Greenwald advises caution on excessive admiration for Comey, Ashcroft, Goldsmith

[BurtWorm]

Perspective in this precarious age is difficult, isn't it?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/18/comey_testimony/index.html?source=rss


Compared to the likes of, say, David Addington and John Yoo, it is certainly true that James Comey, John Ashcroft and Jack Goldsmith had slightly greater limits on what they would tolerate. But the praise for the latter has become excessive. The "heroic" trio still ultimately endorsed the unquestionably illegal warrantless eavesdropping program, along with the whole host of other radical and lawless Bush policies, from the indefinite and process-less detention of even U.S. citizens on U.S. soil to secret Eastern European prisons and a whole range of "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Also, if Comey was so appalled by the behavior of Card and Gonzales -- if, as he said, he found it so "improper" -- why did he wait almost three full years before disclosing it, and then do so only when compelled by the threat of a subpoena? Comey's testimony amounts to a recognition on his part that the Bush administration was spying on Americans for more than two years illegally, even in his view. Why did he not invoke the whistleblower channels to report this lawbreaking, opting instead to keep that conduct concealed as he remained at the Bush DOJ through the 2004 election? And why has he remained so silent for so long about conduct that he was so appalled by that he was prepared to resign?

One can accept that Ashcroft, Comey and Goldsmith are not quite as tolerant of blatant lawbreaking as Cheney, Addington and Yoo. But that is an extremely low bar. It is not entirely unlike heaping praise on someone who embezzles and commits fraud all because they drew the line and refused to cooperate with their comrades when it came time to, say, commit arson or murder. Comparatively speaking, they may be preferable to Dick Cheney, but they are hardly paragons of political virtue or stalwart defenders of the rule of law. Quite the opposite.

[Phredicles]

1. Plus I'm STILL waiting for the reason Ashcroft stopped travelling by

commercial flights in the summer of 2001.

Looks to me like his only thought was to ensure the safety of his own hide. If I'm wrong, let's hear him explain (under oath) how.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Greenwald is right.

Personally, I knew I had gone Through the Looking Glass and down the rabbit-hole when I found myself identifying various CIA operatives as the Good Guys in some scenes.

Afte this is all over, we should start using the remnants of the Bush Admin as experimental subjects in studies where they now use rats. Two main reasons for this suggestion--
1) Rats are more valuable; and
2) There are some things you can't get a rat to do.

[Sadie5]

7. I agree

This has been going on for two years and because these crooks decided to come clean under threat of subpoena doesn't put a halo on their heads. Congress should stop giving them leeway and issue arrest warrants.

[tabatha]

3. Sometimes

people stay on so that they can stop or control other egregious behavior, if they think a replacement will allow it to happen.

[Duer 157099]

4. ...or, during Gonzalez confirmation hearing. He *knew* what Gonzo was

and yet didn't do anything to prevent him from being confirmed as AG.

I agree, Comey is only slightly better than the rest of them.

[Frustratedlady]

5. You make a good point..

I shall be more cautious in the future, regarding these characters. However, I must admit that it was rather refreshing to hear someone from that cabal who sounded like they might just be telling the truth, for a change.

Refusing to go to the WH that night left me with the impression he was afraid he'd be "disappeared" if he didn't fall into step. Oh, to be a mouse in that house.

This whole scenario is what movies are made of.

[Lobster Martini]

6. Who "excessively admired " Ashcroft?

I seem to have been on a different planet. Glad to be back. Think I'll get a salad and try to figure out how Ashcroft is part of a "heroic trio."

[BurtWorm]

11. You have to have followed the Comey testimony

in the shadow of the death of Fat Motherfucker Falwell. By comparison, Ashcroft's refusal to sign onto the warrantless wiretapping was heroic--even as he lay delerious in a hospital bed under the influence of pancreatitis. He deserves some praise, but always tempered with an acknowledgment that it's partly only because he isn't Gonzalez.

[Frank Cannon]

26. You're right. As much as I hate Ashcroft, he deserves credit

Even while on death's door and doped up with as many pain- and mind-altering meds as modern science can deliver, he refused to give in to the BushCo pressure there in that hospital room. That must mean there is some sort of goodness within him, no matter how deeply buried. I can't say the same for Gonzo.

