Attorney opposed Bush's warrantless wiretapping program

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19089185/


Cheney blocked Justice official's promotion
Attorney opposed Bush's warrantless wiretapping program

Vice president Dick Cheney is said to have played a big role in opposing Patrick Philbin's promotion to principal deputy solicitor general at the Justice Department.

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney blocked the promotion of a Justice Department official involved in a bedside standoff over President Bush's eavesdropping program, a Senate committee learned Wednesday.

In a written account, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey said Cheney warned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that he would oppose the promotion of a department official who once threatened to resign over the program.

Gonzales eventually decided against trying to promote Patrick Philbin to principal deputy solicitor general, Comey said.

"I understood that someone at the White House communicated to Attorney General Gonzales that the vice president would oppose the appointment if the attorney general pursued the matter," Comey wrote. "The attorney general chose not to pursue it."

Comey responded to written questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Comey's account provides new detail in a sprawling, Democratic-elicited story of how much the White House influences the department's operations.

More hiring details unveiled
Also Wednesday, the department released 39 new pages of internal e-mails and documents that partly detail efforts by the department's former White House liaison, Monica Goodling, in January 2006 to obtain authority to hire and fire political staffers.

"Ok to send up directly to me, outside of system," Goodling wrote in a Jan. 19, 2006, e-mail to Paul Corts, the assistant attorney general for administration.
The Democrats' investigation into whether the firings of eight U.S. attorneys were improperly political led to testimony last month in which Comey disclosed details of a hospital visit on March 10, 2004, to the attorney general at that time, John Ashcroft.

Democrats contend the story shows the White House's heavy-handed influence over the department, including the agency's role to periodically endorse the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program.

Philbin was one of two Justice Department officials who led a review of the classified program and provided some of the research that led Comey to refuse to endorse it, Comey said.

"Mr. Comey has confirmed what we suspected for a while that White House hands guided Justice Department business," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading the Senate's investigation. "The vice president's fingerprints are all over the effort to strong-arm Justice on the NSA program."

Cheney spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, declined to respond, citing the administration's policy of not commenting on personnel matters.

Review led to hospital bedside visit
According to Comey, he and Ashcroft had refused to recertify the legality of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program for reasons that are classified. When Ashcroft fell ill with pancreatitis, the powers of his office transferred to Comey, Ashcroft's deputy.

During a meeting at the White House on March 9, 2004, Comey told Cheney he would not certify the program, he said in his written remarks Wednesday.

The next night, then-White House Counsel Gonzales and Bush's chief of staff, Andy Card, went to Ashcroft's bedside in intensive care unit at George Washington University Hospital. Tipped to the impending visit, Comey and his aides were present when Gonzales urged Ashcroft to recertify the program. Ashcroft, who just had gall bladder surgery, refused, Comey testified last month.

The White House recertified the program without the department's endorsement. That led Comey, Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Philbin and other department officials to prepare their resignations. Faced with a mass walkout at the top of his Justice Department, Bush relented and made changes in the eavesdropping program that Comey and Mueller said were necessary to win their approval.

According to Comey, Philbin later was considered for a promotion to be principal deputy solicitor general - lieutenant to the lawyer who represents the government before the Supreme Court.

"It was my understanding that the vice president's office blocked that appointment," Comey said in his written remarks.

If Ashcroft was against Bush's eavesdropping program then you know something was wrong with it... Of course the WH whores in the media chided the dems for having the 'gall' to questioon Bush's eavesdropping policy... Thank God there are people in Washington who had the balls to stand up to the White House..

[Yonivore]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19089185/

If Ashcroft was against Bush's eavesdropping program then you know something was wrong with it... Of course the WH whores in the media chided the dems for having the 'gall' to questioon Bush's eavesdropping policy... Thank God there are people in Washington who had the balls to stand up to the White House..
Welcome back Rip Van Winkle...this was hashed and rehashed sometime last month after Comey testified, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, about the horrible, indefensible firings of politically appointed U. S. Attorneys. As was reported by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/washington/15cnd-attorneys.html?hp) on May 15, -- yes, 22 days ago -- the testimony was less about the firings and more about the meeting at Ashcroft's hospital bed, referenced in the article you posted.

