Comments (137)

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 10:42 AM:

Does Harmon think it would be "proper" to declassify EVERYTHING in order to defend yourself from these false charges? Even if declassifying everything would directly lead to the deaths of American citizens. I would hope Gonzales would choose impeachment rather than risk innocent lives like that.

TheraP wrote on July 25, 2007 10:42 AM:

Even though we do not trust Gonzo-Lies' explanation of his visit to Ashcroft's hospital bed, it seems to me that the AG is here trying to further the power of the unitary executive (dictatorship) by alleging that legislators urged the executive branch to take over its legislative responsibility.

Thus, the lie seems to be not just a stupid effort to save his skin, but rather a part of this whole conspiracy to take over every branch of government. As if one branch simply caved and said, "please keep doing what we can't do."

Fourth Branch: Time to stand up!

shortstop wrote on July 25, 2007 10:45 AM:

Republicans backing Gonzales refuse to be named. Shocker.

We will never hear *on the record* from a GOP member of the Gang of Eight.

Nina wrote on July 25, 2007 10:45 AM:

Let's wax nostalgic for the days (did they ever exist?) when you lied under oath, before Congress or in court, and, as a result, you, your family, or your associates, were condemned to endless recriminations, or you suffered the embarrassment of public loss of integrity, where shame stymied your ascension to posts of respect and responsibility. How can Mr. Gonzales live with himself? Please comment. I'm feeling a sense of national moral denigration that I'd like to share with others.

shortstop wrote on July 25, 2007 10:49 AM:

It's even worse than that, Nina. Gonzales isn't just any liar in the Bush administration. He's the head of the Department of Justice, openly spitting on the American justice system. Mind blowing.

What a gigantic banana republic are we.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 10:49 AM:

I thought Harmon spoke about the meeting on NPR? So far, it's looking good for Gonzales -- he never claimed that any specific Congressman like Daschle approved -- another member of the Gang of Eight, speaking anonymously, backs Gonzales:

Speaking on condition of anonymity, he confirmed the attorney general’s testimony that the group reached a “consensus” that the disputed intelligence activity should continue and that passing emergency legislation would risk revealing secrets.

Pelosi's office told the Times (and Spencer) that there was no "consensus" in the room that the program should proceed without Comey. According to the Times's account, her surrogates said that a "majority" did [agree to] moving forward, however.

interested litigant wrote on July 25, 2007 10:49 AM:

Shortstop: yes you will. Just not in the way you expect. And you are NOT going to like the outcome AT ALL. Too bad. So Sad.

Duffy wrote on July 25, 2007 10:50 AM:

Pretty obvious. The "majority" would be the four Republics and Harman. Maybe this is why she's not chairing the intelligence committee.

TheraP wrote on July 25, 2007 10:51 AM:

Ok, Nina. Group therapy time. Yes, I agree. I think of people in the "stocks" who had to endure public shame and were pelted with rotten eggs and rotten tomatoes. Called names. Just imagine if we had a chance to go to DC and, because they were fixed in "stocks" we could shout our rage at the very people who have brought shame, not only on themselves in spades, but have brought us to a place of shame, where we can hardly bear what is happening to us and how we look in the eyes of the world.

Imagine, if the US itself were in the stocks, and citizens of other countries could come and rage at us.

There, does that share the pain?

Word is "screw." Even the sc is helping!

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 10:53 AM:

Nina:

Perhaps he can live with himself because if he actually "lied under oath, before Congress or in court" -- as opposed to Bush-haters simply screaming that he did based on some Harper's article that doesn't prove he did -- he would have resigned.

Garlin wrote on July 25, 2007 10:56 AM:

This Administration has just about ruined this Country's underpinnings and I have no idea what the knowledgeable and influential are goin g to do about it? The next incident to occur is , as War President, Bush may try to suspend the 2008 election.

TheraP wrote on July 25, 2007 10:56 AM:

interested litigant:

You are like the Dephic Oracle. Maybe you could come and see me, confidentially of course, and show me a couple of those cards? The suspense is killing me!

tom wrote on July 25, 2007 10:57 AM:

Choosing impeachment rather than risk innocent lives seems to be something far beyond Gonzo's version of an honor code.

If I recall correctly, this is the same administration that treats the concern regarding the outing of a CIA agent's identity as mere political fodder.

code: wind (as in the answers to be found are there)

P J Evans wrote on July 25, 2007 10:59 AM:

I was wondering if there was such a meeting, and where the three Democrats who say it wasn't like that were *not* present. It would be just like this maladministration to have a meeting with the Repubs and one compliant Dem, and claim later that everyone was there and okay with the results.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 10:59 AM:

TheraP:

You have yet to prove it was a "lie".

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 11:07 AM:

tom:

I doubt the outing of Plame, even if she was still technically "covert" risked any innocent American lives. Neither of us will know that, however, because any damage assessment itself would be classified. I'd wager her lawsuit actually put her at greater risk (which is probably why they moved from the Georgetown address they were forced to disclose in said suit ; )

TheraP wrote on July 25, 2007 11:12 AM:

Certain individuals apparently act as "lightening rods."

Attracting the lightening. Indicating the power of the storm.

Let's just watch as lightening strikes. Not fish.

West wrote on July 25, 2007 11:14 AM:

"...Mr. Comey had advised us that he could not approve the continuation of vitally important intelligence activities"

No sir. Mr. Comey WOULD not approve the program. There is a difference between "would not" and "could not," It should be obvious why Gonozo used the latter.

Jesus de Jesus wrote on July 25, 2007 11:16 AM:

It takes a special man to make Ashcroft appear the bastion of probity.

Your Uncle Bastard wrote on July 25, 2007 11:20 AM:

Jake D., it must really be a thrill to sit on your piles of money with nothing in the world to do but bloviate your idiocy here.

YOU have yet to prove Gonzo told the truth.

See how stupid your strawmen sound when parroted back to you?

Daniel wrote on July 25, 2007 11:21 AM:

I thnk I know why there is conflict over whether Comey's disagreement was or was not the same program. A while back, Schumer and Gonzoles had this exchange in a hearing about the NSA program:

Schumer: Has the government searched someone’s home, an American citizen, or office without a warrant, uh, since 911, let’s say?
Gonzales: Sir to my knowledge that has not happened under the terrorist surveillance program, and I’m not going to go beyond that.
Schumer: Wait, I don’t know what that, what does that mean, under the terrorist surveillance program? The terrorist surveillance program is about wire tapping.

