Mueller’s Notes Detail White House’s Craven Attempts To Take Advantage Of Sick Ashcroft
Mueller’s Notes Detail White House’s Craven Attempts To Take Advantage Of Sick Ashcroft
In a July hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, FBI Director Robert Mueller revealed that he took notes of the infamous White House visit to Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital room because the events were so “out of the ordinary.”
Chairman John Conyers wrote to Mueller after the hearing to request access to his notes. Today, Conyers’ office put out a statement explaining that the Judiciary Committee has taken a look at Mueller’s notes, which were “heavily-redacted.” Yet, even from the amount the Committee was able to read, Conyers reported that it is clear there was a craven effort to take advantage of “a sick and heavily-medicated Ashcroft“:
“Director Mueller’s notes and recollections concerning the White House visit to the Attorney General’s hospital bed confirm an attempt to goad a sick and heavily medicated Ashcroft to approve the warrantless surveillance program,” said Conyers. “Particularly disconcerting is the new revelation that the White House sought Mr. Ashcroft’s authorization for the surveillance program, yet refused to let him seek the advice he needed on the program.
“Unfortunately, this heavily redacted document raises far more questions than it answers. We intend to fully investigate this incident and the underlying subject matter that evoked such widespread distress within the Department and the FBI. We will be seeking an unredacted copy of Director Mueller’s notes covering meetings before and after the hospital visit and expect to receive information from several of the individuals mentioned in the document.”
Former Chief of Staff Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales rushed to Ashcroft’s bedside to get his sign-off for the administration’s NSA warrantless surveillance program because then-Acting Attorney General James Comey refused to authorize it.
Mueller’s notes indicate Ashcroft was “feeble, barely articulate, clearly stressed.” Moreover, Mueller’s notes indicate Ashcroft “was in no condition” to see visitors, much less decide whether to authorize the program. Nevertheless, Ashcroft articulated the fact that he did not have the proper legal guidance he needed to make a determination on the program. See Mueller’s redacted notes here. See a key snippet below, courtesy of The Gavel:
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
110 Responses to “Mueller’s Notes Detail White House’s Craven Attempts To Take Advantage Of Sick Ashcroft”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Man, that’s f’ed up. What unscrupulous bastards.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:29 pmBut gosh, what about Jenna Bush’s wedding announcement!!? I think it was timed to deflect the stock market tanking.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:29 pmMrs. Ashcroft handled the visit far better than I would have, had it been MY husband in that hospital bed.
These men have no conscience and no soul.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:30 pmpure, unadulterated slimeballs one and all. At least Mueller and Comey tried to do the right thing. They still kept quiet about it until forced to tell the tale though, so they are slimes too.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:32 pmThis type of unethical, immoral behavior by the WH cabal is not only criminal, it is UNETHICAL as hell. Shame on them all, they all belong in PRISON.
or timed perhaps to deflect a pending not-guilty verdict on Padilla????
August 16th, 2007 at 2:32 pmI agree, KestrelBrighteyes. There is no way on earth they would have gotten past me, if that were my husband in that bed.
Disgusting.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:33 pmoh, well-so much for that…
August 16th, 2007 at 2:33 pmAlberto Gonzales,No One That corrupt could claim to be That negligent.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:33 pmIs Gonzo Impeached, yet?
August 16th, 2007 at 2:36 pmMan, that Gonzo, what a Card!
And that Card, what a Gonzo!
August 16th, 2007 at 2:36 pmWhat surprises me is that Mueller actually took notes. That Gonzales is corrupt as a rusted sewer pipe is no surprise at all.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:37 pmPUH-LEEZE!!! Suddenly, the same people who hatefully attacked John Ashcroft are coming to his defense… to attack Alberto Gonzales… who the left used to attack Judge Priscilla Owen…
It’s like six degrees of liberal hatefulness. Only one problem… George W. Bush is still President. AND your spineless, cowardly Democrat party will never have the balls to impeach.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:38 pmAnd the Senate confirmed this asshat to serve as USAG? Shame on them.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:38 pmWhy do the notes refer to J. Gonzales? J?
August 16th, 2007 at 2:40 pm#12, nobody is coming to Ashcroft’s defense. Learn to read.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:40 pmResign, Gonzalez.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:41 pmComment by Hillary is a Communist — August 16, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Nice try. You don’t care to comment on the behavior of these two Republicans? Ah, yes, change the subject!