But, then, as I like to remind people, even Darth Vader came around, eventually.

[AndyA]

8. These people, all of them, add Tenet to the list, allowed this bullshit to happen.

Instead of protecting the Constitution, and the interests of the American people, they threw us to the wolves and stood by with their mouths shut.

There is a higher entity than George Bush. It's the Constitution of the United States of America. Those who serve office take an oath to protect IT, and IT protects the American people.

They failed miserably in their duties and even if they do eventually assist in removing Hitler from the White House, they are still guilty of crimes against America in my opinion.

[Blackhatjack]

9. I got the impression Comey was very carefully hiding other worse transgressions...

Remember, the White House had successfully kept Comey from testifying before Congress for a very long time. ANd there is no way to know exactly how Comey was limited in his public testimony by the White House.

IMHO there comes a time when true patriots have to take the risk of technically violating a statute by speaking out if they believe their country's well-being is at stake. It is all about their oath to protect the Constitution they swore to protect and uphold as the superior source of law in this country.

Those who know of criminal wrongdoing perpetrated against the institutions of our democratic form of government and remain idly silent are not patriots.

[AnnInLa]

10. Fascinating: Mueller's role in this scandal: More on Comey:

Greenwald links to posts by anonymousliberal:

Note that nowhere in Comey's story are NSA officials mentioned. But FBI Director Robert Mueller was a central player in the drama -- he even met personally with President Bush -- and also was one who threatened resignation. This indicates that, whatever was going on before the program was modified, those activities were being conducted by the FBI, not just the NSA. That could mean purely domestic unwarranted wiretaps, unwarranted black-bag jobs, or similar misconduct.

snip

Government officials told the magazine (U.S. News) that Mueller and then Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who also questioned the NSA spying program, both believed that while it was a close call legally, the president did have authority to conduct electronic surveillance of terrorism suspects in the United States without court approval; both men, however, raised grave concerns about the possible use of any information obtained from any warrantless surveillance in a court of law. . . .

White House lawyers, in particular, Vice President Cheney's counsel David Addington (who is now Cheney's chief of staff), pressed Mueller to use information from the NSA program in court cases, without disclosing the origin of the information, and told Mueller to be prepared to drop prosecutions if judges demanded to know the sourcing, according to several government officials. Mueller, backed by Comey, resisted the administration's efforts. "The White House was putting pressure on Mueller to broadly make cases with the intelligence," says one official. "But he did not want to use it as a basis for any affidavit in any court." Comey declined numerous requests for comment. Sources say Mueller and his general counsel, Valerie Caproni, continue to remain troubled by the domestic spying program. Martin, who has handled more intelligence-oriented criminal cases than anyone else at the Justice Department, puts the issue in stark terms: "The failure to allow it to be used in court is a concession that it is an illegal surveillance."

Mueller has been criticized by some agents for being too close to the White House. . . . But Mueller has not shied away from making tough decisions. He refused to allow FBI agents to participate in CIA and Defense Department interviews of high-value prisoners because of the administration's use of aggressive interrogation techniques. In Iraq and at the Pentagon-run camp for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it has been FBI agents who have called attention to what they viewed as abuse of detainees.

This helps explain why Comey turned to Mueller when he learned what Gonzales and Card were about to do. Mueller, Goldsmith, and Comey appear to have been of a like-mind with respect to most of these issues.

As I speculated yesterday, it's becoming increasingly clear that one of the major problems with the pre-2004 version of the NSA program--and one of the reasons Goldsmith, Comey, and Mueller were so disturbed by it--was that NSA officials, aided and abetted by the Vice President's Office, were allowing information collected by the NSA program to find its way into court. Cheney and Addington wanted the NSA program to be used for more than mere "early detection" of terrorist attack. They wanted to use this information as evidence in court, both in prosecutions and FISA warrant applications. And they were willing to hide the origin of this information from inquiring judges.

