How Is This Not A Major Scandal Of Presidential Corruption & Lawbreaking? (Glenn Greenwald)

[kpete]

Wednesday May 16, 2007 06:16 EST
Comey's testimony raises new and vital questions about the NSA scandal

............

Comey and Mueller were clearly both operating on the premise that Card and Gonzales were basically thugs. Indeed, Comey said that when Card ordred him to the White House, Comey refused to meet with Card without a witness being present, and that Card refused to allow Comey's summoned witness (Solicitor General Ted Olson) even to enter Card's office. These are the most trusted intimates of the White House -- the ones who are politically sympathetic to them and know them best -- and they prepared for, defended themselves against, the most extreme acts of corruption and thuggery from the President's Chief of Staff and his then-legal counsel (and current Attorney General of the United States).

Does this sound in any way like the behavior of a government operating under the rule of law, which believes that it had legal authority to spy on Americans without the warrants required for three decades by law? How can we possibly permit our government to engage in this behavior, to spy on us in deliberate violation of the laws which we enacted democratically precisely in order to limit how they can spy on us, and to literally commit felonies at will, knowing that they are breaking the law?

How is this not a major scandal on the level of the greatest presidential corruption and lawbreaking scandals in our country's history? Why is this only a one-day story that will focus on the hospital drama but not on what it reveals about the bulging and unparalleled corruption of this administration and the complete erosion of the rule of law in our country? And, as I've asked times before, if we passively allow the President to simply break the law with impunity in how the government spies on our conversations, what don't we allow?

If we had a functioning political press, these are the questions that would be dominating our political discourse and which would have been resolved long ago.

much more at:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/16/nsa_comey/index.html

[Kagemusha]

1. It's not a major scandal because everyone assumes Bush can indeed do this

It may be scummy but they assume it is indeed under his uber presidential powers to wage war and defend the nation. The nation (and their collective rear end) needs defending so they're stuck in the shock stage and not at all prepared mentally or emotionally for, well, consequences to come of it. They're reassured by inertia.

[jojo54]

2. I agree.

He's a "war" pResident, which gives him (legally anyway) all rights to do anything he wants, short of murder.


Oh, wait a minute........:sarcasm:

[Kagemusha]

3. Oh, I'm not saying it's right. Hell no. I'm with Glenn on all this.

But I separate that sentiment so that I can make a comment on how the media - Milbank, and separately, the WaPo editorial board, in particular - sees this.

[nannah]

4. They're reassured by inertia. great turn of phrase!!! nt.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. But was he defending the nation with the info he got from the wiretapping?

Or just finding more anti-Bushies which he planned to eliminate through the firing process?

[Kagemusha]

5. Second look: There's another explanation. No video! But there is hope!

TPM (talkingpointsmemo.com) says it had a camera rolling and will air extensive excerpts of Comey's testimony on its site later today. This should greatly expand the visibility of Comey's testimony. Josh also claims that "everyone" has been talking about this - talking, because people have had to you know, gasp, read about it and talk about it. Old-fashioned stuff. The power of TV has not yet been fully applied to this. Hell, it still won't be - it'll be the power of "a collection of tubes".

Though, I suspect Jon Stewart will finish what Josh is starting in this case.

[malaise]

6. Bingo

If we had a functioning political press, these are the questions that would be dominating our political discourse and which would have been resolved long ago.
-------------
100% correct.

[babylonsister]

7. When will the powers that be say ENOUGH? nt

[camero]

9. Never

They're too busy extracting more wealth from the populace.

[librechik]

10. the uberbosses at the newsorg where I work say we won't cover this because

the NYT already had a story about it back in 06, therefore it's "old news."

I know. That's not an excuse, that's pathetic.

[Kagemusha]

11. The bosses have a point. It's news because it was testimony under oath but

not news in the sense that this is a fresh revelation. Maybe the WaPo people just plain didn't believe it before or had a Libby "learned it as if it was new" epiphany but, no, technically it is not news in THAT sense... therefore, editorials and so on might be more of a proper venue.

Nonetheless, it's interesting how people are shocked - shocked! - at actually being confronted with this, whereas it was well hidden back when the NYT did that story in 06.

[Spazito]

14. I respectfully disagree that it is "old news"....

If that is the media's "rationale" for not covering Comey's revelations it is an appalling excuse. The visitation was old news, the actions of Gonzales, Card, bush prior to, AT that visitation and afterward were NOT covered in the news and those actions are the key to the illegal actions of the bush admin and proof of their knowledge that their actions WERE illegal when they went ahead anyway.

[truedelphi]

16. By that excuse - Watergate should never have broken open

By the summer of 1974 Watergate was an old tired hourse that had been flogged by only two reporters.

Should have been the end of the story - at least by your bosses' reasoning.

[On the Road]

12. This is the Big One

If Democrats have any sense, they will start to immediately put together a case for impeachment of Gonzalez and Bush. Maybe they need a little more, but there don't need to be an additional charges. Just flesh out this one issue to make sure it sticks.

[IChing]

13. If Bush killed a baby while getting a blow job on the white house lawn

impeachment still would be just a discussion until leadership got its
orders from their corporate masters.

[renate]

15. I wonder whether it's just because the plot is complicated

Four years ago I'd have been positive that it was a conspiracy by the corporate media to keep this quiet.

Now, Bush and his crew are so wildly unpopular that I think that the media would be happy to have a Watergate-type drama to boost the ratings--especially since network news is struggling.

My suspicion is that--for right now--the reason the general public isn't all "WTH?" about this is that on the face of it, it's a scandal about people getting fired, like Travelgate. I wouldn't be surprised to see this build up slowly like Watergate, which turned out to be a lot more than just a clumsy break-in.

Of course, I'm an incorrigible optimist.