August 16th, 2007 at 2:41 pmThey’ve probably been spying on illegal immigrants. Can’t imagine that cat coming out of the bag….
August 16th, 2007 at 2:43 pmHow can they possibly say for certain that not one NSL access netted a non terrorist prosecution? The FBI can’t account for 20% of the total letters issued. That’s somewhere around 20K, and we know nothing about these? So we are to trust the FBI now that the Director has offered up the Attorney General. Well, no medal of freedom for him. Maybe Barbara Comstock will start an Alberto Gonzales liberty fund. He’s going to be a real patriot just like Scooter isn’t he? What about Richard Shelby?
…and besides how could anyone defend someone who doesn’t like looking at bobbies on a marble statue?
August 16th, 2007 at 2:43 pmPUH-LEEZE!!!
Comment by Hillary is a Communist
It is spelled, Please
As in “Please grow some brains, Mr. P.”
August 16th, 2007 at 2:43 pmDidn’t Gonzo testify that the AG was perfectly lucid and appeared to be competent? Mueller’s notes contradict that.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:44 pmGummitch, it sounds like he’s daring us to impeach. He knows the Bush cabal is guilty. And he’s okay with that. He’s perfectly happy to let America go down the tubes as long as the puppet his authoritatians tell him to support is in charge.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:45 pmBobbies are cement boobies…oh my.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:45 pmComment by Hillary is a Communist — August 16, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Wait….Mr. P?
August 16th, 2007 at 2:46 pmWhen will you Repugs realize that we don’t go in for character assassination like y’all do. We may have “attacked” John Ashcroft when he was AG for his policy decisions and ideology (and, boy, was there a lot to work with!), but we also understand when criminal and illegal acts have been committed by members of this administration, no matter whom they are perpetrated on. Just because we abhor Ashcroft’s politics doesn’t mean that we condone the blatant attempt by this administration to again circumvent the law. I just can’t fathom why you don’t understand this.
And, by the way, yes, GWB is still the President, but the noose is tightening and he’s going to be completely alone, drooling in a corner, by the time his presidency is up (and there will be a Democratic White House and Congress) All the rats are fleeing this sinking ship and his prophesy will indeed come true - he will only have Laura and Barney left in his corner. I hate to break the news to you but nothing, nothing, lasts forever, and Republican rule in this country is about to give up the ghost because it is corrupt, amoral, and utterly incompetent.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:46 pmLet’s not forget that Gonzo is the current AG because there were some things that even Ashcroft wouldn’t do for the WH. Imagine that - a Republican that was still capable of putting country before party (at least some of the time)
August 16th, 2007 at 2:48 pmJose Padilla: Guilty on all counts…
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3488260
August 16th, 2007 at 2:49 pmCan we just make sure that we don’t elect the attorney General or any of his staff in the future? We just had to have Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld’s experience, didn’t we? Shunned from public service should be a new punishment for negligent participants like Torquemada breath.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:50 pmBush would take advantage of his dying father, so not surprised he would do it to Ashcroft.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:50 pmIf you are surprised you have been asleep.What I don’t understand is why the Dems are not going to impeach Alberto for lying to congress.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pmIf the progressive-zealots here had any sense, they’d carefully read and interpret the notes of Mueller, for they don’t show that Gonzales and Card “abused” Ashcroft in any way, shape or form. In fact, if the radicalized progressives can just stop their panting for a second and read coherently, they’d notice the part of Mueller’s note which said that “all matters were to be taken to HIM,” meaning to Ashcroft. If anything, Mueller’s notes confirmed that what Card and Gonzales were doing was approved by Ashcroft’s own rules, which was to go to the head AG (Ashcroft) even if Comey was the acting one. Progs are so stupid for having the gall to express “shock” at the part of the note which details what Ashcroft looked like after surgery. To anyone not drunk on the prog kool-aid, it’s apparent that people after surgery usually look feeble and stressed…DUH!
August 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pmGreat, change your name so you don’t have to respond to the statements that have been directed to you…coward!