Using the information in this way obviously heightens Fourth Amendment concerns--which is undoubtedly why Comey and others were so troubled by it. Moreover, if the FBI is allowed to use information gathered via warrantless NSA surveillance to make the showing necessary to secure a FISA warrant, it completely undermines the entire FISA framework. It would be like the police searching your home and then using the evidence they find to apply for a warrant to continue searching your home.

more at

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/05/robert-muellers-role-in-nsa-controversy.html

[BurtWorm]

12. "The failure to allow it to be used in court is a concession that it is an illegal surveillance."

What is truly disturbing about this is that neither Mueller nor Comey nor Ashcroft, nor any of the "principled" ones did what whistleblowers used to do--take it to the press to get the facts out there and well known, to derail the process. I don't think they're to blame for not doing it, necessarily. With the press in the shape it's in, who would want to rely on them for anything? But it also makes you wonder if they doubted they could do anything with the information without putting themselves into physical or some other kind of harm. Not to be overly dramatic, but...

[dogday]

28. They are in the business of information

Perhaps they knew their story would never see the light of day... After all ABC and CBS have yet to carry Comey's testimony, from a post I read here earlier, and that is telling....

[Missy Vixen]

13. Mr. Greenwald needs to speak to the two former federal prosecutors

that are regular commentators at firedoglake.com before he gets too far entrenched in this opinion.

Part of the reason why it has been so difficult to bring some of these things forward is that the DoJ requires those who previously worked there to abide by non-disclosures. They also require those who are testifying to have anything they're testifying about be okayed in advance. I remember reading those pillorying Patrick Fitzgerald for not sharing his "opinions" with the HJC, for instance. He needs a subpoena. Evidently, they didn't want to issue one.

I'm just reporting what I've read there.

In the meantime, don't let me interrupt the James Comey bashathon that's sure to ensue... Here's a question: Would you come forward if you were the sole support of a wife and five children, and you knew what these folks are capable of? Have you ever wondered why Ashcroft has remained silent? I didn't like the guy much, either, but current revelations make him out to be less than Satan.

Julie

[BurtWorm]

14. Those are good points.

I don't think Greenwald was looking to bash these guys, just to look for some place to get a realistic perspective on them.

It makes me nervous to think about why these guys didn't use some means of getting the truth out to the public. It could be their positions as prosecutors, who are usually (excepting narcissistic jerks like Ken Starr) maniacal about stopping leaks. But I do wonder if there was some other incentive--or disincentive--keeping them from talking.


PS: Greenwald says this in an update to the post linked to in the OP:

To clarify one point: what Ashcroft, Comey and Goldsmith did -- reversing the two-year-standing position of the OLC with regard to the President's Article II powers, pulling the legal rug out from a program which was obviously of intense importance to the President, and defying the President to his face -- was certainly commendable and took real courage. Nothing I wrote was intended to dispute or minimize that.

The issue is that to canonize them -- to pretend that they are some sort of Crusaders for the Rule of Law -- is to ignore the fact that they have endorsed and enabled some of the most radical and lawless presidential behavior in our country's history. Their "rebellion" is quite redolent of the rebellion from the McCain/Warner/Graham trio on torture, where they dramatically opposed the administration only to then acquiesce and endorse the crux of the radicalism in exchange for a handful of relatively minor modifications on the margins.

[tiptoe]

15. On Mar 12, a day after the hospital incident, Comey met with and was given "direction" by Bush to do

"what we believed...was necessary" to certify the legality of a classified program. "And so we set out to do that. And we did that."

So, am I understanding the transcript (below) correctly: Comey, on Friday the 12th (i.e. the work-day after the confrontation with Gonzales and Card in Ashcroft's hospital room), after a 15-minute meetng at the Oval Office alone with Bush...responded in accommodation to a Presidential "direction" (-- what? a suggestion??...an "order"?? --) and "put this matter on a footing" where he (as acting-AG) could certify legality of a classified program...And that Comey eventually DID, IN FACT, CERTIFY THE LEGALITY of the matter before officially resigning (i.e. after 'putting it on a footing...as per the President's direction...where he could do so')??

Apparently, Comey caved and signed *some kind of certification* of legality...after "finagling"(?) with the language of the certification?