At this point, Gonzales starts refusing to amplify for national security reasons.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 11:22 AM:

Your Uncle Bastard:

Luckily for me (and Gonzales), I don't have the burden of proof on that question.

Pucca wrote on July 25, 2007 11:25 AM:

Listen closely to what Gonzales says about the wiretapping program. He consistently states there was no dissent regarding the program ***as announced by the President***. He says there was dissent about other intelligence activities but here's the thing: he does not reveal whether these other activities were a part of the wiretapping program before the President confirmed its existence.

If the controversial activities WERE a part of the program, he is claiming the program AS A WHOLE wasn't controversial, just certain parts of it.

To me, that doesn't pass the laugh test, but legally it may give him enough wiggle room to avoid perjury on that count.

BEM wrote on July 25, 2007 11:27 AM:

Jake D.,

This inability to accept what has clearly been established (Plames CIA status) in many venues is annoying. You can have your own opinion but not your own facts!

show me wrote on July 25, 2007 11:31 AM:

Could it be that the Dems were still under what I have come to think of as the 9/11 effect and didn't challenge the legality and are now embarrassed and trying to revise history? Things are really strange when one has to rethink a lifetime of negative opinion and start to admire a sanctimonious guy like Ashcroft.I don't agree with many of his beliefs but he does appear to believe in the Constitution.

show me wrote on July 25, 2007 11:31 AM:

Could it be that the Dems were still under what I have come to think of as the 9/11 effect and didn't challenge the legality and are now embarrassed and trying to revise history? Things are really strange when one has to rethink a lifetime of negative opinion and start to admire a sanctimonious guy like Ashcroft.I don't agree with many of his beliefs but he does appear to believe in the Constitution.

show me wrote on July 25, 2007 11:34 AM:

I'm sorry but you have me mixed up with someone else....I don't make that many comments.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 11:36 AM:

BEM:

"Show me" where the CIA directly (not Waxman saying they did, etc.) confirmed Plame's status? As I understand, they won't even allow her to write about it.

biggerbox wrote on July 25, 2007 11:38 AM:

Excuse me, but when in the history of this administration has it given a damn about what Congress thought?

The history of its dealings, particularly about such special programs, has been not to "consult" with Congress, but to "brief" Congress. That is, to tell Congress in general terms, and without access to complete information, "This is what we're doing."

Now Gonzo wants us to believe he went scurrying off to the hospital because mere Congress-critters wanted him to? Riiiight. Sure. Uh-huh.

Any "consensus" at such a meeting was not surprisingly visible only to Republicans, who were proudly in the habit of completely ignoring Democratic protests, prior to November 2006.

Furthermore, the completeness and accuracy of the information delivered in such a briefing was probably no higher than we've seen from Gonzales in public. Any Republican 'agreement' would have been based on incomplete, manipulated and misleading information.

Slippery Slope wrote on July 25, 2007 11:40 AM:

What was the quote from Patrick Fitzgerald, "Throwing Sand in the Eyes of the Umpire"?

As I listen to the on-going deliberations in the House Judiciary Committee now streaming on CSPAN-3 (list for yourself) I am amazed at the coalescing of the Republican's defending the President’s obstruction of the lawful duties of Congress.

What came to mind was Fitzgerald's comment and a visualization of an old dustbowl days picture of in sandstorm blanketing the plains. See link.

These Republican's are blowing up a whole storm of dust attempting to blind We the People, Justice, and obstruct the defense of the Constitution. The sandstorm in We the People's eyes is evident. The sandstorm in We the People's eyes clearly has a Republican party label all over it. The sandstorm in We the People's eyes will not be forgotten come November 7th, 2008.

They all swear an oath... See below. Do your duty NOW!

“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 11:40 AM:

Luckily, biggerbox, the full briefing is still classified.

centerpunch wrote on July 25, 2007 11:45 AM:

Regardless of whether this asshat lied, the Justice Department has suffered and continues to suffer from lack of credibility and leadership. AG Gonzo has admitted his complacency and lack of oversight; has admitted to mismanagement and mishandling of the USA firings; Has admitted to knowledge of Patriot Act "violations", whether committed with malice or not, without offering timely and comprehensive fixes; admitted to misleading mistatements that have caused this event to mushroom to its current state and still refuses to answer legitimate questions, fully and consicesively, stemming from the result of his continuing mistatements.

I ask those in the party of "Common-Sense"(R): WTF is this shit-for-brains doing in such a position of importance and Who-TF does he think he is to remain there??!! SERIOUSLY! Please show me justification!

dzman49 wrote on July 25, 2007 11:51 AM:

In re: A.G. Authori-ta

Not that it makes Gonzales' nocturnal excursion to Ashcroft's bedside any less creepy and low, but does anyone know for a fact that only 1 person at a time has A.G. authority? That is, during the time Comey was temporarily given the authority to act as A.G., did Ashcroft still possess it also or not?

My point: Was or was not Gonzales knowingly trying to get TSP re-authorization from someone who could not legally make that authorization?

The temp conferance of Presidential authority to Cheney during Bush's colonoscopy made me wonder about this.

anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 11:51 AM:

JakeD: "I'd wager her lawsuit actually put her at greater risk . . . ."

Riiiight.

A leak of her covert status ending up on the front page of all the major newspapers in the country and discussed in all the major television outlets is far less dangerous to her covert status than filing a lawsuit.

Well, JakeD's idiocy is nothing if not consistent.

"You have yet to prove it was a 'lie'."

To reasonable people, the evidence is overwelming that Gonzales has lied, repeatedly.

Luckily for reasonable people, they aren't required to "prove" anything; such proof will and must come in a court of law.

Or didn't they teach that at "Stanford Law?"

santarita wrote on July 25, 2007 11:52 AM:

To Jake d:

Re: Plame's status

Waxman read into the record a letter from the CIA stating that at the time the Bush Adminstration leaked her CIA employment, thie fact of her employment and status was classified information. In addition, court records in both the Libby case and in the Wilson civil case make it clear that her status was classified. The fact that no indictment was sought under the IIPA does not contradict any of these facts.

santarita wrote on July 25, 2007 11:53 AM:

To Jake d:

Re: Plame's status

Waxman read into the record a letter from the CIA stating that at the time the Bush Adminstration leaked her CIA employment, thie fact of her employment and status was classified information. In addition, court records in both the Libby case and in the Wilson civil case make it clear that her status was classified. The fact that no indictment was sought under the IIPA does not contradict any of these facts.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 11:56 AM:

Yes, they did teach that. Unless you have access to the CIA's damage assessment report, anonymous, proof of YOUR claimed damage is non-existent -- proof of my claimed damages include death threats made to both Wilsons and the various judges involved since the filing of their lawsuit (and disclosure of their home address), as well as their selling and actually moving from Georgetown. Any rebuttal evidence?