August 16th, 2007 at 2:56 pmgummitch, best guess is the “J” stands for Justice, since he was a Texas Supreme Court Justice.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:57 pmWell, if any good comes of this, it’s that The Daily Show will do another installment of the Comey/Card/Gonzales Tele-Novela. That’s like the funniest bit ever.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:59 pmThe redacted notes show “VP” at 2 meetings in Card’s office.
I think we know who sent Fredo and Andy to the hospital.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:02 pm“which was to go to the head AG (Ashcroft) even if Comey was the acting one. Progs are so stupid for having the gall to express “shock†at the part of the note which details what Ashcroft looked like after surgery. To anyone not drunk on the prog kool-aid, it’s apparent that people after surgery usually look feeble and stressed…DUH!
Comment by Gonzalesshouldspyonprogressives — August 16, 2007 @ 2:54 pm”
Tou are about the most ignorant troll we have!!!!!
So if something would have happened when Bush went for his butt check, then everyone would still have to bust down the doors of the hospital to get something approved??????
ASSININE!!!!!
When POWER is transfered, that means that ALL responsibilities are transfered and that person transfering the POWER to another person no longer has the ability to control the situaion……..
August 16th, 2007 at 3:03 pmBush would take advantage of his dying father, so not surprised he would do it to Ashcroft.
On the bright side, if Ashcroft were to have died the dems would have gained another voter.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:03 pmGSSOP, your acceptance that anything related to that incident is up for debate regarding a participants clarification of the event is wonderful but the other side of the coin. The whole event is contemptuous of our Constitutional rights to have our elected and appointed officers respect the process. Screw the process and you screw the rules, screw the rules and we are now as bad as our enemies that we scorn for their infidelity to the rule of law.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:04 pmWhy do the notes refer to J. Gonzales? J?
Comment by gummitch — August 16, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
My guess is that the J stands gor “Judge” as he refers to him in that manner in the redacted documents.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:04 pmIt’s like six degrees of liberal hatefulness. Only one problem… George W. Bush is still President. AND your spineless, cowardly Democrat party will never have the balls to impeach.
Comment by Hillary is a Communist — August 16, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
My goodness… this is one irrational, meaningless comment. Try coming back w/ some “facts” or a “real position”.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:04 pmPadilla…………Guilty.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:05 pmWow so the quote AG, feeble barely articulate and clearly stressed show Ashcroft was with it?
Dude get some meds. the only zealot here is you.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:05 pmTo anyone not drunk on the prog kool-aid, it’s apparent that people after surgery usually look feeble and stressed…DUH!
Comment by Gonzalesshouldspyonprogressives — August 16, 2007 @
Talk about twisting and turning!
August 16th, 2007 at 3:06 pmGummitch, Wilco,
Actually, the J stands for Judge.
I’ve heard Cheney mention ‘Judge’ Gonzales.
Of course, Alberto was a shady real estate lawyer until Bush found a lapdog that would sic anything pointed at.
Then their’s Meirs…yuk!
August 16th, 2007 at 3:06 pmTrolls like it. Trolls think it’s a good way to run government.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:07 pmComment by Ringo — August 16, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Don’t bother, they only wanted a not-guilty verdict so they could bash the government. There’s nothing for them to celebrate here.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:08 pm#38 Forget it Fly-man. He’s a right-wing authoritarian and couldn’t care less about what happens to our country or our laws as long as he gets his marching orders and dutifully follows them. The troll is not capable of indepenent thought.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:08 pmAugust 16, 2007-Associated Press:
Jose Padilla found guilty. Earthquakes reported across North America as angry liberals stamp their little feet in hysterical unison.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:08 pmGonzo & Card’s punishment will be having to listen to Ashcroft’s CD 24/7
August 16th, 2007 at 3:09 pmTP, please report:
BREAKING: Padilla Convicted of Federal Terrorism Support Charges.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3488260
August 16th, 2007 at 3:10 pmAugust 16, 2007-Associated Press:
Tiny Trolls with dirty feet try to derail thread on AG.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:11 pmPicadillo ……….. tasty
August 16th, 2007 at 3:11 pmIf the progressive-zealots here had any sense, they’d carefully read and interpret the notes of Mueller, for they don’t show that Gonzales and Card “abused†Ashcroft in any way, shape or form. In fact, if the radicalized progressives can just stop their panting for a second and read coherently, they’d notice the part of Mueller’s note which said that “all matters were to be taken to HIM,†meaning to Ashcroft. If anything, Mueller’s notes confirmed that what Card and Gonzales were doing was approved by Ashcroft’s own rules, which was to go to the head AG (Ashcroft) even if Comey was the acting one. Progs are so stupid for having the gall to express “shock†at the part of the note which details what Ashcroft looked like after surgery. To anyone not drunk on the prog kool-aid, it’s apparent that people after surgery usually look feeble and stressed…DUH!