If there is some kind of DoJ certification of legality of the classified program, how can it be said, for sure, that *Co proceeded illegally, without seeing Comey's "re-footed" certification document?

Any suggestions as to what "footing" might have been necessary in order for Comey to eventually sign off on certification of legality of a program he and Ashcroft had previously concluded was illegal? Or how am I misinterpreting the following Comey testimony?

Source: Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on U.S. Attorney Firings

...
SCHUMER: OK. Anything else of significance relevant to this line of questioning occur on Thursday the 11th, that you can recall?
COMEY: No, not that I recall.
SCHUMER: Thank you. Now, let's go to the next day, which was March 12. Can you tell us what happened then?
COMEY: I went to the Oval Office -- as I did every morning as acting attorney general -- with Director Mueller to brief the president and the vice president on what was going on on Justice Department's counterterrorism work. We had the briefing. And as I was leaving, the president asked to speak to me, took me in his study and we had a one-on-one meeting for about 15 minutes -- again, which I will not go into the substance of. It was a very full exchange. And at the end of that meeting, at my urging, he met with Director Mueller, who was waiting for me downstairs. He met with Director Mueller again privately, just the two of them. And then after those two sessions, we had his direction to do the right thing, to do what we...
SCHUMER: Had the president's direction to do the right thing?
COMEY: Right. We had the president's direction to do what we believed, what the Justice Department believed was necessary to put this matter on a footing where we could certify to its legality. And so we then set out to do that. And we did that.
SCHUMER: OK. So let me just (inaudible) -- this is an amazing story, has an amazing pattern of fact that you recall.
...

Video: http://www.politicstv.com/blog/?p=2660

[BurtWorm]

20. Excellent close reading, tiptoe!

:toast:

I think you caught a nuance that was there to be caught.

[tiptoe]

32. Comey could find neither 1) a legal basis for the program nor 2) *statutory* req for DoJ 'sign off'.

So, Comey's accommodation appears to have been, basically, an understanding that whether or not the classified program was legal (and he, himself, could find NO legal basis for it), nevertheless there appeared NOT to be a statutory requirement for the Dept of Justice to sign off on the legality of such (it was only customary for DoJ to do so).

Since the issue of DoJ signature-certification of legality was based only "in custom" and not "in law", the ABSENCE of an AG's signature on a certification-of-legality document *might not* necessarily- legally inhibit execution of any program, REGARDLESS BELIEF BY THE AG OF NO LEGAL BASIS FOR IT(!).

He and Bush could have their cake and eat it, too: Comey's refusal to afford signatory certification of legality (of a program he deemed illegal) would not necessarily constitute condition for legal violation should the program in question go forward without DoJ signature. (Perhaps, this is why Comey wanted Ted Olson, Solicitor General, as witness: To cover his ass. Olson would be responsible for making legal argument before the Supreme Court, should the issue arise later.)

