Was Gonzales’ emergency hospital visit illegal?
Was Gonzales’ emergency hospital visit illegal?
Former Clinton Justice official Neal Katyal says in Time magazine, “Executive branch rules require sensitive classified information to be discussed in specialized facilities that are designed to guard against the possibility that officials are being targeted for surveillance outside of the workplace.”
The law controlling the unwarranted disclosure of classified information that has been gained through electronic surveillance is particularly strict. In the past, everyone from low-level officers in the armed forces to sitting Senators have been investigated by the Justice department for the intentional disclosure of such information. The penalty for “knowingly and willfully” disclosing information “concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States” carries a penalty up to 10 years in prison under U.S. law. “It’s the one you worry about, says the government official familiar with the program.
In response to questions on the legality of Gonzales’ hospital room conversation, Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the National Security Division of the Justice Department, said, “I am not going to speculate on discussions that may or may not have taken place, much less attempt to render a legal judgment on any such discussions.” A Senate investigator says the Judiciary Committee is weighing whether to investigate the matter formally.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Illegal? You bet! What couldn’t be more simple? Guilty as charged.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:19 pmEverything the Bush Regime membership gets involved with is illegal, but the Congress has been slow to do anything about it. Gonzo has broken the law repeatedly.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:26 pmAt this point, it would just be simpler to put bars on the White House windows and convert it into a prison. Everyone in this administration is a criminal and a traitor.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:29 pmFor more on the Gonzales hospital visit and the latest news, key documents, hearing transcripts and other essential materials in the NSA domestic surveillance scandal, see:
May 17th, 2007 at 11:38 pm“The NSA Domestic Spying Documents.”
If not illegal, at least unethical and highly questionable.
Either way, it comes as no surprise -Alberto “Geneva Conventions are quaint” Gonzales is probably one of the slimiest members of this administration.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:38 pmI’m gonna take a wild guess, and say YES.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:38 pmImpeach and RICO.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:40 pmStop Being Good Democrats.
Stop Being Good Republicans.
Start Being Good Americans.
And, yes, I DO take it personally
May 17th, 2007 at 11:43 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey — May 17, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
Funny !
May 17th, 2007 at 11:52 pmQuick, get Jim Knodell on the case. He’ll be certain NOT to investigate.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:59 pmI think this might be a bit of a stretch.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:15 am.”…weighing whether to investigate the matter formally.” Only weighing? You’ve got to be fricking kidding me?
I have no faith, trust, or belief left in this government at all. Face it folks, if no one besides Libby gets indicted, found guilty and sent to prison, there is no hope for the rest of us.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:17 amThe hospital visit was not illegal. The fact that it happened at all contradicts testimony previously given by the AG. The fact that the administration proceeded with the program without DOJ signing off on it after this incident means they were clearly aware the program was unconstitutional and proceeded anyway. This IS the smoking gun. This administration knowingly broke the law, and the folks who knew include the AG (then white house council), the former chief of staff and the president. It should not be up to congress whether to pursue impeachment at this point. It should be a requirement. At the very least the AG should be immediately held in contempt of congress.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:23 amI think this might be a bit of a stretch.
Comment by toasterhead — May 18, 2007 @ 12:15 am
Tell me you are joking? A stretch? Going to a man who is legally incapacitated and who no longer has any powers because they have been given to another while he is incapacitated to attempt to convince him to overrule the decision of the man placed in charge with those powers is what you consider to be a ‘bit of a stretch’ of being illegal?
Wow! Amazing!
May 18th, 2007 at 12:24 amTell me you are joking? A stretch? Going to a man who is legally incapacitated and who no longer has any powers because they have been given to another while he is incapacitated to attempt to convince him to overrule the decision of the man placed in charge with those powers is what you consider to be a ‘bit of a stretch’ of being illegal?
Comment by lunacy — May 18, 2007 @ 12:24 am
That part – yes. I’m totally with you. I was talking specifically about the “violating the laws of classified information” angle. It strikes me as a distraction from the real case. It’s kinda like going after a mafia kingpin for tax evasion. I’d really like to see these people prosecuted for the actual crime, not the subsidiary crimes they committed in order to get to the real crime.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:34 amUltimately, it really doesn’t matter if the hospital “visit” was illegal or not. What matters is that Gonzales et al sought judiciary cover, which means they were aware they needed a judge’s approval to continue/start their program.
That they continued the program even after being rebuffed by both Comey and AShcroft, means they knew fully well they were acting outside the law, i.e., they engaged in wanton illegal behavior.
Gonzales is unfit to serve as Attorney General because his loyalty is to his Dear (mis)Leader and not to his country or the law of the land. But we already knew that.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:41 amThe business of discussing the classified program in a less than secure room doesn’t rev my engine. But I do attach great significance to the presence of Mrs. Ashcroft. In addition to the problem with the law concerning discussing classified information in an insecure setting, you have the problem of executive privilege. Undoubtedly, there will come a time when the White House will assert that it was a conversation within the “unitary executive,” and therefore privileged from disclosure. But for something to be privileged, it must be intended to be kept confidential. The presence of Mrs. Ashcroft is inconsistent with this, and therefore, the conversation was not privileged.
Please visit the Schapira blog, “What we know so far …”
… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!
May 18th, 2007 at 12:45 amGregor Samsa, your name really bugs me.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:47 amGregor Samsa, your name really bugs me.