Comment by Gonzalesshouldspyonprogressives — August 16, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
You can’t read, can you? Too busy foaming at the mouth to learn, apparently. What part of “not in any condition to decide issues” do you not understand? What part of “acting AG is Comey and take everything to him” do you not understand?
August 16th, 2007 at 3:12 pm#27: Yeah, it’s disgusting. He’s been in prison for 3 years on false charges, and then he gets convicted? Someone held for that long without justification deserves freedom, period. It’s clear that the government knew they had no case and had made a big mistake grabbing him. There was no evidence, and it was a very lopsided case. They never once mentioned that he had been held without trial for 3 years (which has relevance because it basically could mean they were waiting for the ‘bad evidence’ to get dusty and old and all disappeary-like).
As to the topic: Why was the white house in such a rush for this authorization? Was the democratic party planning a fundraiser the republicans wanted to know about or something?
August 16th, 2007 at 3:12 pmComment by Nachos of Justice — August 16, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
What happened to your plans to have your own blog, Mr Pee? Too complicated for you?
Because then you could decide what got posted instead of issuing orders to TP.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:13 pmComment by Busta BowelMove — August 16, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
They become obsessed with “human rights” causes to the extent of secretely hoping for acquittals to catapult their propaganda.
The problem is, their acquittals wouldn’t exactly protect the human rights of the American public.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:13 pmAugust 16th, 2007-Associated Press:
‘Vapid, dishonest blog “Think Progress” derailed by conservative posters who once again better their liberal opponents in every post.’
August 16th, 2007 at 3:14 pmComment by gummitch — August 16, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
I’m not Mr. P.
Why don’t you express relief at this man’s conviction? Applaud the federal government for their hard work.
Abd libecrats like you complain when you’re called out, resorting to spin tactics…..
August 16th, 2007 at 3:16 pmWhen Trolls speak, have you noticed they can only be understood by another Troll?
It must come from being raised under bridges.
Maybe Billy Goats can speak Troll, just before they ram them with their horns.
It’s a lot like that town gossip who talks all the time but no one listens.
Yup, you can always tell a Troll, but you can’t tell them much.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:16 pmThe one little detail missing from this account of Card’s and Gonzales’ late-night hospital visit to Ashcroft’s bedside was the fact that they walked into Ashcroft’s ICU room lugging a “waterboard.”
Hey, I’ve heard it takes two to carry a “waterboard,” somewhat like carrying a litter, which is why two White House officials, Card and Gonzales, were sent to “get” Ashcroft to reauthorize the highly illegal warrantless wiretapping program(s).
Card’s and Gonzales’ plan was to subject Ashcroft, and maybe even his wife, to a little waterboarding “therapy,” to get Ashcroft to the point where he’d sign anything.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:18 pmComment by Xbot — August 16, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
He’s a convict. He’s a felon. He’s a terrorist.
A “human rights” violation doesn’t overturn the fact that he participated in terrorist activities. In the end, it was all worth it.
One more losing day for the “concerned” left.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:19 pmWhy don’t you express relief at this man’s conviction? Applaud the federal government for their hard work.
Abd libecrats like you complain when you’re called out, resorting to spin tactics…..
Comment by Nachos of Justice — August 16, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
I’m complaining that dum bass trolls can’t stick to the subject.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:20 pmComment by Zimzone — August 16, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Funny!
August 16th, 2007 at 3:20 pmWhat I find very interesting are all the portions of his “redacted” noted that were blacked out.
I guess the un-censored truth would be too much for the hide-in-the-dark, take-advantage-of-groggy-official neo-cons.
Does anyone wonder what was said to VPres. Cheney in the blacked-out portion of the notes? “Sorry, we couldn’t force Ashcroft to sign off on your egregious over-reach of power, sir.”
August 16th, 2007 at 3:20 pmComment by Zimzone — August 16, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Losing day, huh? Not the result you hoped for?