...
SPECTER: Well, Mr. Comey, did you have discussions with anybody else in the administration who disagreed with your conclusions?
COMEY: Yes, sir.
SPECTER: Who else?
COMEY: Vice president.
SPECTER: Anybody else?
COMEY: Members of his staff.
SPECTER: Who on his staff?
COMEY: Mr. Addington disagreed with the conclusion. And I'm sure there were others who disagreed, but...
SPECTER: Well, I don't want to know who disagreed. I want to know who told you they disagreed.
COMEY: OK.
SPECTER: Addington?
COMEY: Mr. Addington. The vice president told me that he disagreed. I don't remember any other White House officials telling me they disagreed.
SPECTER: OK. So you've got Card, Gonzales, Vice President Cheney and Addington who told you they disagreed with you.
COMEY: Yes, sir.
SPECTER: Did the vice president threaten you?
COMEY: No, sir.
SPECTER: Did Addington threaten you?
COMEY: No, sir.
SPECTER: So all these people told you they disagreed with you? Well, why in this context, when they say they disagreed with you and you're standing by your judgment, would you consider resigning? You were acting attorney general. They could fire you if they wanted to. The president could replace you. But why consider resigning? You had faced up to Card and Gonzales and Vice President Cheney and Addington, had a difference of opinion. You were the acting attorney general, and that was that. Why consider resigning?
COMEY: Not because of the way I was treated but because I didn't believe that as the chief law enforcement officer in the country I could stay when they had gone ahead and done something that I had said I could find no legal basis for.
SPECTER: When they said you could find no legal basis for?
COMEY: I had reached a conclusion that I could not certify as...
SPECTER: Well, all right, so you could not certify it, so you did not certify it. But why resign? You're standing up to those men. You're not going to certify it. You're the acting attorney general. That's that.
COMEY: Well, a key fact is that they went ahead and did it without -- the program was reauthorized without my signature and without the Department of Justice. And so I believed that I couldn't stay...
SPECTER: Was the program reauthorized without the requisite certification by the attorney general or acting attorney general? COMEY: Yes.
SPECTER: So it went forward illegally.
COMEY: Well, that's a complicated question. It went forward without certification from the Department of Justice as to its legality.
SPECTER: But the certification by the Department of Justice as to legality was indispensable as a matter of law for the program to go forward, correct?
COMEY: I believed so.
SPECTER: Then it was going forward illegally.
COMEY: Well, the only reason I hesitate is that I'm no presidential scholar. But if a determination was made by the head of the executive branch that some conduct was appropriate, that determination -- and lawful -- that determination was binding upon me, even though I was the acting attorney general, as I understand the law. And so, I either had to go along with that or leave. And I believed that I couldn't stay -- and I think others felt this way as well -- that given that something was going forward that we had said we could not certify as to its legality.
SPECTER: Well, I can understand why you would feel compelled to resign in that context, once there had been made a decision by the executive branch, presumably by the president or by the president, because he was personally involved in the conversations, that you would resign because something was going forward which was illegal. The point that I'm trying to determine here is that it was going forward even though it was illegal.
COMEY: And I know I sound like I'm splitting hairs, but...
SPECTER: No, I don't think there's a hair there.
COMEY: Well, something was going forward without the Department of Justice's certification as to its legality. It's a very complicated matter, and I'm not going to go into what the program was or what the dimensions of the program...
SPECTER: Well, you don't have to. If the certification by the Department of Justice as to legality is required as a matter of law, and that is not done, and the program goes forward, it's illegal. How can you -- how can you contest that, Mr. Comey?
COMEY: The reason I hesitate is I don't know that the Department of Justice's certification was required by statute -- in fact, it was not, as far as I know -- or by regulation, but that it was the practice in this particular program, when it was renewed, that the attorney general sign off as to its legality. There was a signature line for that. And that was the signature line on which was adopted for me, as the acting attorney general, and that I would not sign. So it wasn't going forward in violation of any -- so far as I know -- statutory requirement that I sign off. But it was going forward even though I had communicated, "I cannot approve this as to its legality." And given that, I just -- I couldn't, in good conscience, stay.
SPECTER: Well, Mr. Comey, on a matter of this importance, didn't you feel it necessary to find out if there was a statute which required your certification or a regulation which required your certification or something more than just a custom?
COMEY: Yes, Senator. And I...
SPECTER: Did you make that determination?
COMEY: Yes, and I may have understated my knowledge. I'm quite certain that there wasn't a statute or regulation that required it, but that it was the way in which this matter had operated since the beginning. I don't -- I think the administration had sought the Department of Justice, the attorney general's certification as to form and legality, but that I didn't know, and still don't know, the source for that required in statute or regulation. SPECTER: OK. Then it wasn't illegal.
COMEY: That's why I hesitated when you used the word "illegal."
SPECTER: Well, well, OK. Now I want your legal judgment. You are not testifying that it was illegal. Now, as you've explained that there's no statute or regulation, but only a matter of custom, the conclusion is that even though it violated custom, it is not illegal. It's not illegal to violate custom, is it?
COMEY: Not so far as I'm aware.
SPECTER: OK. So what the administration, executive branch of the president, did was not illegal.
COMEY: I'm not saying -- again, that's why I kept avoiding using that term. I had not reached a conclusion that it was. The only conclusion I reached is that I could not, after a whole lot of hard work, find an adequate legal basis for the program.
SPECTER: OK. Well, now I understand why you didn't say it was illegal. What I don't understand is why you now won't say it was legal.
COMEY: Well, I suppose there's an argument -- as I said, I'm not a presidential scholar -- that because the head of the executive branch determined that it was appropriate to do, that that meant for purposes of those in the executive branch it was legal. I disagreed with that conclusion. Our legal analysis was that we couldn't find an adequate legal basis for aspects of this matter. And for that reason, I couldn't certify it to its legality.
SPECTER: OK. I will not ask you -- I have a rule never to ask the same question more than four times... (LAUGHTER) ... so I will not ask you again whether necessarily from your testimony the conclusion is that what the president did was legal -- not illegal. Let me move on.