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 11:58 AM:

"Even if declassifying everything would directly lead to the deaths of American citizens."

You mean citizens like Valerie Plame?

TxExSpeedy wrote on July 25, 2007 11:59 AM:

Gonzalez never overtly lies. He uses the skills he has honed as Bush's counsel to carefully avoid any outright statement of fact. Pergury charges would be hard to prove on this stuff unless a "Gang of 8" member testifies to exactly what happened and what was covered. I think though that since he has just declassified the fact that there were other surveillance activities, and because he is AG and because he is former WH counsel the executive privilege has just been waived as to those activities. Once a privileged matter is published to a third party not encompassed by the privilege, the privilege or confidential nature of the particular matter dissolves because it has been voluntarily published. Add to it that it was published under oath and on the record, and bye bye privilege.

Congress has to think like a prosecuting attorney and use the law because these guys, for all the non-lawyerly membership, rely on the interpretation of legal minutia to give cover to whatever blatant malfeseance and criminality that they have committed

anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 12:00 PM:

interested litigant: "Shortstop: yes you will. Just not in the way you expect. And you are NOT going to like the outcome AT ALL. Too bad. So Sad."

It's true; we generally don't like it when Republican members of Congress lie in order to cover for the administration.

If they could honestly confirm Gonzales's version of events, they would have done it by now on the record.

That they haven't means that they need to check to see if there are any records or other witnesses that could or would contradict them and to ensure they have a consistent (if false) version of events among them when they do speak.

Of course, Frist would lie to his own mother for even the smallest advantage and Hastert can't be trusted as far as a 90 year old wheelchair bound grandmother could throw him.

Roberts has proven to be a pathetic example of integrity and Goss is an administration shill.

None of them have the public creds to fully insulate Gonzales, so they'd better create a very, very solid set of lies or they will be in big, big trouble if they do come out in his support.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 12:01 PM:

DICTATOR ENABLED BY COMPLICIT CONGRESS: BREAKDOWN OF CONGRESSIONAL OVERIGHT 2001-2007

Putting aside for the moment Gonzalez perjury, notice what is happening: The GOP-DNC Committee members are _not denying_ that there was a meeting -- the very existence is classified -- only that Gonzalez is lying about it.

This is curious: Why are the DNC-GOP Members of Congress worried? Because they were _told_ something which established as timeline:
A. When they knew something.
B. What they were told
C. What should have happened after they were told this information
D. The evidence that should exist subsequent to the meeting with the AG and Administration: Briefings, working notes, comments, memoranda, and other information.

Now that We the People are aware of this meeting -- which had previously been not disclosed -- and that Gang of 8 have not denied the meeting occurred, those meeting notes become something which can be reviewed:
A. Did Members of Congress, after learning what they did, properly act;
B. Did the Members of Congress on the Gang of 8, properly perform their Constitutional roles;
C. Did the Members of Congress, who were present and heard what they did, properly pinpoint the lines of inquiry that should start to determine whether the program -- as they were aware -- was properly overseen, managed, and coordinated with the FISA Court?

Based on the reaction of the Congress -- that of focusing on Gonzalez, not the meeting -- it appears the line of inquiry Congress wants to avoid are questions about whether Member of Congress did or did not properly do their job _after_ the meeting. It doesn't matter what was said, or whether Gonzalez is lying: The only thing we know is that the _meeting's existence_ was apparently classified or not publicly known; and that something was exchanged. This information is important for the Grand Jury to review:

A. What did the Executive reveal to Congress, thereby breaching the expectation that the "executive privilege" would be recognized;
B. What information within the destroyed WH/RNC e-mails relates to the information that Congress was told;
C. Despite destroying e-mails, how much information does Congress already have related to the illegal activity under FISA.

It's all well and good to narrowly focus on the issues of Gonzalez perjury; and whether he is making things up. The point of concern are the implications of this meeting; and the lines of evidence that should exist _surrounding_ the meeting as it relates to Congressional conduct. It does not appear Congress is well positioned to _self review it's conduct_ on issues which the Congress and AG disagree:

- What was said;
- What Congress was told;
- Did the AG lie;
- Are the AG and Congress on different planes.

Notice: The above analysis does not address the key problem: What was the role of the President and VP is overseeing these FISA issues that only the FISA Court could review. Recall, Article 1 Section only delegates to _Congress_ the power to make rules; the President and VP have no power to make rules about which meetings _Congress_ will or will not disclose; nor can the President make rules about the FISA Court or the FISA surveillance: These are outside the delegations to the President.

To be sure, Gonzalez perjury doesn't merely present a problem for the President, VP, and himself, but also for the Members of Congress attending the meeting: Is there additional information that they have been told about other illegal activities that they were "not in agreement" that they should have reviewed, but have not; and why, despite this disagreement, are the DNC and GOP still providing funding for things that are [a] not clearly lawful; [b] have not been reviewed; and [c] remain under the power and control of Congress to make budgeting decisions.

Regardless AG testimony accuracy, the question turns on its head: On top of the President's illegal FISA activity: Has the Congress, despite knowing about problems and illegalities, continued to appropriate funds for activities they did not adequately oversee; and despite concerns did they fail to forward these legal issues to the US Atty and IGs for their review. If the Congress did not believe that these "other eyes" would work, why didn't the Congress _review these problems_: Unresponsive IGs and the failure of the US Attys.
It appears Congress well knew _long ago_ that forwarding information to the US Atty would like go nowhere: This awareness of Congress needs to be understood:
A. Once the Congress had doubts about the US Atty and IGs, why did they not hold hearings;
B. Despite the change in leadership from the GOP to the DNC, is the line of inquiry the DNC is taking focusing on the very concerns that the DNC supposedly had while it was in the Gang of 8, as it relates to their "concerns" with the US Attys and IGs?