The best way this anti-American bump can respond: More reduntant “trolls under the bridge” cracks.
Lame.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:20 pmThe only book a Troll is capable of reading is ‘My Pet Goat’.
Of course, they’re deathly afraid of Goats. Goats stick them with horns.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:21 pmComment by gummitch — August 16, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
If there’s a good excuse to go off-topic, it’s now, given that TP hasn’t been bothered to even to report on the matter.
Thinkprogress.org has yet to report on progress.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:23 pmComment by Zimzone — August 16, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Yeah, go ahead and stick that in Mr. Padilla’s appeal file.
Very brainy, very witty.
Crazy lefty.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:24 pmCan’t back up his arguements, so troll tries valiantly to derail the thread. I hear Huffingtonpost is covering it, why don’t you drop your load over there?
August 16th, 2007 at 3:26 pmUpdate: Kudos to TP for reporting on the matter.
Non-kudos to you commentating lefties for frowning upon a great victory for the U.S.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:26 pmThree cheers for Conyers! Can we impeach Gonzo now?
August 16th, 2007 at 3:29 pmComment by TheToonguy — August 16, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
What argument did I originally raise? I actually posted a short “Resign, Gonzalez” note in response to the thread. I’m posting the news and a candid observation of the ignorance of you lefties.
Not having a field day, huh?
And much to your dismay, TP posted a thread on his conviction. I can’t wait to read the spin-posts of you lefties.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:29 pmSo go post there. Got over a dozen posts and you’re not one of them. Or are you switching names again?
At any rate, now that mr. whiney pants finally got his thread, can we get back to discussing Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller et al?
August 16th, 2007 at 3:33 pmComey showed class in front of Gonzo & Card, as well as Congress.
Gonzo couldn’t get class if bought a ring.
Card? Lapdog’s Lapdog.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:35 pmComment by TheToonguy — August 16, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Go post your clear condemnation for Mr. Padilla.
If you decide to skip the post or post lefty-spin, that’s a signal to your support for terrorists.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:36 pmExcuse me, this isn’t a playground and I’m not in the third grade. Go take your triple dog dares elsewhere. Nobody’s buying ‘em here.
Stop posting on a thread you clearly care nothing about.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:39 pmA little known fact:
Card and Gonzales showed up together at Ashcroft’s ICU hospital bedside because it took the two of them to carry the “waterboard” that they’d brought along to “nudge” Ashcroft into reauthorizing the highly illegal and un-American secret warrantless wiretapping program(s).
Really.
Would I lie?
A waterboard is a heavy wooden plank used to get people to spill their guts…which requires at least two people to carry.
Two people from the White House enforcers office showed up at Ashcroft’s bedside…
…thus they were probably lugging a waterboard between them to do some late-night “persuasion.”
(No matter what, it would make a great political cartoon, because this is what Card’s and Gonzales’ late-night visit amounted to).
August 16th, 2007 at 3:43 pmUpdate: Kudos to TP for reporting on the matter.
Non-kudos to you commentating lefties for frowning upon a great victory for the U.S.
Comment by Nachos of Justice
It is a great victory meaning the court system is able to conduct the rule of law even in a terrorism case meaning the military commissions are not needed meaning torture is not needed.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:45 pm#77 - Gonzo probably tried to get Ashcroft’s signature on a few shady real estate deals while he was at it…
August 16th, 2007 at 3:46 pm“I Albert Gonzales, do solemnly swear that I will support and
August 16th, 2007 at 3:50 pmdefend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
help me God.”
#75 - “If you decide to skip the post or post lefty-spin, that’s a signal to your support for terrorists.” Comment by Nachos of Justice — August 16, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Hey, you’re the one that supports terrorists. I’ve proven it using neo-con logic!
August 16th, 2007 at 3:51 pmInteresting at the very end of the redacted copy that Cheney requested a meeting….wonder what that was all about?
August 16th, 2007 at 4:10 pmWhy is Alberto called “J. Gonzales”?
And the AG didn’t even have the full info on the program and they wanted him to okay it?
August 16th, 2007 at 4:11 pmBut…but…I thought Jake said Ashcroft was “lucid”.