[tiptoe]

33. Compromise: "The NSA was not compelled to go to the secret FISA court to get warrants, but Justice

imposed tougher legal standards before permitting eavesdropping on communications into the United States..."

From Palace Revolt ( p. 4 ):

...
There was one catch: the secret program had to be reapproved by the attorney general every 45 days. It was Goldsmith's job to advise the A.G. on the legality of the program. In March 2004, John Ashcroft was in the hospital with a serious pancreatic condition. At Justice, Comey, Ashcroft's No. 2, was acting as attorney general. The grandson of an Irish cop and a former U.S. attorney from Manhattan, Comey, 45, is a straight arrow. (It was Comey who appointed his friend—the equally straitlaced and dogged Patrick Fitzgerald—to be the special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame leak-investigation case.) Goldsmith raised with Comey serious questions about the secret eavesdropping program, according to two sources familiar with the episode. He was joined by a former OLC lawyer, Patrick Philbin, who had become national-security aide to the deputy attorney general. Comey backed them up. The White House was told: no reauthorization.

The angry reaction bubbled up all the way to the Oval Office. President Bush, with his penchant for put-down nicknames, had begun referring to Comey as "Cuomey" or "Cuomo," apparently after former New York governor Mario Cuomo, who was notorious for his Hamlet-like indecision over whether to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in the 1980s. A high-level delegation—White House Counsel Gonzales and chief of staff Andy Card—visited Ashcroft in the hospital to appeal Comey's refusal. In pain and on medication, Ashcroft stood by his No. 2.

A compromise was finally worked out. The NSA was not compelled to go to the secret FISA court to get warrants, but Justice imposed tougher legal standards before permitting eavesdropping on communications into the United States. It was a victory for the Justice lawyers, and it drove Addington to new levels of vexation with Goldsmith.

Addington is a hard man to cross. Flanigan, his former White House colleague, described his M.O.: "David could go from zero to 150 very quickly. I'm not sure how much is temper and how much is for effect. At a meeting with government bureaucrats he might start out very calm. Then he would start with the sarcasm. He could say, 'We could do that, but that would give away all of the president's power.' All of a sudden here comes David Addington out of his chair. I'd think to myself we're not just dancing a minuet, there's a little slam dancing going on here." But Addington "usually had the facts, the law and the precedents on his side," says Flanigan. He had another huge advantage. He never needed to invoke Cheney's name, but everyone knew that he spoke for the vice president.
...

[glitch]

16. Wise man, Greenwald. K & R nt

[gatorboy]

17. It's like Tenet.

These folks start having a change of heart when the subpeonas start flowing.

[cascadiance]

18. Why didn't he testify? Look at my sig and know why!

He might have been less noble in his intentions, but even if he were more noble, the "State Secrets" privilege crap is out of control now. Even Ashcroft was as much of a historical revisionist as Gonzales has been with that!

[antigop]

19. Why did Comey want Ted Olson, of all people, as a witness?

I've asked this question on other threads.

After the scene in Ashcroft's hospital room, Comey went to the White House. He specifically asked that Ted Olson be present. I can understand Comey's desire to have a witness present, but why Ted Olson?

Olson as Solicitor General was the #4 guy in the DOJ, right?