So, let's look at Comey's testimony, yet again, for the benefit of George Gervin's Afro.

The main substance of Comey's testimony related to the March 10, 2004 meeting, in Ashcroft's hospital room, when then Chief of Staff Andrew Card and then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales were trying to get Attorney General Ashcroft to sign a reauthorization of the NSA's international terrorist surveillance program.

Here's a transcript of the testimony (http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/files/comey.transcript.pdf).

But what does it all mean? You can piece the story together if you read Comey's testimony carefully. The program in question, while Comey declined to identify it, was obviously the NSA surveillance program, which required reauthorization, pursuant to President Bush's order, every 45 days. The NSA's international terrorist surveillance started almost immediately after September 11, 2001. Attorney General Ashcroft had certified its legality every 45 days thereafter, a total of approximately 19 or 20 times.

By March 2004, when the events described by Comey occurred, the NSA program had been in operation for 2 1/2 years, continuously certified as legal by the Department of Justice. It's no wonder that President Bush and his staff thought the program was legal. So why did DOJ raise a legal problem so long after the fact? In an exchange that has not been widely reported, Comey answered that question:


It was simply the pace at which the work went on in the Office of Legal Counsel. We had a new assistant attorney general as of, I think, October of 2003. *** And the work got done in the beginning part of 2004. *** Concerns had reached the ears of the new assistant attorney general. And he undertook an examination--with my approval and with Attorney General Ashcroft's approval--of this matter.
The problem apparently--based on an exchange between Chuck Schumer and Comey--had to do with the way in which the NSA program was being administered or overseen at that time.

The timing here is important. Comey explained that it was immediately before Ashcroft was stricken with pancreatitis that he and Ashcroft came to the conclusion that they could not certify the legality of the NSA program, given the conclusions of the Department's recent review. Comey described his conversation with Ashcroft, in which that conclusion was reached, and continued:


The Attorney General was taken that very afternoon to George Washington Hospital, where he went into intensive care and remained there for over a week. And I became the acting attorney general.
And over the next week--particularly the following week, on Tuesday--we communicated to the relevant parties at the White House and elsewhere our decision that as acting attorney general I would not certify the program as to its legality and explained our reasoning in detail....

That was Tuesday that we communicated that. The next day was Wednesday, March the 10th, the night of the hospital incident.
This strikes me as the information that is vital to understand what likely happened. Attorney General John Ashcroft had certified, over and over, that the NSA program was legal. Suddenly, Ashcroft was taken ill. The next thing that happened, according to Comey, was that Comey notified the White House that he would not sign the certification that Ashcroft had signed some 20 times. Comey did not say -- amazingly, no one asked him -- whether he ever told the White House that Ashcroft had agreed with this conclusion on the very day when he was taken to the hospital.

So it is hardly surprising if, confronted with sudden intransigence from a brand-new, acting attorney general, Alberto Gonzales and Andy Card thought that the problem lay with Comey's staging a sort of palace coup. It may well have been reasonable for them to go to see Ashcroft to get the same certification they had gotten many times before.

When they got to the hospital, they found that Ashcroft seconded Comey's legal concerns, based on the review that had just been completed. That caused some confusion, no doubt, but it led to the White House meeting between Comey and President Bush, followed by a meeting between Bush and FBI Director Robert Mueller. The upshot of those meetings was that Bush, apprised of the results of DOJ's legal review, told Comey to do what he thought was right.

Bush reauthorized the NSA program, but immediately thereafter, Comey says, the program was revised in some unspecified way to satisfy the DOJ's new concerns. Subsequently, the program continued to be reauthorized and recertified by DOJ every 45 days, thereafter.