Hell, what does Mueller know? He was only an eyewitness.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:22 pmWhat I find interesting in Mueller’s notes is that even Asscroft couldn’t obtain all the information he needed regarding the program (perhaps that’s why he wouldn’t support it). He was barred from obtaining the advice he needed on the program because of strict WH compartmentalization rules.
How can you bar the top law enforcement official in the country from the information he/she needs regarding this kind of program.
It truly boggles one’s mind…
August 16th, 2007 at 4:37 pm1940 “Strict compartmentalization” rules. Sounds like the VP Cheney approach.
Surely, if the VP was involved, as the OMB Memos show, then the OVP and DOJ would have had documents. Yet, OVP decided to ignore 32 CFR 2800; and destroy/not retain evidence. Did anyone verify from the FBI Director whether that “compartmentalization” was based on real classifiation; or could there have been compartmentalization to avoid oversight for illegal activity.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:44 pm86. See page 3: Highlighted.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:49 pmSo, one has to wonder why his report was heavily redacted. Did it contain matters of National Security or did it contain stuff that was not complimentary to Bush? If they are worried about matters of National Security, then why did Card and Gonzales discuss these matters in front of Ashcroft’s wife who was still in the room? Why has no one gone after Card and Gonzales for revealing National Security matters in a non-secure location?
The whole thing stinks to high heavens.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:55 pmWhat’s creepy is that the meeting with Vice-President Cheney was the LAST meeting he took notes on…
August 16th, 2007 at 5:00 pm#61:
So, if you go to prison for a parking ticket fine being unpaid, and you just happen to be held for 3 years, I’ll remind you that you’re a criminal convict and don’t deserve any kind of compassion at all.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:20 pmThis one single event will be spoken of and written of in political science, law and history books and related forums for years to come.
This one single event, will be paramount at Bush’s trial as well.
That night, he knowingly tried to get a man, who was not only drugged, weak and practically comatose, but also NOT the Attorney General, to sign an illegal document that only the Attorney General could sign.
That was an act of open treason, where the president, and his lawyer, tried to overthrow the constitution, and when he failed, he fired the Attorney General and made his lawyer the AG.
Treason is the proper classification for those actions.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:09 pmDISTURBIA — August 16, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Incorrect. “Treason” requires something else: Foreign component, combat, warfare; and direct evidence ofhaving support the foreign enemy. This isn’t treason. It’s illegal activity: FISA violation.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:32 pm91. DISTURBIA — August 16, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
No, you failed to justify your assertion: “Treason is the proper classification for those actions. Based on your argument, you’ve shown that they could not be prosecuted for treason.
Here, you’re wrong.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:35 pm91. See: [ 343 U.S. 717] Treason, according to the Supreme Court’s iew of the statute is defined as having two elements, none of which you have demonstrated: “adhering to the enemy; and giving him aid and comfort.” Violating the Constitution is not related to aiding the enemy. Ignoring the law does not mean that they are aiding the enemy. Your argument fails.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:41 pm91. “One may think disloyal thoughts and have his heart on the side of the enemy, yet if he commits no act giving aid and comfort to the enemy, he is not guilty of treason. [ 343 U.S. 717] Just because Bush and others have violated the constitution and/or FISA it doesn’t mean that they have aided the enemy.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:43 pm91. But let’s follow your line of logic: That Bush was violating the Constitution and doing somethign for a reason, therefore engaged in treasonous conduct: “treason can be committed by one who scrupulously observes the laws of other nations’ [[ 343 U.S. 717]
If he wasn’t following the US Constitution, but as you say engaged in treason, then he must have followed some laws outside the US. You fail to explain which “non-US laws” Bush is explicitly adhering. If the President was “scrupulously” following another nation’s laws, would that evidence not be clear, obvious? There is no evidence. It doesn’t exist. Your argument fails.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:47 pm91. But let’s forget the law, statute, Supreme court. Would the Constitution suffice?
Nothing in there remotely resembling what you’re talking about. Zip.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:50 pmLet’s consider your overall argument: “the president, and his lawyer, tried to overthrow the constitution,” That’s something else: Rebellion, sedition, or an insurrection. You can call it “treason” but the correct term is an illegal rebellion, which Congress has the power to declare by denying the Write of Habeas. They have not. Perhaps they should.
