 16, 2007

Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey seems to have raised eyebrows throughout the political world with his Senate Judiciary Committee testimony yesterday. While the prosecutor purge was supposed to be the key topic of the hearing, Comey’s story about the 2004 reathorization of the NSA warrantless-search program turned out to be the big news.

As Anonymous Liberal put it, “Comey’s testimony today reads like the script of a Hollywood movie.” To briefly summarize a long story, Comey was acting Attorney General in early 2004 after John Ashcroft was hospitalized, and balked at reauthorizing the NSA program. Then-WH Chief of Staff Andy Card and then-WH Counsel Alberto Gonzales literally went to Ashcroft’s hospital room, shortly after his surgery, to get him to approve the program and override Comey’s decision. A groggy Ashcroft also balked, leading the White House to approve its own domestic surveillance program over the objections of its own Justice Department.

As this relates to Gonzales, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) responded to Comey’s story by asking again how Gonzales could remain as the AG, since he evidently had so little respect for the rule of law. But the Center for American Progress’ Peter Swire, the Clinton Administration’s Chief Counselor for Privacy from 1999 to early 2001, notes a bigger problem: In a 2006 hearing, when Schumer asked him about Comey’s objections to the NSA wiretapping program, Gonzales denied there was any “serious disagreement about the program.”

GONZALES: Senator, here is a response that I feel that I can give with respect to recent speculation or stories about disagreements. There has not been any serious disagreement, including — and I think this is accurate — there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into. I will also say –

SCHUMER: But there was some — I am sorry to cut you off, but there was some dissent within the administration, and Jim Comey did express at some point — that is all I asked you — some reservations.

GONZALES: The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we are talking about today.

Oops.

Swire sees one of two possibilities.

1) Comey’s objections apply to the NSA warrantless wiretapping program that Gonzales was discussing. If so, then Gonzales quite likely made serious mis-statements under oath. And Gonzales was deeply and personally involved in the meeting at Ashcroft’s hospital bed, so he won’t be able to claim “I forgot.”

2) Perhaps Comey’s objections applied to a different domestic spying program. That has a big advantage for Gonzales — he wasn’t lying under oath. But then we would have senior Justice officials confirming that other “programs” exist for domestic spying, something the Administration has never previously stated.

So, Attorney Genearl Gonzales, which is it? I’m betting on Door #1. Given Gonzales’ track record, it seems like the obvious choice.

Post Script: And as long as we’re on the subject, Glenn Greenwald has a terrific post on the “new unresolved issue highlighted by Comey’s testimony.” Take a look.

Impeach.

Them.

All.

Now.

  • OOOh, okay, and so what are we gonna do about it? That they would even go to the hospital to circumvent Comey demonstrates how ruthless they are. But was anything illegal done by continuing the program without DoJ signing off on it? We know Gonzales has no integrity and Card was just a power grabbing phony but besides showing us this did they do anything illegal?

  • I think the reason this little anecdote is getting press is because it shows what a nasty little bastard Gonzales truly is. All of this right-wing “restoring civility back to government” crap really gets tossed out the window when you see what these administration officials are willing to do even to each other. We have seen the face of evil and it looks like Alberto Gonzales.

  • Possibility number three… Yet another Gonzo cheshire cat grin while he casts yet another spell of defiant obfuscation into the face of yet another spineless congressional committee hearing.

  • I have been among the opponents here of impeaching Bush, but I think we can fire a warning shot pretty effectively by impeaching Gonzales, and I doubt he has a lot of public support.

  • This bizarre story *should* be the biggest story in Bush’s second term, at least. I could never understand why the original domestic spying revelations didn’t result in impeachment. As incredible as the hospital event was, Bush’s failure to instantly fire Gonzo and Card is even more appalling, though not surprising.

    Since 2001, Bush has committed countless outrages, each more blatant than the one before. Instead of being outraged, most Americans just accept them with a shrug.

  • These people seem not to know the difference between legal and illegal. They only seem to not want to get caught. If this was the Clinton administration, Congress would have drawn up articles of impeachment several years ago. This stuff is so serious that it is stunning. When will we all agree that enough is enough. I for one am almost as frustrated with the Dems and I am with the republic-thugs.

  • What this story shows me is how far behind the main stream media is. I remember reading about this on a blog at least a year ago. Don’t recall which, but this was not news to me. This is one reason why people like me are increasingly going to blogs to get the straight scoop.