So if you put the whole sequence together, it may well be that no actor in this admittedly lurid drama did anything wrong. Ashcroft and Comey apparently decided to go along with the conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and insist on changes in the program. Nothing wrong with that. Gonzales and Card may well not have known of Ashcroft's changed opinion, arrived at on the same day he went to the hospital -- agan, this is a key fact we don't know -- and thought that Comey was trying to reverse his boss's judgment.

So they went to see Ashcroft personally. Nothing wrong with that, as far as we know. Ashcroft set them straight; nothing wrong with that. (It's worth noting that Comey described Ashcroft's performance as a demonstration of physical and moral strength that was unprecedented in his experience.) President Bush then got into the act, learned the facts, and told Comey to do whatever he thought was right as acting Attorney General. Nothing wrong with that; on the contrary. The NSA program was revised to satisfy DOJ's concerns, and continued in effect, protecting Americans from terrorist attack, to the present time. Nothing wrong with that, to say the least.

This is not, of course and obviously, the story you will get from the fragmentary and incoherent accounts that are appearing in the press -- even at this late date.

One more point: Senator Schumer made a prolonged attempt to get Comey to say that it was illegal for the administration to continue, briefly, the NSA program without DOJ certification of legality. Democrats and others on the left will undoubtedly claim that they now have proof of the program's "illegality." But Comey refused to go along with this theory. He pointed out that DOJ certification was not a legal requirement. Rather, the DOJ process was part of the procedure that President Bush established by executive order. Thus, it was perfectly legal for the program to continue in the brief absence of DOJ certification, pursuant to the order of that same executive.

It's an interesting story. But, based on what we know, it is not clear that there is anything discreditable anywhere in it.

And there you have it, Rip. Welcome back.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Welcome back Rip Van Winkle...this was hashed and rehashed sometime last month after Comey testified, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, about the horrible, indefensible firings of politically appointed U. S. Attorneys. As was reported by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/washington/15cnd-attorneys.html?hp) on May 15, -- yes, 22 days ago -- the testimony was less about the firings and more about the meeting at Ashcroft's hospital bed, referenced in the article you posted.

So, let's look at Comey's testimony, yet again, for the benefit of George Gervin's Afro.

The main substance of Comey's testimony related to the March 10, 2004 meeting, in Ashcroft's hospital room, when then Chief of Staff Andrew Card and then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales were trying to get Attorney General Ashcroft to sign a reauthorization of the NSA's international terrorist surveillance program.

Here's a transcript of the testimony (http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/files/comey.transcript.pdf).

But what does it all mean? You can piece the story together if you read Comey's testimony carefully. The program in question, while Comey declined to identify it, was obviously the NSA surveillance program, which required reauthorization, pursuant to President Bush's order, every 45 days. The NSA's international terrorist surveillance started almost immediately after September 11, 2001. Attorney General Ashcroft had certified its legality every 45 days thereafter, a total of approximately 19 or 20 times.

By March 2004, when the events described by Comey occurred, the NSA program had been in operation for 2 1/2 years, continuously certified as legal by the Department of Justice. It's no wonder that President Bush and his staff thought the program was legal. So why did DOJ raise a legal problem so long after the fact? In an exchange that has not been widely reported, Comey answered that question:


The problem apparently--based on an exchange between Chuck Schumer and Comey--had to do with the way in which the NSA program was being administered or overseen at that time.

The timing here is important. Comey explained that it was immediately before Ashcroft was stricken with pancreatitis that he and Ashcroft came to the conclusion that they could not certify the legality of the NSA program, given the conclusions of the Department's recent review. Comey described his conversation with Ashcroft, in which that conclusion was reached, and continued:


This strikes me as the information that is vital to understand what likely happened. Attorney General John Ashcroft had certified, over and over, that the NSA program was legal. Suddenly, Ashcroft was taken ill. The next thing that happened, according to Comey, was that Comey notified the White House that he would not sign the certification that Ashcroft had signed some 20 times. Comey did not say -- amazingly, no one asked him -- whether he ever told the White House that Ashcroft had agreed with this conclusion on the very day when he was taken to the hospital.

