When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

I skipped over something too:

What makes Hank's response even weaker is that the statute had a 45-day reauthorization for a reason. If DOJ was obliged to reauthorize it every time it came up simply because it had done so before, well, then the reauthorization provision is pretty pointless. Quite clearly the statute contemplated that hte facts or views of the law might change over time, and that a continuing need had to be rejustified with regularity.

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

Here's a different view:

• When the warrantless wiretap surveillance program came up for review in March of 2004, it had been running for two and a half years. We still don't know precisely what form the program took in that period, although some details have been leaked. But we now know, courtesy of Comey, that the program was so odious, so thoroughly at odds with any conception of constitutional liberties, that not a single senior official in the Bush administration's own Department of Justice was willing to sign off on it. In fact, Comey reveals, the entire top echelon of the Justice Department was prepared to resign rather than see the program reauthorized, even if its approval wasn't required. They just didn't want to be part of an administration that was running such a program.
  
  This wasn't an emergency program; more than two years had elapsed, ample time to correct any initial deficiencies. It wasn’t a last minute crisis; Ashcroft and Comey had both been saying, for weeks, that they would withhold
  approval. But at the eleventh hour, the President made one final push, dispatching his most senior aides to try to secure approval for a continuation of the program, unaltered. . . .
  
  I think it’s safe to assume that whatever they were fighting over, it was a matter of substance. When John Ashcroft is prepared to resign, and risk bringing down a Republican administration in the process, he’s not doing it for kicks. Similarly, when the President sends his aides to coerce a signature out of a desperately ill man, and only backs down when the senior leadership of a cabinet department threatens to depart en masse, he’s not just being stubborn.
  
  It’s time that the Democrats in Congress blew the lid off of the NSA’s surveillance program. Whatever form it took for those years was blatantly illegal; so egregious that by 2004, not even the administration’s most partisan members could stomach it any longer. We have a right to know what went on then. We publicize the rules under which the government can obtain physical search warrants, and don’t consider revealing those rules to endanger security; there’s no reason we can’t do the same for electronic searches. The late-night drama makes for an interesting news story, but it’s really beside the point. The punchline here is that the President of the United States engaged in a prolonged and willful effort to violate the law, until senior members of his own administration forced him to stop. That’s the Congressional investigation that we ought to be having.

He's still got it, but he doesn't bring it every night. It's a long season, and old pro like Hank knows to save it for the playoffs.

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

ummm, i read the testimony. it was the first time i actually read anything here and if you tell me it doesn't matter even when you read it, well I'll be happy to not read anything in the future, believe me.

Ashcroft and Comey agreed on their concerns. Did The WH know about those concerns prior to Comey telling them while Ashcroft was in the hospital- if not, then is it unreasonable to check with Ashcroft.

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

Based on other articles, my sense is they knew. It's not unreasonable to obtain his views. But if they were doing it above-board, why would they not call Comey, who was acting at the time, and invite him to the bull session?

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

As a matter of law, yes, if Comey was the acting AG.

As a matter of fundamental decency, yes, if Ashcroft was in the condition Comey describes.

sorry. F. it was repeating some idiotic thing you had psoted about a year ago. I don't suppose it would be fair to hold you to the standard of remembering every idiotic thing you've said though.

Ah, yes, F, "Hank was so drunk he didn't know what he was saying" - yes, that's the original source, thank you.

Wait, when are the playoffs?

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

the other weird thing is that even though Comey's concerns were met and the program went forward with his apporoval- the revised program was the horiibly offensive and unconstitutional program we first learned of last year.

responding to him is different than responding to PPNYC how?

Ruling please: RT, I can count this one, yes?


489-13

Richard Viguerie on Rudy Giuliani:

• "If the Republican Party nominates Rudy Giuliani as its candidate for either president or vice president, I will personally work to defeat the GOP ticket in 2008," says Richard A. Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause.
  "Rudy Giuliani is wrong on all of the social issues, is wrong on the Second Amendment, and is pretty much a blank slate on all other issues of importance to conservatives," Viguerie adds. "If the Republican Party nominates him, it is saying to the American people that it has lost all purpose except the raw political desire to hold power. It will be time to put the GOP out of its misery."
  Viguerie made his comments in response to Tuesday night's debate in South Carolina between the Republican presidential candidates.
  "I continue to urge conservatives to withhold their support from all of the present candidates," he said. "The leading candidates aren't worthy of conservative support, and the few who are truly conservative don't have a realistic chance of getting the nomination."
  "But Rudy Giuliani is a special case," Viguerie continued. "In recent days, he has reaffirmed his long-standing support of abortion, and Politico.com has revealed his numerous contributions to Planned Parenthood, the nation's biggest supplier of abortions. His comments in the debate did nothing to diminish his affront to those who believe in the culture of life."
  "It's Rudy or the GOP," Viguerie concluded. "We're in a political version of 'The Survivor,' and both cannot survive politically."

link

Does that make you Thurgreed? Ow, my head hurts now.