Indeed, the Congress has power to raise a militia; yet the President has the power to put down the illegal rebellion. What happens when Congressional power to raise a militia is at odds with the President’s rebellion, and his power to choose to do nothingabout his illegal conduct? Without action, the Constitution is left on its own, impermissibly.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:58 pmHere, you’re wrong.
Comment by Anon — August 16, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
———–
You are both wrong. But technically, Anon is less wrong.
There comes a time in the course of events when a Nations Constitution is no longer adequate when it comes to protecting citizens and preserving the Nation. It is at such a time when a True Leader, such as The Honorable President of The United States of America George W. Bush, beckons to the call of the People, and forges a new standard of Patriotism and Heroism.
Only later will the Constitution be changed to liking of The Honorable President George W. Bush. But until then, he is anything but a criminal. Although technically the Constitution may present what seems to be contradictory statements.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:58 pm99. He has no power to abrogate the Constitution, nor amend it unilaterally as you appear to support. “But until then, he is anything but a criminal.
Comment by “peaches” from peaches n’ cream — August 16, 2007
You’ve contradicted yourself. “There comes a time in the course of events when a Nations Constitution is no longer adequate when it comes to protecting citizens and preserving the Nation.” Until the Constitution is changed, it must be protected as it is; not ignored. You contradict yourself when you assert he is not required to defend this Constitution; but he is not a criminal: But until then, he is anything but a criminal. The very definitino of a criminal is one who refuses to enforce their oath, as has this President.
Putting above aside, you cited nothing to suport your view. the other view has more support:
You cant argue that the President can ignore the Constituion or call for “new things” as the basis to ignore it or justify it. Your argument fails.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:06 pm99. You cite no legal authority or “better” Constitution, see 93-98. You’ve simply asserted “you’re wrong” using non-sense. See 100.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:08 pmYou cant argue that the President can ignore the Constituion or call for “new things†as the basis to ignore it or justify it. Your argument fails.
Comment by Anon — August 16, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
God’s Laws of Natural Justice trump all of man’s laws. President Bush is doing what is morally Just and he is therefore not a criminal. The Constitution will be changed to reflect this.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:15 pm102. Great. Enjoy your illegitimate government. You (apparently) did not read 100.
This comment is curious: “The Constitution will be changed to reflect this.” Suppose your argument were true — that we, today, are relying on “future law” to justify his action to day. This is not legal:
You have no legal basis to say “perhaps the lie might be changed in the future, therefore today we shall permit illegal activity.” May not put “God’s law” at the basis for the law of the land, when the law of the land is Supreme the Supreme Law.
Finding no reference to “God’s law” — in the Constitution — as the Supreme Law, your assertion is meaningless.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:27 pm103 quote: Fed 8
August 16th, 2007 at 7:28 pmAnon,
Here, read this:
St. Thomas Aquinas on the Natural Law.
this might help you understand too:
To sum it up, then, we can say that the natural law:
• is not made by human beings;
• is based on the structure of reality itself;
• is the same for all human beings and at all times;
• is an unchanging rule or pattern which is there for human beings to discover;
• is the naturally knowable moral law;
• is a means by which human beings can rationally guide themselves to their good.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:55 pmMueller’s notes clearly contradict Gonzales’ testimony that there was no opposition to this program. Thus, Gonzales lied under oath to Congress. He broke the law. Either a special prosecutor should be appointed or articles of impeachment must be authorized by the House Judiciary Committee.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:01 pm>is the naturally knowable moral law;
How?
August 17th, 2007 at 5:26 amIt’s pretty obvious to all but the most partisan that Gonzales lied, but let me ask a question, and hopefully I won’t be run into the ground, but what’s the point of electing Democrats? They won’t do anything but run away with their tail between their legs when Bush lays down the law. It doesn’t matter if Bush etc. break the laws, there’s no legal recourse for those of us who walk around with a constitution in our pocket.
It strikes me that the dems were elected to end the war. Now we’re waiting to see what Bush’s new report says (the Petraus report). Huh? I thought we were going to end this senseless war. Dems let Bush re-frame the debate…again.
Likewise, it’s just spiffy that Mueller’s notes prove that Gonzales lied, but what more proof did we need? Didn’t anyone watch the testimony (partisans aside)? There’s no recourse for those on this board but to throw out the bums who failed to throw out the bums who sold out our country.
dan
August 17th, 2007 at 1:10 pmhttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/17/72314/8654
What do we need to do to assure that POTUS #44 sufficiently cleans up these messes?