Things do not appear to be reconciling: If there were bonafide concerns by Members of Congress in both chambers on both sides of the aisle -- as should be expected given there were other meetings -- how can anyone argue that impeachment is off the table: The facts before us suggest the Gang of 8 has had some real concerns about many oversight issues, but these concerns _have not translated into effective oversight_. Its as if the Gang of 8 learned of issues, but never put that information into effect. That's not oversight, that just a rubber stamp -- might as well quit pretending the Gang of 8 is going to do anything; and roll the clock back: The Gang of 8 has been a silent rubber stamp of this dictators in the White House; and Pelosi knowing of these abuses has impermissibly taken impeachment off the table, when it appears to be the _only_ mechanism that will address this problem. Look at what we know showing that all other "non impeachment options" are not working, which Pelosi as a Member of the Gang of 8 would know long ago:
- Problems with the US Atty;
- Unresponsiveness of the DOJ OPR;
- Presidential interference with investigations;
- President acting outside the FISA court;
- DoJ IG not given access to things.

The issue at this pint isn't why impeachment has been taken off the table; but, given the above _problems known to the Gang of 8_ how could anyone in Congress argue that impeachment could be taken off the table, when all other options to check the President were:
- Not working
- Without effect
- Meaningless
- Ignored
- Powerless
- Blocked, thwarted

Arguably the agreement of Congress not to impeach, on top of the known concerns the Gang of 8 should have had, raises reasonable questions about the reasons why impeachment has been taken off the table and the basis for which this decision was made _despite_ the known oversight problems with this President.

It appears the DNC and GOP are collectively pointing to "classified briefings" not as an excuse for their actions, but as a smokescreen to explain away why they did not, _as required_, use the information they gleaned from the Gang of 8 meetings to demand oversight, revives, audits, outside assistance, and formal investigation of what they appear to have been reasonably informed; or were not told, as required, prompting a reasonable Member of Congress to have inquired further.

This isn't as though they were shut out of some petit squabble between neighbors; these are issues of national policy, law, and governance which is at the heart of their oath of office. They freely took an oath to defend the Constitution from domestic enemies. It appears they did not take action because they looked int eh mirror, and across the aisle and accepted: They were all in agreement that they would do nothing about the information they heard. The Gonzalez testimony and the Congressional response isn't just a problem for the President, GOP, and DNC, but it is for the Leadership i in Congress which appears to have between 2001-2007 assented to illegal activity, failed in oversight, and not fully performed on their oath.

It is reasonable for a Grand Jury to review these issues; and compel Members of Congress who have disclosed/not refused these meetings to fully cooperate with all inquiry into the extent of 5 USC 3331 violations by the Vice President, OVP, EOP, DoJ, Members of Congress; the breaches this President and other US government officials have of the existing statutes; and the course of conduct reasonable government officials should have taken to fully defend the Constitution. The Congress appears to have been complicit not just under the GOP Control; but under the control of either party 2001-2007.

This is material information for the voters: They need to understand what has or hasn't happened; and get the information they need to make an informed decision: Can we trust the leadership in the Congress to do what they took an oath to do; or do we need to, in 2007, find new leadership? This is not just a voting decision, but a matter of criminal law. Members of Congress charged and prosecuted with these crimes could be linked with other war crimes; and questions over whether they did or did not properly act when they were in receipt of Geneva violations and other breaches of the laws of war. Based on the CIA communication with the EU, it appears the CIA has no confidence the US Government will respond to information related to war crimes. Members of Congress, by implication, are presumed to be aware of the issues warranting the CIA concern; and do not appear to have effectively managed the affairs of State to ensure the concerns of the CIA -- as it relates to the US Government's responsiveness or non-responsiveness to war crimes evidence -- is satisfactory. Based on the Gang of 8 non-response to the FISA violations, it appears they are also likely aware of the Geneva violations, but have similarly not responded as the CIA expected it would.

It appears the Gonzalez testimony, in revealing the meeting with the Gang of 8, has touched many nerves: The real possibility that individual Members of Congress could be implicated for failing to timely respond to evidence related to FISA violations, war crimes. Failure to act, especially when they had the power to shut off funding, inquire, and end these programs -- when they had a duty to act -- can be adjudicated. Nuremberg is precedent for prosecuting civilian government officials and legal counsel when they are complicit with, and refuse to prevent war crimes, especially when they have the power, trust, access, and means to end this illegal activity.

Gonzalez testimony is damaging for himself; but in 2007 it gives Congress a black eye: Something it will be hard pressed to bury between now and the 2008 election. Until Congress reforms its oversight process of the President, we can expect more CIA disclosures to foreign powers related to other things the DNC and GOP have jointly agreed not to act on; and things the President and OVP have jointly agreed to illegally do in contravention with treaty and legal requirements.

badnews wrote on July 25, 2007 12:02 PM:

Jake D. wrote: "Show me" where the CIA directly (not Waxman saying they did, etc.) confirmed Plame's status?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 12:02 PM:

santarita:

As I asked, "show me" where the CIA directly (not Waxman saying it, or even Fitzgerald's claim) confirmed -- if there was a letter, why hasn't that been made public -- as I understand Waxman's claim, he's relating hearsay of what he says Heyden has no problem with.

centerpunch wrote on July 25, 2007 12:03 PM:

Jake DH:

Damage is to the rule of law-- seems to be a pattern, here.

your kind just doesn't give a f**k, though.

Until you fall off a podium and break your fat ass (Judge Bork) and sue.

lysias wrote on July 25, 2007 12:05 PM:

Gonzales opened Pandora's box yesterday by inflaming the Congress on the issue of his visit to Ashcroft in hospital. I have a feeling we are about to find out a lot more about the NSA's unauthorized programs under Bush's presidency.

Julie wrote on July 25, 2007 12:13 PM:

Jesus, don't they have someone taking minutes of these meetings?

Wasn't there bad blood between Harman and Pelosi? Hm......maybe it stemmed from this event.

Over on the blog, Josh said, "...In this exchange Sen. Schumer (D) asks Gonzales who sent him and Andy Card to John Ashcroft's bedside. And Gonzales just refuses to answer...."

In his testimony, Gonzales said, " ...It is for this reason that within a matter of hours Andy Card and I went to the hospital...."

Trying to remember the timing, but wasn't the hospital visit beyond Bush's bedtime? Maybe it was Cheney doing the ordering.

anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 12:15 PM:

JakeD: "Unless you have access to the CIA's damage assessment report, anonymous, proof of YOUR claimed damage is non-existent -- proof of my claimed damages include death threats made to both Wilsons and the various judges involved since the filing of their lawsuit (and disclosure of their home address), as well as their selling and actually moving from Georgetown."