So it is hardly surprising if, confronted with sudden intransigence from a brand-new, acting attorney general, Alberto Gonzales and Andy Card thought that the problem lay with Comey's staging a sort of palace coup. It may well have been reasonable for them to go to see Ashcroft to get the same certification they had gotten many times before.

When they got to the hospital, they found that Ashcroft seconded Comey's legal concerns, based on the review that had just been completed. That caused some confusion, no doubt, but it led to the White House meeting between Comey and President Bush, followed by a meeting between Bush and FBI Director Robert Mueller. The upshot of those meetings was that Bush, apprised of the results of DOJ's legal review, told Comey to do what he thought was right.

Bush reauthorized the NSA program, but immediately thereafter, Comey says, the program was revised in some unspecified way to satisfy the DOJ's new concerns. Subsequently, the program continued to be reauthorized and recertified by DOJ every 45 days, thereafter.

So if you put the whole sequence together, it may well be that no actor in this admittedly lurid drama did anything wrong. Ashcroft and Comey apparently decided to go along with the conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and insist on changes in the program. Nothing wrong with that. Gonzales and Card may well not have known of Ashcroft's changed opinion, arrived at on the same day he went to the hospital -- agan, this is a key fact we don't know -- and thought that Comey was trying to reverse his boss's judgment.

So they went to see Ashcroft personally. Nothing wrong with that, as far as we know. Ashcroft set them straight; nothing wrong with that. (It's worth noting that Comey described Ashcroft's performance as a demonstration of physical and moral strength that was unprecedented in his experience.) President Bush then got into the act, learned the facts, and told Comey to do whatever he thought was right as acting Attorney General. Nothing wrong with that; on the contrary. The NSA program was revised to satisfy DOJ's concerns, and continued in effect, protecting Americans from terrorist attack, to the present time. Nothing wrong with that, to say the least.

This is not, of course and obviously, the story you will get from the fragmentary and incoherent accounts that are appearing in the press -- even at this late date.

One more point: Senator Schumer made a prolonged attempt to get Comey to say that it was illegal for the administration to continue, briefly, the NSA program without DOJ certification of legality. Democrats and others on the left will undoubtedly claim that they now have proof of the program's "illegality." But Comey refused to go along with this theory. He pointed out that DOJ certification was not a legal requirement. Rather, the DOJ process was part of the procedure that President Bush established by executive order. Thus, it was perfectly legal for the program to continue in the brief absence of DOJ certification, pursuant to the order of that same executive.

It's an interesting story. But, based on what we know, it is not clear that there is anything discreditable anywhere in it.

And there you have it, Rip. Welcome back.





When they got to the hospital, they found that Ashcroft seconded Comey's legal concerns, based on the review that had just been completed. That caused some confusion, no doubt, but it led to the White House meeting between Comey and President Bush, followed by a meeting between Bush and FBI Director Robert Mueller. The upshot of those meetings was that Bush, apprised of the results of DOJ's legal review, told Comey to do what he thought was right.

Bush reauthorized the NSA program, but immediately thereafter, Comey says, the program was revised in some unspecified way to satisfy the DOJ's new concerns


So they went to Aschrofts bedside and went over the head of the acting Att. General assuming he would re-authorize the program. Ashcroft then reiterated Comey's concerns. Care to guess what the concerns were?

The problem apparently--based on an exchange between Chuck Schumer and Comey--had to do with the way in which the NSA program was being administered or overseen at that time.

Kind of important don't you think?

As I stated thank God for somone standing up to the WH .