I am thinking that we need to pressure our POTUS #44 candidates.
Which candidates will vow to pull out these programs by the roots and which will try and cover it all up and just say “Time to move on”
As for a flurry of pardons, any Bush official who receives a pardon and no one knows what crime he or she allegedly committed should be subpoena-ed by Congress and forced to elaborate on what exactly they were pardon-ed for.
And if there is evidence of crimes not disclosed during that Congressional appearance, prosecute for perjury. If they fully disclose what they did that required a pardon, then thank them for their time and wish ‘em a nice life.
An ad hoc checks and balances on excessive use of the Executive pardon power.
The Secret Program Known only to 5 & FISA #2
DR, another great diary. As you know, I have maintained since seeing Abu testify that there exists a secret program that the DoJ was kept in the dark about in order to maintain “plausible deniability” - a page from the Iran Contra chapter in the R-thug Stonewalling a Scandal Handbook - applying the Mushroom Theory- Keep Em in the Dark, and Feed Em S**t.
My original hypothesis was that the full extent of the program was known only by Bush, Rove Cheney and Addington, but was hidden from Ashcroft and the DoJ.
As a reliable syncophant, I think Abu knows too, and that is all the more reason to impeach the SOB. As far as getting to the truth, I have always found found when prosecuting corporate or government cover ups, it critical to get to the ‘worker bees’ who must do the actual implementation, as opposed to the queens at the top.
That is another reason why the next FISA debate is a must win, and the wiretap cases in SF are so vital, because the potential is there to blow the lid off this crap. Let’s not lose sight of the real fight in FISA Round 2, is the effort to stop this kind of case in its tracks by immunizing the telecom companies.
This is the Administration’s prime objective- check this out
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/ releases/ 2007/ 08/ 20070806-5.html
Our Work Is Not Done — This Act Is A Temporary, Narrowly Focused Statute To Deal With The Most Immediate Needs Of The Intelligence Community To Protect The Country. When Congress returns in September, the Intelligence Committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, including the important issues of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The telecom workers who have to implement the spy program hold the key – and I hope the Committees will talk to these people before considering FISA again.
The loyal Bushies are playing hardball, and will stop at nothing to checkmate this process in FISA Round 2, and THEY MUST BE STOPPED- PERIOD.
Think it thorough – the Congressional Gang of 8 was told the truth – as the DoJ officials knew it - but that is not the whole story.
…. In conclusion, winning the next FISA battle and impeaching ABU hold the keys to the kingdom.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:11 pmI have a question regarding Constitutional law I am hoping a professional can answer:
This is encompasses Padilla;, warrentless wire tapping & changing up the law for one’s benefit.
1) In the case of Padilla (regardless of guilt or innocence), he was at first labeled a “Combative Enemy” with no right to a trial, a lawyer and allowed to be totrtured to get a confession
The charges labled against him were for POTENTIALLY setting off a dirty bomb in the USA. He was held for 2-3 years like this.
When the Supreme court overruled that he was a US Citizen & US Citizens must be given a trial, Those charges were CHANGED to aiding the enemy Overseas and had nothing to do with a dirty bomb plot. (I am NOT contesting that he was found guilty)
What happens to all those years he was held illegally on (possibly..who really knows? ) trumped up charges that were changed once he had to go to a real court of law?
Can anyone be held accountable for being able to whisk any American off the street & held without a lawyer illegally?
2)
In the case of warrentless wiretapping of US citizens:
First, The Attorney general said you didn’t need FISA to listen to American phone calls.
Then the Upper management of the DOJ ruled that it was ILLEGAL to do so to Americans (This is what lead to Gonzoles trring to get a doped-up Ashcroft to sign off on it in the famous hospital incident). ]
He was shut down but, ON BUSHS’ ORDER, they CONTINUNED to do it anyway.
Recently congressioanl idiots just gave that power back to the Administration.
What happens to all those years they were illegally wiretapping Americans ANYWAY?
Can anyone be held accountable for being able to listen in on an American phone call illegally?
IS (or Will) ANYONE EVER be able to be held accountable for acting illegally before a law is changed/redacted?
August 18th, 2007 at 11:35 am