As usual, you try to rewrite what I've written, which was about the danger to her covert status, not the danger to her personally or to any intelligence assets she was associated with.

I guess they didn't teach reading at "Stanford Law" either.

But, since you asked, there wouldn't have been the necessity of a lawsuit had it not been for the initial leak, so any danger arising from the lawsuit is also the result of the initial leak and is simply added to the immediate danger that leak caused.

Dan wrote on July 25, 2007 12:16 PM:

Jake Dummy: I'm late to this party and dont have time to read all the comments, so maybe someone already addressed it, but I thought I'd chime in on your first comment. Here's the "improper" part of Gonzales' purported selective recall: Using pieces of a story as though it comprises the whole to distort the actual reality is one way to LIE. It is perjury. It is "improper", to use Harman's understated term.

By the way, do you just sit there all day every day and read this site? You've said you aren't paid to troll, but the notion of you being on some nefarious trolling payroll becomes more plausible everyday. Maybe you just want some friends, SOMEBODY to talk to. In case you thought you were making some online buddies, we still see you as a troll!

Though you very often present arguments that do not genuinely engage the points at issue (and instead deflect or misdirect), you do seem to have some level of reasoning ability, which is why I completely understand that you would want to spend your time on this site compared to just about any other conservative blog.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 12:16 PM:

i lost a sad, old apologist. has anybody seen one around here?

mbbsdphil wrote on July 25, 2007 12:17 PM:

Fredo, of course, is speaking of the program as amended after the DOJ leadership threatened to resign. After a new scheme was worked out, which the administration purports to follow - though it has since disavowed its obligation to seek FISA warrants - then there was no dissension or disagreement. It's all about the context, Senator, if you had been paying attention to your briefings.

Mr. Gonzales is a poster boy for how not to practice law, how not to manage a crucial govt department, and how to give up his obligations as a citizen in favor of the occasional biscuit and scratch behind the ear and bone tossed to him as he lays in front of the cold hearth at the Crawford Faux Ranch.

Fredo had better forego any foreign travels though. Other countries prosecute war crimes a tad more seriously than he does.

anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 12:18 PM:

JakeD: "As I asked, [show me] where the CIA directly confirmed . . ."

Again, setting up the goal posts to be where you want them to be, adding words like "directly" to arrive at a issue description that is more amenable to your obsfucation.

This has been asked and answered, "Counselor."

Move on.

Code word = snake, as in "Jake the Snake" D.

mbbsdphil wrote on July 25, 2007 12:20 PM:

Please don't feed the trolls, but feel free to walk on the grass. Thanks.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 12:24 PM:

the gang of 8 were bound by National Security interests to not speak on the matter. More importantly the G-8 were not empowered to "do" anything. They could not approve or consent to anything. Only the full congress could. If they said anything they would have been tried for revealing National Security secrets. They could talk. The president used them simply to be able to say that they "consulted" with congress., in order to thinly, without actually doing it comply with that portion of statute that requires the consent of congress.

This the SOP of BushCo. they simply make up evidence to give themselves a facade of legal basis to give only the slightest scintilla of credibility, to there lies.

Richterscale wrote on July 25, 2007 12:27 PM:

It's simple. get all of the Gang of eight member under oath to testify about that meeting. I'll bet you all 4 repubs will have very bad memories.

mbbsdphil wrote on July 25, 2007 12:27 PM:

Please don't feed the trolls; the AEI feeds and burps them every two hours. But do feel free to walk on the grass.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 12:30 PM:

Dan:

I just like posting here, that's all.

anonymous:

As soon as you concede on damages (as you originally quoted me: "I'd wager her lawsuit actually put HER at greater risk . . . ." Emphasis Added), then we can start arguing about foreseeability. I also asked for DIRECT confirmation from CIA, so I'm not sure what your objection is based on either.

Waiting for Truth wrote on July 25, 2007 12:32 PM:

Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Gonzales answered honestly every question on Tuesday. Stop giggling, and hear me out.
He should be fired immediately solely on the basis of incompetence.
"I cleared up that remark with the reporter two days later."
"What paper?"
(pause while he turns to Larry, Moe and Curly for consultation).
"The Washington Post."
"What reporter?"
(pause while he turns to Larry, Moe and Curly for consultation before giving the name.)
"What did you tell this reporter?"
(paraphrased: "I didn't talk to the reporter myself, so I don't know."
For God's sake, a "would-you-lie-fries-with-that" employee would've been sacked already for such incompetence.
Even if he answered every question honestly...Let's not even get into the phrase he took an oath to: "the WHOLE truth."

Waiting for Truth wrote on July 25, 2007 12:34 PM:

(Whoops -- I messed up and meant to type "would-you-LIKE-fries-with-that."
My apologies.)

3x wrote on July 25, 2007 12:35 PM:

Jake D.

You made an interesting comment:"death threats made to both Wilson's and the various judges"

This is news to me. Please share your sources with us. Where may we read/see about this death threats? Thank you.

cl-Oregon Girl wrote on July 25, 2007 12:35 PM:

Jake erroneously stated:
"I doubt the outing of Plame, even if she was still technically "covert" risked any innocent American lives"

Keep spreading the lie that Plame was NOT covert and that somehow outing her did no harm. Join your lying counterpart Gonzales. Have you no shame? How can you worry about other coverts being hurt by revelations about the domestic spying program and in the very next breath state that oh gee, the outing of Plame did no harm?

You have no credibility Jake. Take your lies elsewhere -- we're not buying your bull shit.

realitytheorist wrote on July 25, 2007 12:36 PM:

I thought Alberto said the reason he & card went to see Ashcroft in the hospital was just to say hi & see how he was feeling in previous testimony. Now he says they went to get his re-authorization for the TSP?

anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 12:36 PM:

Gonzales has no credibility with the majority of Americans.

Frist has no credibility with the majority of Americans, which is why he is no longer in the Senate.

Hastert has no credibility with the majority of Americans, which is why he is no longer Speaker of the House.

Pat Roberts is well-known for his attempts to carry Bush's water on Iraq and for his radical position in favor of massive spying on American citizens.

That leaves Goss as the only possible source of any comfort to Gonzales and he risks getting subpoenaed if he yacks.

Four Dems have contradicted Gonzales on the record; no Republicans have and even if they do, their credibility is far below that of the Democrats.