  • It doesn’t matter what else is uncovered. There is already enough evidence to impeach Gonzales and put him in prison. It’s up the Dem’s now: do they have what it takes to take the next step? Unfortunately, I doubt it…

  • I can hear the spin now…

    When Gonezales said “there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed”, he meant that the president hasn’t confirmed any serious disagreements about “the program”, whatever “the program” means.

    Impeach the weasels now. All of them. The continued failure to do so weakens our democracy, and Dems should be ASHAMED of themselves for letting this go this far.

  • Possibility number three… Yet another Gonzo cheshire cat grin while he casts yet another spell of defiant obfuscation into the face of yet another spineless congressional committee hearing.

    Exactly. The tone of your post, Steve, presupposes that Washington in the Bush era is a place where eventually wrongs are righted and the rule of law is applied. In reality, Bush won’t fire Gonzales, Gonzales won’t quit (perhaps on orders from Bush), and Congress won’t impeach. The next AG will take office in early 2009.

  • huge bonus points to tAiO for working semi-obscure Peter Gabriel references into the discussion. . .

  • “The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we are talking about today.”

    I keep waiting for the final nail in AGAG’s coffin, but I’m not sure this particular snippet of testimony is it. If I followed the Comey testimony accurately, as a result of his (and the DOJ’s, basically) objections, Mueller relayed to Comey Bush’s message to “do what had to be done” to the program to satisfy the DOJ that the program had a legal basis. And although the objectionable version of the program continued for some weeks while the necessary changes were made, the program was, ultimately, modified in some as-yet unknown aspects so as to satisfy DOJ’s/Comey’s concerns.

    So, bottom line, Comey’s reservations probably did not deal “with the (version of) the program we are talking about today.” If they had, Comey would have resigned. Of course, this resolution of the apparent inconsistency depends on the bracketed words, which AGAG failed to provide. Will Congress feel that AGAG should have been a little clearer and more precise in what he was saying?

    My bet is he gets away with it, because the comittee is used to a certain level of vagueness when discussing secret programs in open session. A different standard applies when the testimony concerns such issues.

  • How much more blatant does the situation have to get before Democrats throw the guy out?

  • In the Dana Milbank sketch in today’s WaPo there was a bit at the end that I thought telling.

    Apparantly Specter asked Comey if he could think of any case where Gonzales had exercised “good judgement.” Whereupon Comey didn’t really reply and Specter had what I think is a bit of a classic, “Let the record show a very long pause.”

    To me that question and that comment applies to not just Gonzales in this instance but to him and a whole host of others in the Bush administration and should be the epitaph for the past 6 years.

  • One question I think interesting:

    Who sent Card and Gonzales on their errand?

    Deadline for reauthorization coming up and they were too scared to take it the boss, so they thought it up themselves?…Maybe, but then Bush has a 15-minute conversation about the situation with Comey later on at the White House. Sounds like a plugged-in executive to me.

    And remember the result of all this: everyone on the DOJ side is out within a year. 2nd term, new direction, etc., etc.

    The warrantless domestic wiretapping and torture are the big kahunas. Look at the lengths they have gone to get both legitimized. They even back dated the legislation on torture. They absolutely know they are/were committing crimes.

    There’s a nice line in the new Harper’s about the mark of our current times being to pretend not to know what any idiot can figure out. Three-quarters of the citizenry know these Bushie clowns belong in jail or at least nowhere near public funding. And yet…look at our table. Something seems to be missing.

  • Last night’s PBS Frontline, Spying on the Homefront, went into Gonzales testimony about the NSA “programs” (plural) that were used to monitor US citizens. Frontline showed our Attorney Criminal Gonzales repeatedly saying “this program” or using the word “here” when saying that it didn’t violate the law. I agree with Swire’s option 2. They are just playing word games and have multiple programs to spy on US citizens and their records. Gonzales was distinguishing between the illegal surveillance programs, while not admitting the existence of others.

  • Alibubba @6 and American’s lack of outrage:

    I did a quick survey of the newspapers in my favorites folder and can kinda see why no outrage – there is no coverage. The Mpls Strib had nothing. The Chicago Tribune – nothing. The LA Times – 3rd story on the national page. Denver – 3rd story (the second story was Prince Harry not going to Iraq. Detroit Free Press – nothing. South Carolina – 2nd story. USA Today – 4th story. Seatte Times – 2nd story. SF – 4th story. Tampa FL – nothing. If dramatic stuff like Comey’s testimony can’t make the front page what can?