[BurtWorm]

21. Let us not forget that fact.

The Solicitor General is the one who argues the government's case in the SC--so why would Comey feel protected to have him in a discussion with Bush's CoS and counsel? It's a little weird, unless you consider that it wasn't the office he wanted with him, it was the officer. And even then it's weird, considering the officer was the partisan nut Olson. I'll bet it's a loyalty thing. I bet he and Comey both go back to the Reagan/Bush I era together.

[antigop]

22. Comey was acting attorney general, right?

So the top positions are:

1) Attorney General
2) Deputy Attorney General
3) Assistant Attorney General
4) Solicitor General

Right?

Who was acting Deputy Attorney and Assistant Attorney General at the time? Did Comey remain as Deputy Attorney General while acting as Attorney General?

[BurtWorm]

24. I'm not totally sure but I think Goldsmith was in one of those positions.

I don't know what the ranking is.

[magellan]

23. Yeah, I agree. Why'd Comey wait to tell us?

I don't regard him any different than I do Tenet, Powell, or any of the other cowardly traitors who've waited to come forward with all this fascinating shit they held onto for years. But that doesn't make what he says worthless.

These guys heroes? Who TF thinks that?! In a parallel universe, maybe!

[tiptoe]

27. Schumer to Comey: "I know that if we didn't have the power of subpoena you wouldn't be here"

...
SCHUMER: Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Comey, I just want to follow up on one final question. I showed it to Senator Specter ahead of time because he had to leave. But he was asking about legality/illegality, within law/not (ph). The key point here is isn't it the Office of Legal Counsel that makes a determination about whether something is within the law or not within the Justice Department?
COMEY: Yes. And its opinions are binding throughout the executive branch.
SCHUMER: And didn't that office make a decision and advise you that what was attempting to be done was not within the law?
COMEY: The conclusion was that they could not find an adequate legal basis for...
SCHUMER: OK. Let's put it that way.
COMEY: Yes.
SCHUMER: So they could not find an adequate legal basis for doing it that way?
COMEY: Correct.
SCHUMER: And you felt that if they couldn't, you couldn't preside over the Department of Justice if you were going to be overruled by the White House to do it anyway.
COMEY: Yes.
SCHUMER: I think that's OK. Let me conclude, then, by just thanking you. You are a profile in courage. You are what our government is all about. In this case, it has nothing to do with Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative. It has to do with doing a job well and caring about the rule of law. And I would say what happened in that hospital room crystallized Mr. Gonzales' view about the rule of law: that he holds it in minimum low regard. And it's hard for me to understand -- I'm going to say something that you won't say: It's hard to understand after hearing this story how Attorney General Gonzales could remain as attorney general, how any president, Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, could allow him to continue. But I want to thank you for being here. I know it wasn't easy. I know that if we didn't have the power of subpoena you wouldn't be here. I know you have a conscience that obviously you've wrestled with in all this and it's very difficult to be here. But a profile in courage, by definition, is difficult. And I think I speak on behalf of almost every American: We thank you for being here and having the courage to speak the truth. (APPLAUSE) END .ETX May 15, 2007 12:34 ET .EOF Source: CQ Transcriptions © 2007, Congressional Quarterly Inc., All Rights Reserved

[dogday]

25. Does that negate his testimony, I think not

Whatever reasons, he testified on the record about the incidents that occurred...

[Generator]

29. Well of course

Gutless wonders. Which is why of course, that the problem with this country is much much deeper than who's president. If we had a real media, if we had true forceful oppostion party, if we had people that had consciences in their postions of power, then Bush would have been GONE years ago. We know that. We aren't stupid. Kinda like how many people did Hitler kill? Well, none techinically himself. Someone was doing all the evil things. And Hitler gets all the credit. When at every individual moment, an individual had a choice,as always between the better thing and the worse thing. Some things of course, are really worse than this, but from people like Colin Powell to George Tenet to...how many names I will never know...no one has been there to stop crimes..and how many people have died because of their innaction? And all we do is blame Bush. Sometimes that's like blaming a toddler. He's the crazy one. Where are the adults? And the sane ones? Where is my country?

And every single one of them, without shame.

[BuyingThyme]

30. Any word on the yellow snow?

[Supersedeas]

31. these days, having a * Admin official tell the truth as opposed to I don't recall is heroic