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

Is that a life appointment? if not, at whose pleasure does the acting AG serve? If comey was a lone wolf on the issue they needed to know.

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

No. It means that he's the #2, acting as the AG while the AG is unable to perform (because he was hospitalized).

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

Ty, maybe it's just preseason. That time of year, sometimes the old pros, they throw shit up at the backboard, and don't even look surprised when they miss the rim entirely.

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

It rather defeats the purpose of having a provision for an acting AG in the case of incapacity of the AG if the acting AG has no actual authority because the AG must be consulted.

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

read the posts again. if they only hear about the alleged problem in a 2 year old program from the acting guy, after the regular guy goes into the hospital, it is not unreasonable to wonder if the regular guy felt the same way. not that he is still in charge, but if the acting guy has so changed policy that the regular guy disagrees with what the acting guy decided, shouldn't the WH know. Hint: what can the WH do about the acting guy's status?

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

You really don't know anything about this, do you?

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

I suspect that a) Congress will very soon be talking to the regular guy, and b) since acting guy suck around for two years after the incident, nothing was done to or about him.

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

According to Comey's testimony, he was prepared to resign, but it sounds like the President didn't want that to happen.

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

You're advocating the Searching For Robert Bork Strategem, eh? Brilliant!

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

1: seriously- I worry about SS reading stuff at work and having to figure out what it means.

2: once they know that Ashcroft agrees with Comey, then they have to accept it. From the testimony, once they heard that this was also Ashcroft's position, they left. I just don't think it unreasonable to have checked what Ashcroft's position was, not because Ashcroft was the AG at that point, but to see whether the guy who wasn't really picked to be in charge had changed policy.

I realize that Bush directed the policy to be changed to answer comey's concerns- there might have been a different course is Ashcroft had said he disagreed.


edit: see, to me this hinges on whether DofJ had mentioned it's disagreement with the policy BEFORE Ashcroft almost croaked. if it did (burger said something made him think it did*) then showing up at hospital is pretty bad- but if it hadn't, the visit seems almost advisable, necessary.

*and if DofJ had told the WH, that is one big-assed missed question in schumer's questioning.

Wolfie!
 

Wolfowitz working on resignation deal.

Is there really a thought that the cloud will be gone from over his head soon enough for it to be realistic that they are working on a deal now?

Here are pretty comprehensive answers to questions Hank has been asking.

eta: Here's a shorter version from tomorrow's NYT:

• Former colleagues say strains with the White House began after the arrival in 2003 of Jack L. Goldsmith to head the department’s Office of Legal Counsel. With Mr. Comey’s backing, Mr. Goldsmith questioned what he considered shaky legal reasoning in several crucial opinions, including some drafted by Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo.
  
  Mr. Goldsmith’s review of legal memoranda on the N.S.A. program and interrogation practices became a source of friction between Mr. Comey and the White House.
  
  “He had a strong sense of personal integrity and he felt that the legal judgments of the Justice Department were not being honored,” a former Justice Department colleague said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Mr. Yoo had the strong support of Mr. Gonzales and David S. Addington, Mr. Cheney’s legal adviser. Mr. Comey testified that both Mr. Cheney and Mr. Addington opposed the N.S.A. program changes sought by the Justice Department.

Interesting, but for that I understand the Comey-Ashcroft-Gonzalez incident dealt with a no-warrant program.

I understand that the NSA program has a major no-warrant issue. The torture thing is something else, although the ultimate legal justification -- that the President's war powers give him the discretion to disregard any laws Congress may have passed -- is, I think, the same.

Which is the NSA program.

For Spanky
 

From two individuals both far more qualified to, and, not suprisingly, more successful in expressing this than I:

• It's Our Cage, Too
  Torture Betrays Us and Breeds New Enemies
  
  By Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar
  Thursday, May 17, 2007; A17
  
  
  
  Fear can be a strong motivator. It led Franklin Roosevelt to intern tens of thousands of innocent U.S. citizens during World War II; it led to Joseph McCarthy's witch hunt, which ruined the lives of hundreds of Americans. And it led the United States to adopt a policy at the highest levels that condoned and even authorized torture of prisoners in our custody.
  
  Fear is the justification offered for this policy by former CIA director George Tenet as he promotes his new book. Tenet oversaw the secret CIA interrogation program in which torture techniques euphemistically called "waterboarding," "sensory deprivation," "sleep deprivation" and "stress positions" -- conduct we used to call war crimes -- were used. In defending these abuses, Tenet revealed: "Everybody forgets one central context of what we lived through: the palpable fear that we felt on the basis of the fact that there was so much we did not know."
  