Whether he resigns or not, Gonzales is damaged goods and has little power left to effectively promote Bush's agenda; he and the DOJ are going to be subjected to a regular colonoscopy by Congress and the media until the end of Bush's term if he stays and it is going to continue to be news that damages GOP chances in every election until he leaves, either before or at the end of Bush's term.

Gonzales is the present that keeps on giving and giving and while it would be sweet justice to see him impeached, he is really more useful to the Democrats right where he is, if you are approaching it from a partisan perspective.

Of course, he is also gravely damaging the institutions of justice in this country and putting all of us at a greater risk from terrorism, but if that is Bush's choice to put his own arrogance and self-centeredness above the good of the country, it is just par for W's course.

nunya wrote on July 25, 2007 12:40 PM:

JakeD --

Read the May 29, 2007 submission by Patrick Fitzgerald in the U.S. v. I. "Scooter" Libby on the Government's sentencing recommendations. One of the exhibits is an employment history from the CIA itself that says that Plame was covert and from 2002 forward traveled abroad under both official and non-official cover. What more could you possibly need?

anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 12:51 PM:

JakeD: ". . . I also asked for DIRECT confirmation from CIA . . ."

Which is irrelevant to anything, since it does not require direct confirmation by the CIA to adequately determine that Plame was covert.

Therefore, your question is obsfucation, an attempt to place the goalposts in a more difficult position than necessary to any issue of any importance.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 12:51 PM:

3x:

Try Google: "death threat" "libby" "plame"

cl-Oregon Girl:

I never said that Plame was NOT covert or that somehow outing her did no harm. read the post again -- without the damage assessment from CIA, there's more evidence of direct harm from her filing the lawsuit than the outing. I'm not going anywhere, but please let me know if you have any other questions.

nunya:

I've seen that Exhibit, but thanks anyways. It is FITZGERALD's summary, though, I understand your confusion since it's been sold on the Internet as the Gospel truth directly from Langley. I thought, above, I was asking from some CONFIRMATION by CIA. You'll excuse me for not believing hearsay.

c4logic wrote on July 25, 2007 12:51 PM:

This entire Bush administration is spitting on the constitution, the legislative branch, and the American People. They rule by executive fiat. They represent the original Tories who opposed the American Revolution but never entirely disappeared from American life. They would like to re-impose an American class system, complete with dynastic, inherited wealth, and an imperial ruler who governs by decree.

cfaller96 wrote on July 25, 2007 12:51 PM:

I think we have a more complete picture as to why Speaker Pelosi did not let Congresswoman Harman chair the Intelligence Committee. If a majority did support continuing the program despite Comey's objections, and we (safely) assume that Pelosi, Daschle, and Rockefeller opposed that, then that leaves Harman as the lone Democrat supporting an illegal surveillance program. I'm betting that Ms. Pelosi remembered that when she became Speaker, and decided that clearly Harman is not someone she wanted chairing the Intelligence Committee.

Bindarra wrote on July 25, 2007 12:56 PM:

Each day I'm more and more outraged and depressed by the obvious, outright lies of Gonzales. I truly can't get over the fact that the man entrusted to oversee the Justice Dept considers protecting this administration his primary motive.

There are times I wonder if Bush is the Anti-Christ -- although on reflection it's probably Cheney.

T. Scheisskopf wrote on July 25, 2007 1:01 PM:

The old lawyer's saw is "When the law is on your side, pound on the facts. When the facts are on your side, pound on the law. when neither is on your side, pound on the table."

Someone is simply pounding on the table. And shifting the goalposts every time he gets cut off with his specious arguments.

cfaller96 wrote on July 25, 2007 1:13 PM:

I think we have a more complete picture as to why Speaker Pelosi did not let Congresswoman Harman chair the Intelligence Committee. If a majority did support continuing the program despite Comey's objections, and we (safely) assume that Pelosi, Daschle, and Rockefeller opposed that, then that leaves Harman as the lone Democrat supporting an illegal surveillance program. I'm betting that Ms. Pelosi remembered that when she became Speaker, and decided that clearly Harman is not someone she wanted chairing the Intelligence Committee.

bohdi wrote on July 25, 2007 1:16 PM:

This is all a sham. Sham government, sham Democratic opposition, sham hearings, sham threats. I am tired of it and I am turning it off. The Cheney Junta rules. There are no essential checks on its power. Conyers is reduced to making sissy threats and whining, he is an absolute disgrace and is playing at a game. Old man Leahy is just about as limp and pathetic as an old mare headed for the glue factory.

Yet people tune in all day long to learn the latest in the saga of corruption that infests our Banana Republic. As if it mattered. People get on internet sites and fire off emails to their 'representatives' but people cannot see the forest for the trees. We live under a de facto dictatorship of rule by unitary executive. There are no checks on this Reptile. If so please name one that has worked or been effective regarding the dozens upon dozens of heinous scandals that have been exposed over the last 6 months. Name one. Somebody. They don't need martial law. In essence they already have it. We have an Alice and Wonderland Media that reports truth as fiction and fiction as truth, that ignores all of the major stories of the day, that politely obsesses over whats on the menu at the Red Queen's table while the entire castle is on fire. The celebrity anchormen of the big networks each make over 10 million dollars lying regularly to the public and then spending their weekends like the practiced drunks that they are, swilling down the hard stuff in the company of the power elite.

Sorry everyone but no matter how hard you twist it or deny it or look away from it, the pretense and assumption of 'democracy' in this land is a naked lie. At this point people are only allowed to post and email and whine because it keeps the water from a full boil and lets some steam off the sewage brew. It amounts to nothing, all the noise. And it will never amount to more than nothing.

Have fun pretending everyone.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 1:16 PM:

The glib lying, the sang froid, the total lack of discomfort, the inability to admit any kind of mistake or prior lying.

I called a husband wife team of clinical psychologists I've known for years.
They agree with my perception that the man is a textbook psychopath and not just a house Mexican for the Bushies.

He probably would not budge a needle on a polygraph.

I had thought he was not too smart, but I changed my opinion. He's smart and has used the Bushies as much as they have used him.

Yep, these Bushies are some cast of characters.

xxx

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 1:16 PM:

Actually, I'm more reading the Conyer's report than pounding on anything. If you think the number of posts above are a lot, you should have seen yesterday with a dozen threads on Gonzales's testimony.

D ekaJ wrote on July 25, 2007 1:18 PM:

Scene from the dinner table of some troll (who shall remain nameless but obvious).

"Pass the salt..."

"So you are saying you want ALL the salt?"

"I didn't say that..."