Comment by BigMitch — May 18, 2007 @ 12:47 am
BigMitch is a gigantic intellect, who can penetrate the B.S. and get to the heart of almost any issue.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:54 amMr. President. Are you not disgusted with Abu G. and Andrew Card’s behavior?
May 18th, 2007 at 12:58 amComment by BigMitch — May 18, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Heh.
Too bad, Mr. Mitch -I ain’t gonna change it for you ;-)
May 18th, 2007 at 1:04 amComment by JPark — May 18, 2007 @ 12:58 am
I don’t have the human emotions of disgust, empathy, sympathy, pity, etc. etc. I’m a narcissistic jackass. Plus, I don’t even know who your talking about (otherwise I would have probably had something to say).
May 18th, 2007 at 1:06 amThe man (Ashcroft) had severe Pancreatitis, had just had gallbladder surgery and was on a morphine drip. He was in intesive care where he had been for days. He was in no position to be pressured on anything. This was intentionally criminal.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:07 amHehe, ok, Mr. P.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:08 amgod damn it,
Errata: post #22) “your” should be “you’re”
May 18th, 2007 at 1:09 amThings seem slow tonight. I’ll check back tomorrow… maybe I’ll think of something stupid to say.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:10 am#26 It gets tougher every day to be a satire troll doesn’t it? It is like the right TRIES to make it tougher.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:13 amSo much for Bush’s “classified information” excuse.
But will the press show more than a one-day attention span on this story? Doubtful.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:22 amIt isn’t a blowjob, Eric. The press is already done with it.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:24 amAshcroft doesn’t seem to have been in an actual hospital room:
It looks like they took over (at least) a wing, put him in the hallway and took over an adjacent room as the ‘command center’ for Ashcroft’s security detail.
The founders never envisioned self-importance of this magnitude.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:30 amI suspect Mr. Ashcroft, as Attorney General, had a wing to himself and that he was in one room on the wing, with an adjacent room turned into a “command center”. Presumably, that was for the use of his WH and other visitors, not the guy recovering from general anasthesia and abdominal surgery and on a morphine drip, who was still in ICU after nearly a week. Hell, heart patients barely stay in ICU a whole week.
Given the patient’s condition, that he had formally delegated authority to Comey (who was readily available), and his and Ashcroft’s prior refusal to re-authorize the “program(s)” as then constituted, it was blatantly unethical for Gonazales, acting as a lawyer on behalf of his client, to have attempted to get Ashcroft’s signature on anything, much less in his capacity as Attorney General. Ashcroft’s signature as AG would have been invalid.
Some blogger who’s a member should report Gonzales to the Texas Bar.
That whole line of questionable behavior is over and above any security issues.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:00 amDid Mrs Ashcroft Have Security Clearance?
It is clear from Comey’s testimony that she was present when the substance of the matter was discussed
May 18th, 2007 at 3:22 amSince when has “illegal” stopped these creeps from doing anything?
May 18th, 2007 at 5:10 amWe’re going to have to get the Republicans out of America. It’s the only solution.
May 18th, 2007 at 6:39 amHere is the other end of this equation folks. Read it and soak up all it’s goodness. The DOJ turned over to a plantiff actual copies of a wiretap that was made on conversations between a client and their attorneys. The law firm was in the US. This one is the one that won’t go away.Glenn wrote about this back in Sept. of LAST year.
May 18th, 2007 at 6:51 amhttp://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/another-major-nsa-legal-defeat-for.html
Start the IMPEACHMENT hearings and let’s bring home the troops NOW.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:18 amVery good question, #32, UpToLate!
May 18th, 2007 at 8:34 amIsn’t EVERTHING done by EVERYONE illegal in the Bush Crime Cabal?
May 18th, 2007 at 8:35 amSubpoena Ashcroft and if you get his hand on a Bible to swear, you’ll probably get the truth. Especially if you slather a big dollop of Crisco on his forehead first.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:37 amJonathan Turley said on Countdown with Chris Matthews, that the illegality of the whole wiretap matter is the greatest impeachable offense in the history of any American Presidency. That man knows the issue, and is not an idealogue. That meeting in the hospital room doesn’t give Ashcroft a pass, because he had regularly reauthorized that illegal wiretap law,”apparently because he was too busy to actually understand it”. It just wasn’t written down before that time. Congress has the power to impeach. What are they waiting for?
May 18th, 2007 at 10:06 amFrom Comey’s testimony Comey actually prevented the discussion from taking place. So I don’t know if Gonzo and Card can be nailed for that, however he testified about an envelope. Did that envelope have docs that contained secret info? Did taking out into the public put that state secret at risk?
May 18th, 2007 at 11:29 am#37 is a name jacking, I did not post that comment.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:19 pmI am henceforth abandoning the screen-name, you’re welcome to it, troll
#16 and #17: I’m with you. The reason this story resonates has nothing to do with where people talked about top secret program. The real story is that Bush asked his lackeys to do an end run to get DOJ approval of an illegal wire tapping program. When he didn’t get the signature he wanted, he went ahead with the program anyhow. This is Watergate to the third power.
But I have a question: The legality of her presence aside, Mrs. Ashcroft would be a great witness to verify that Bush put the hospital visit in motion. Has anybody asked her who phoned her from the WH? If she could answer that under oath to the SJC, we will have the “smoking gun.”
May 21st, 2007 at 9:14 pm