  We have served in combat; we understand the reality of fear and the havoc it can wreak if left unchecked or fostered. Fear breeds panic, and it can lead people and nations to act in ways inconsistent with their character.
  
  The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night's presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation.
  
  Tenet insists that the CIA program disrupted terrorist plots and saved lives. It is difficult to refute this claim -- not because it is self-evidently true, but because any evidence that might support it remains classified and unknown to all but those who defend the program.
  
  These assertions that "torture works" may reassure a fearful public, but it is a false security. We don't know what's been gained through this fear-driven program. But we do know the consequences.
  
  As has happened with every other nation that has tried to engage in a little bit of torture -- only for the toughest cases, only when nothing else works -- the abuse spread like wildfire, and every captured prisoner became the key to defusing a potential ticking time bomb. Our soldiers in Iraq confront real "ticking time bomb" situations every day, in the form of improvised explosive devices, and any degree of "flexibility" about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone -- the rare exception fast becoming the rule.
  
  To understand the impact this has had on the ground, look at the military's mental health assessment report released earlier this month. The study shows a disturbing level of tolerance for abuse of prisoners in some situations. This underscores what we know as military professionals: Complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality.
  
  This has had disastrous consequences. Revelations of abuse feed what the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, which was drafted under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, calls the "recuperative power" of the terrorist enemy.
  
  Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld once wondered aloud whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. In counterinsurgency doctrine, that is precisely the right question. Victory in this kind of war comes when the enemy loses legitimacy in the society from which it seeks recruits and thus loses its "recuperative power."
  
  The torture methods that Tenet defends have nurtured the recuperative power of the enemy. This war will be won or lost not on the battlefield but in the minds of potential supporters who have not yet thrown in their lot with the enemy. If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable in situations of grave or imminent danger, we drive those undecideds into the arms of the enemy. This way lies defeat, and we are well down the road to it.
  
  This is not just a lesson for history. Right now, White House lawyers are working up new rules that will govern what CIA interrogators can do to prisoners in secret. Those rules will set the standard not only for the CIA but also for what kind of treatment captured American soldiers can expect from their captors, now and in future wars. Before the president once again approves a policy of official cruelty, he should reflect on that.
  
  It is time for us to remember who we are and approach this enemy with energy, judgment and confidence that we will prevail. That is the path to security, and back to ourselves.
  
  Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.
  

link

Anonymous Liberal:

• [I]t appears that the White House was willing (and in fact did, for a time) authorize a program that the Justice Department--including the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the head of the OLC, and the FBI Director--had determined to be illegal. And if all of these people had not threatened to simultaneously resign, it is very likely that the White House would simply have continued renewing this program without the Justice Department's blessing.
  
  That's a rather stunning fact, and one that I wish at least a few mainstream journalists would attempt to grasp the significance of. The White House authorized a program that everyone of significance in the Justice Department had determined to be lacking any legal basis. They willfully violated the law.

link

hy-per-bole.

the WH didn't immediately stop a program that it had been told was fine, and had been running for 2 years. it did soon revise the program based upon justice's concerns.

It's not clear the WH was running a program that Justice had said was fine. It appears that the WH may have been running a program that was somewhat different from what DOJ has said was fine, or maybe even one that DOJ had not opined as to the legal validity of.

evol-u-tion.

does it matter that the DOJ "revised" program was still illegal, at least in Congress' mind?

535 people in that building agreed unanimously that it was illegal? That's amazing.

We know it wasn't Intelligent Design.

Dude, I'm on neither side on this board, but you sound like you want to defend what this administration does without consideration. Give up - even the most wing-nutty of conservatives gave up defending this group of Missississippi Baptists-cum-Robert Byrd pork barrel grifters.

the post you question was not an attempt to do anything beyond asking the question. the rest of it was nothing more than asking if there isn't a bit of ignoring context in all the wailing going on here. i realize they need something to excite them between jerk off sessions, but sometimes i think these guys get a bit out of hand.

they are posting for some reason. don't they want someone to keep them grounded? who else is here to do that?

Do you think Congress knows enough about the program(s) to have this view? And does it "matter" for what purpose?

eta: My prediction is that Hank refuses to answer the hypothetical.

They're All the Same
 

• Democrats are wielding a heavy hand on the House Rules Committee, committing many of the procedural sins for which they condemned Republicans during their 12 years in power.
  
  So far this year, Democrats have frequently prevented Republicans from offering amendments, limited debate in the committee and, just last week, maneuvered around chamber rules to protect a $23 million project for Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).
  
  On Wednesday, Democrats suggested changing the House rules to limit the minority's right to offer motions to recommit bills back to committee -- violating a protection that has been in place since 1822.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4046.html