[Yonivore]

So they went to Aschrofts bedside and went over the head of the acting Att. General assuming he would re-authorize the program.
Actually, the President is incapable of "going over the head" of anyone in the administration; he is the head and, vicariously in this case (since they were representing the White House), so are his proxies Card and Gonzales.


Ashcroft then reiterated Comey's concerns. Care to guess what the concerns were?
No. The concerns were addressed and the Attorney General resumed re-authorization to the tune of every 45 days since that meeting.


The problem apparently--based on an exchange between Chuck Schumer and Comey--had to do with the way in which the NSA program was being administered or overseen at that time.

Kind of important don't you think?
I didn't say it was unimportant but, that the concerns were addressed.

Look, the President created the AG review of this program in his Executive Order. It wasn't required by law. The process worked and a concern was addressed.

I believe the hospital visit had more to do with their concern that Comey had usurped Ashcroft's authority than it did with the sudden refusal to authorize the NSA program. Once that matter was cleared up and it was realized that Comey and Ashcroft had reached the decision together, the White House told Comey to fix the issue. It was fixed and the AG began reauthorizing the program every 45 days thereafter.

Mountains out of molehills. And, already discussed to death while you were sleeping.


As I stated thank God for somone standing up to the WH .
Bush continued the program in the absence of AG Authorization while Comey worked out the kinks.

Who stood up to the White House? Ashcroft merely expressed his concurrence with Comey and, once that was understood, the White House did the right thing.

Something they have a habit of doing.

[FromWayDowntown]

Here's the link (http://gomok.nojo.cz/2007/05/16/making-sense-comey/) that Yonivore forgot in his effort to dazzle us with his original thoughts and analysis of the Comey situation.

[ChumpDumper]

So did this guy write the blog Yoni stole?

http://gomok.nojo.cz/wp-content/themes/clores/styles/default/header.jpg

And why is he stealing a blog from the Czech Republic to talk about the American legal/political system?

[Yonivore]

Here's the link (http://gomok.nojo.cz/2007/05/16/making-sense-comey/) that Yonivore forgot in his effort to dazzle us with his original thoughts and analysis of the Comey situation.
So, can't address the analysis? Cool.

I just followed your link. That guy stole if from someone else.

[Oh, Gee!!]

That guy stole if from someone else.

"That guy" provided a link; you didn't.

[Yonivore]

"That guy" provided a link; you didn't.
So, now you have your link. Care to address the points made?

[Oh, Gee!!]

So, now you have your link. Care to address the points made?

the point that you're a liar and a fraud? no, that's pretty well covered.

[Yonivore]

the point that you're a liar and a fraud? no, that's pretty well covered.
Yes, established long ago.

That doesn't change the points made by those from whom I stole.

Nice thread hijack.

[Yonivore]

So they went to Aschrofts bedside and went over the head of the acting Att. General assuming he would re-authorize the program.
Actually, the President is incapable of "going over the head" of anyone in the administration; he is the head and, vicariously in this case (since they were representing the White House), so are his proxies Card and Gonzales.


Ashcroft then reiterated Comey's concerns. Care to guess what the concerns were?
No. The concerns were addressed and the Attorney General resumed re-authorization to the tune of every 45 days since that meeting.


The problem apparently--based on an exchange between Chuck Schumer and Comey--had to do with the way in which the NSA program was being administered or overseen at that time.

Kind of important don't you think?
I didn't say it was unimportant but, that the concerns were addressed.

Look, the President created the AG review of this program in his Executive Order. It wasn't required by law. The process worked and a concern was addressed.

I believe the hospital visit had more to do with their concern that Comey had usurped Ashcroft's authority than it did with the sudden refusal to authorize the NSA program. Once that matter was cleared up and it was realized that Comey and Ashcroft had reached the decision together, the White House told Comey to fix the issue. It was fixed and the AG began reauthorizing the program every 45 days thereafter.

Mountains out of molehills. And, already discussed to death while you were sleeping.