"So you are saying you said NOTHING at all?"

"I just want some salt."

"So you are CHANGING your story?"

"Why can't I just have the salt?"

"Show me DIRECTLY where I said you couldn't have it!"

"Please, may I have the salt?"

"So you're saying no DEMOCRAT ever not passed the salt all NEVER?"

"Wha...?"

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 1:24 PM:

"Textbook psychopath" huh? Be scared, be very scared.

dixiegrl wrote on July 25, 2007 1:25 PM:

TxExSpeedy sez:

***I think though that since he has just declassified the fact that there were other surveillance activities, and because he is AG and because he is former WH counsel the executive privilege has just been waived as to those activities.****

Interesting, thank you for that info.

Careful rewatching of the hearing shows that Leahy, Shumer and Whitehouse all had moments when they were very very very focused on how they phrased their questions and how Gonzo answered. I do believe I caught some smug reactions when Gonzo started sharing the classified info, I watched it several times....
yep...definetly some "gotcha" going on.

Dan wrote on July 25, 2007 1:28 PM:

Jake Dummy: You haven't responded to or even acknowledged my arguments against your points, in various posts, though you do acknowledge unrelated points, like your obsessoin with this site (in this case). I know mine are knock-down arguments, but really, at least acknowledge them and concede that you've lost!

DancingBear wrote on July 25, 2007 1:29 PM:

"Gonzalez never overtly lies. He uses the skills he has honed as Bush's counsel to carefully avoid any outright statement of fact...."

Posted by: TxExSpeedy

Precisely. And imagine, this from the same side of the aisle that loved to talk about the legalistic bs embodied in Clinton's "that all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

Austin Cooper wrote on July 25, 2007 1:36 PM:

Well, it's yet another day of The Jakey Show.

One person's opinion: You folks do understand that -- unlike us -- the Jakeys don't just engage in online discussion (even passionate debate), then shut down, walk away, and focus on other areas in our lives?

When and where they're able to pull the focus on themselves, or disrupt a Progressive site by using multiple or anonymous personas to post, or posting about ridiculous and utterly off-topic nonsense -- They don't shut down.

At the end of this, their 'work' day, they'll visit wingnut sites and swap and post samples of the outrage they've generated, and relive their day. They'll congratulate each other as patriots and upstanding human beings.

They share stories of 'making the dirty leftist hippie bloggers *so angry*' -- as if they were sharing exploits in military service they never had, or as if they were smooth moves they made playing Half-Life or Doom.

But, they don't shut off. Being able to lie, provoke, and disrupt is the highest point in their day.

Their lives revolve not around family, friendships, or 'outward-directed' activities that focus on others and a larger world.

The almost atavistic thrill of seeing their words on the Internets, and having a 'purpose' and a 'cause' (essentially undefined, beyond "f-ing the f-ing Lefties"), is almost all they have.

It's pathetic. And when you engage them, you feed them. They're living for it.

My opinion: Cut them off. Freeze them out. They're not really here to communicate with other, real people, anyway; they're here to talk to themselves, and some of them are making a paycheck in the service of The State.

DancingBear wrote on July 25, 2007 1:37 PM:

Why would you need any more direct evidence of the CIA's recognition of Plame's covert status than the fact that the CIA sent the notice to DOJ of a potential violation of the Act?

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 1:42 PM:

"the gang of 8 were bound by National Security interests to not speak on the matter."

Posted by:
Date: July 25, 2007 12:24 PM
------------------
1. If there are "no minutes", what is the use of having a meeting?
2. If there is no information, why have oversight by the Gange of 8?
3. Why is Congress agreeing to these conditions for "oversight"?

If the Gang of 8 cannot "act" on anything they hear, why bother have them go to the meeting? They're not there to do anything but be a robot. That is not oversight, but a Kangaroo System of Checks and balances.

Again, the issue is: Despite all that they have not been informed, when did the Gang of 8 have information that they should have acted on: When were they told of information clearly pointing to illegl activity.

Again, if the argument is, "They cannot act on illegal activity" get rid of the Gang of 8, and turn this issue over to the FISA Court to review. Oversight has to be real: Involved with exchanging informaitn; not in rubber stamping illegal activity.

TheraP wrote on July 25, 2007 1:51 PM:

Excellent Austin.

Just think of them as "lightening rods." They're always "fishing" for comments.

Get Firefox if you don't have it yet. And enjoy!

lysias wrote on July 25, 2007 1:52 PM:

Why would you need any more direct evidence of the CIA's recognition of Plame's covert status than the fact that the CIA sent the notice to DOJ of a potential violation of the Act?

Posted by: DancingBear
Date: July 25, 2007 1:37 PM

***********************************************

Wouldn't any such notice from CIA to DOJ have had to pass through the Office of General Counsel at CIA (which would have been very much aware of the requirements of the Act)?

By the way, if memory serves, the administration has restricted itself to notifying the Gang of Eight since it made such a fuss about the leak of NSA intercepts the time of 9/11 that the administration blamed on Congress. More and more, I suspect the administration itself was responsible for that leak. That's just the sort of thing Cheney does.

lysias wrote on July 25, 2007 1:59 PM:

Can illegal acts be classified? I thought that the regulations on security classification made it clear that they could not.

biggerbox wrote on July 25, 2007 2:12 PM:

Golly, I got the troll to address me by name! I guess I made a good point, if he needed to obscure it.

He is so funny with his 'direct evidence' Plame stuff! I like the way he tries to derail a discussion of Gonzo's perjury with an implication that Waxman was somehow lying when he read into the record a statement including the following:

"Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her
CIA employment in open session.

I have met with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say
about Ms. Wilson's service.

My staff has also worked with the agency to ensure these remarks do not contain classified
information.

I have been advised by the CIA that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose
the full nature, scope, and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited fiom disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14,2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

This was classified information.

Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work of other CIA employees, and she attained the level of GS-14, step 6 under the federal pay scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.

Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.

Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she
worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the
United States.

In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety
and her life. "

Is he saying that General Hayden and the CIA did NOT approve of that statement? Why haven't they spoken up? Does he have any proof that Waxman was lying? Of course not.