  • “We know Gonzales has no integrity and Card was just a power grabbing phony but besides showing us this did they do anything illegal?”

    Let’s see. The Ashcroft DOJ refused to sign-off on/approve the program due to its own conclusion that the program did not pass legal muster i.e. as it was then currently in place it was illegal. That would be direct evidence that the program being actively operated by the Administration was in violation of the laws. There is a latin phrase that captures this but I am at a loss).

    Then there is the law that required DOJ to sign off on the program every 45 (??) days. This was obviously and clearly ignored once DOJ refused to sign-off. That law appears to have been broken.

    Then there is the whole issue of attempting to go around the authority of the acting AG (Comey). It is my understanding that this also may be an act in violation of the various federal laws applicable to the situation.

  • A meme has developed in leftblogistan that the NSA spying program was “sooooooooooooo, bad” that even Ashcroft wouldn’t sign off on it. However, that was in 2004 and the program had been in place since 2001. Presumable Ashcroft had signed off on it for over two years. What change when Comey became acting AG? What is likely is that Comey actually looked at what was going on with the domestic spying program and realized that it broke the FISA law. How did he convince Ashcroft of this? I am guessing that it wasn’t by an intellectual appeal. Rather I would guess he pointed out the following to Ashcroft.

    Beyond the indisputable crimes that were committed here — and violating the law and engaging in eavesdropping that the Congress has prohibited are “crimes” in every sense of the word, in this case punishable with five years in prison and a $10,000 fine for each offense –

    My guess is that Ashcroft chose not to sign in 2004 as visions of John Mitchel danced in his head when Comey made it clear that his ass could be hauled off to the poky.

  • “If dramatic stuff like Comey’s testimony can’t make the front page what can?”

    — Todd

    No kidding. But there have been plenty of stories that have been covered (grudgingly, maybe) — pre-war intel, domestic spying, waste of billions of dollars, Katrina — and there’s still little outrage. I suppose it’s because so many people have come to regard the Bush administration as a mere annoyance, rather than the tragic crisis it is.

  • GONZALES: The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we are talking about today.

    Perhaps I am not following this closely enough, but I am inclined to parse Gonzales further. The disageement was about the “program” in its form prior to DOJ finally signing off. Gonzo was applying his statements to the “program” as it existed when it became known to the public and subject to the hearing. I believe the DOJ’s objections had be assuaged by then. It all depends on what the meaning of “program” is. Unfortunately, Gonzales and Bush have declared themselves the dictionary and thesaurus. Congress is groping in the dark.

    Also, I hear Arlen Specter talking about the President “doing the right thing” when confronted with the resignations of Comey and others. He says it as if once Bush gets the right info, he does the right thing. The bastard had no choice. There was no way the secrecy of the “program” would have survived mass DOJ resignations. He was simply swallowing the least bit of reality and rule of law he could. I have no doubt that Card and Gonzales attempted their end run Comey (or Cuomo as Bush calls him) at Bush’s behest. Hell, he called Mrs. Ashcroft to get them in. This crowd is vile. I have been opposed to impeachment because I think it is a distraction and frequent impeachment degrades its potency as a political measure. But, these people have earned impeachment. I wait for the moment that members of Congress tire of Gonzales flipping them off with rhetoric and stonewalling tactics. I just don’t think it is going to happen in the numbers required.

  • It sounds to me like Gonzales would let the president piss in his hair, and just smile that sleepy smile the whole time. Can he be the only person on earth (besides Bush himself, and Barney, who doesn’t count as he isn’t a person) who believes Dubya gets his guidance from God?

  • tsquared, #20,

    Front page, above the fold, in NYTimes paper version. The online versions change every couple of hours, so I don’t know where it’s at at the moment. Haven’t read it yet, so don’t know what the tone of it is — ie whether it’s straight reporting of Comey’s testimony or if they managed to inject a touch of censure into it. But, even if they did say “naughty, naughty”, there’s so much crap coming out of this MalAdmin, no amount of outrage is sufficient, short of a call for impeachment . Or, better yet, long jail time.

    • Comments are closed.