As I stated thank God for somone standing up to the WH .
Bush continued the program in the absence of AG Authorization while Comey worked out the kinks.

Who stood up to the White House? Ashcroft merely expressed his concurrence with Comey and, once that was understood, the White House did the right thing.

Something they have a habit of doing.

[FromWayDowntown]

So, can't address the analysis? Cool.

If the bedside confrontation is really much ado about nothing, then why is Vice President Cheney affirmatively opposing the promotion of Philbin?

The propriety vel non of Gonzalez and Card's trip to the ICU is an issue that seems to have very little to do with Vice President Cheney deciding who will and will not be promoted within Justice.

[ChumpDumper]

oooooooo -- Latin.

This is getting seriuous.

:corn:

[xrayzebra]

^^Guess that leaves you out.

[Yonivore]

If the bedside confrontation is really much ado about nothing, then why is Vice President Cheney affirmatively opposing the promotion of Philbin?
I have no idea. How do you connect the two circumstances more than, well, circumstantially?


The propriety vel non of Gonzalez and Card's trip to the ICU is an issue that seems to have very little to do with Vice President Cheney deciding who will and will not be promoted within Justice.
So, why bring it up? I thought we were talking about Comey's testimony vis a vis his heartburn over the Card and Gonzales visit to the hospital and it's impact on the NSA Surveillance program.

Personally, I'm not interested in the internal employment practices of the White House or the Justice Department. If in fact, Vice President Cheney is "affirmatively opposing," as you put it, the promotion of another administration employee -- it is well within his purview to do so...for whatever reason he desires.

[ChumpDumper]

^^Guess that leaves you out.Since it seems I can't spell in English, yes.

[Yonivore]

vel non = or not

Guess he couldn't remember those two words.

"The propriety, or not, ..." would have worked just as well.

[FromWayDowntown]

I have no idea. How do you connect the two circumstances more than, well, circumstantially?

So, why bring it up?

Because it was the lead in the story that started this thread. I understand that you want to talk about Comey because you've found a blog that supports your view of the situation. I thought that the point of posting the original story was to discuss the heavy-handed nature of the Vice President's treatment of those who disagree with him.

[FromWayDowntown]

vel non = or not

Guess he couldn't remember those two words.

"The propriety, or not, ..." would have worked just as well.

Or, I chose to use a widely-accepted alternative to express myself. Probably should have "borrowed" from someone else to make my point, though.

[Yonivore]

Or, I chose to use a widely-accepted alternative to express myself. Probably should have "borrowed" from someone else to make my point, though.
Widely accepted?

I do believe that's the first time I've ever seen the term "vel non" used in an online forum of any kind.

Yeah, and you probably should borrow from someone else. You make no fucking sense on your own.

[Yonivore]

Because it was the lead in the story that started this thread. I understand that you want to talk about Comey because you've found a blog that supports your view of the situation. I thought that the point of posting the original story was to discuss the heavy-handed nature of the Vice President's treatment of those who disagree with him.
The lead story's poster chose to bold and emphasize an aspect of the story that had been argued to death 20 days ago. That's what I was talking about.

And, if Bush is so heavy-handed, why didn't he fire Comey?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Yes, established long ago.

That doesn't change the points made by those from whom I stole.

Nice thread hijack.

the article you posted does nothing to directly answer what the OP posted.

[Yonivore]

the article you posted does nothing to directly answer what the OP posted.
It specifically addressed the bolded portions of the article GGA posted.

And, more specifically, the last bolded paragraph is not sourced -- but pure speculation. It is neither addressed in Comey's testimony nor have there been any statements by the White House that any threatened resignations cause them to relent to anything.

In fact, after it was clear that Ashcroft concurred with Comey, the President directed Comey to "fix" whatever concerns he had. After that was done, the Attorney General's office continued to recertify the program every 45 days, like clockwork.

I know you'd like there to be more drama, but, there isn't.