What a joker. Meanwhile, on the topic currently at issue:

Gonzo should have a visit from the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, and a trip to a locked room in the Capitol basement. His frank refusal to answer Schumer, without any assertion of privilege of any kind, is contempt, plain and simple.

illlich wrote on July 25, 2007 2:37 PM:

I think it's interesting that one anonymous member of the "gang of eight" confirms Gonzo's account of a "consensus", whereas the Democrats on record dispute any consensus. Perhaps the anonymous attendee (probably a GOP member of the gang of eight) is just shoring up the party line, OR perhaps (because he sees through partisan glasses all the time anyway) really did believe there was a consensus at that meeting. I can see him/her thinking silently during the meeting "YES, this is a good thing, lets keep this up anyway" and assume that maybe all the other members of the group felt that way too, despite any verbal confirmation of it.

Ultimately it doesn't matter, Gonzo is most certainly lying.

In the US the higher up in society you get, the harder it is for you to be prosecuted for anything except murder (and even then you can get away with it with enough money). See the 1934 "Business Plot" for a good example.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 2:39 PM:

Dan:

I haven't "lost" anything, and I've answered every question you've asked me. If there's something else you want to know, feel free to ask.

Dancing Bear and biggerbox:

The CIA referral is direct evidence that Plame worked at the CIA -- no one is disputing that -- I don't even doubt she was "covert" at one point in time (like when she revealed her status to Joe Wilson after their second date). Whether there was any need for her "covert" status (it could have simply been that CIA never got around to the paperwork to revoke that status), is not known. Do I think Waxman is "lying"? No, I don't have any information that CIA and Hayden cleared the statement for public release. That still doesn't mean it's not hearsay -- I think I discussed "hearsay" problems on another thread.

As for "contempt" for Gonzo, please see the discussion re: "Miers / Bolton" for my opinions thereon.

harriett wrote on July 25, 2007 2:39 PM:

Why haven't I seen any pollls concerning the impeachment of Gonzo??? Everyone I talk to about it, even Rethuglicans, want him removed from office. Am I missing them?

Fred wrote on July 25, 2007 2:39 PM:

Jake Douchebag. Now let me get this straight. You believe Gonzo yet now are accusing Fitzgerald of lying. Even the rest of fucktards in the R party haven't accused Fitzgerald of lying.

Let's put it this way. If the CIA won't let Plame write about it it means she was covert. Logic, along with common decency seems to be one of the many things that don't reside on the R side of the aisle.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 2:42 PM:

How exactly is Gonzo "lying" about a consensus if there was, in fact, a consensus?

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 2:49 PM:

Or, Fred, it could mean she was not really "covert" in terms of IIPA protection or any other meaningful sense, but CIA is trying to assert itself in an inter-agency intelligence turf war.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 2:51 PM:

harriett:

I certainly don't want Gonzales impeached, so there, now, not "everyone" you've talked to about it want him removed from office.

Austin Cooper wrote on July 25, 2007 3:06 PM:

No oxygen left in the room, right?

Well, I warned everyone...

714Day wrote on July 25, 2007 3:07 PM:

Sometimes, I am completely thunderstruck by all of the hell there is to pay for this monstrous business bursting out of the halls of government. Understandably, the smell of rising agitation has been on the wind for a long while in this shredding of the U.S. fabric. The flagrant criminals who do it practice beneath a thin veneer that, nonetheless, seems to be impenetrable.
In spite of all other differences we may have, the purported fundament of our nation, that each of us is born as worthy as the other, has a certain resonance. Station, status, privilege; doesn't trump this notion.
Clearly, the democracy has been usurped.
It is because we seem to find no avenue by which to defuse these mortal transgressions of THEIRS, that WE will eat it. So will our children. And theirs.
To some degree, turmoil was inevitable. Our government has ignorantly marauded around in our name for quite some time. Angry people with retaliatory notions don't have do make the crossing by tall ship anymore. But, holy shit, look at the maelstrom these deranged people in the administration promote!
So what the hell do we DO?
We surely can't afford to diddle with flaming fools like these when so many critical and emergent occurrences, like the energy crisis, global warming, health care, the African genocides, AIDS...
At best the GANG (how appropriate) pulling the strings for the rest of us, couldn't find a thinking cap, let alone put one on. They're too busy scheming.

Other Pat wrote on July 25, 2007 3:25 PM:

OK, let's keep incompetent leaders in their positions.
Check.
Just wanted to make sure I understood the message: No matter how lousy a job you're doing at the highest levels, you get to keep your job.
Cool. I want an application for Attorney General of the United States.

Austin Cooper wrote on July 25, 2007 3:29 PM:

The level of consciousness we're dealing with reminds me of a meeting I once attended with (then) LAPD Chief Of Police Davis. Los Angeles had had more officer-related shootings at that time than in the entire history of its Department.

It was a closed meeting, but even so -- someone stood up and asked why there had been so many civilian fatalities. Was it an increase in gang violence, drug activity; what?

Davis paused, looked up, then said, "I dunno -- maybe it's the moon."

There was some laughter, but the message was clear: 'Aw, so what?'

The same attitude sloshes around the Beltway, and while it's a few inches deep on the Democratic side of the street, on the Republican side you could sink the Titanic to its current depth of 11,000 feet.

No matter how bad the problem -- generally one they've created -- it can always be denied, fobbed off, ignored: Who cares?

Other Pat wrote on July 25, 2007 3:32 PM:

That Alberto didn't even recognize the memo "he" wrote (with help from Big Dick Cheney) that added the OVP to the list of those allowed to peak at all-things-justice-related speaks volumes about Mr. Gonzales'qualifications. Adding to his stellar performance was his refusal to answer when asked if the VP was involved in Alberto's decision to play Florence Nightingale for the Mr. Ashcroft, Alberto's predecessor.

pointus wrote on July 25, 2007 3:41 PM:

harriet:

Given the relatively small minorities that the Dems currently have in both houses, impeachment & removal of gonzo is probably an impossibility, given that even a vote of no confidence was recently defeated by obstructionist repugs. Same thing with impeachment & removal of vp voldemort and prez. chimp: there aren't enough votes to convict in the senate.

msmolly wrote on July 25, 2007 3:41 PM:

I used to read this site and all of the postings every day. Now I rarely come here, briefly, because Jake the troll ruins EVERY discussion, and other posters keep feeding him and soon all of the discussion is back-and-forth with Jake the troll.

TPM is rapidly losing me -- I'm just one, but how many others are going away because TPM isn't dealing with it? Or is that Jake's goal? Josh and crew, please take note.

nunya wrote on July 25, 2007 3:42 PM:

Jake Dear:

You say:

"I've seen that Exhibit, but thanks anyways. It is FITZGERALD's summary, "

That is a lie. It is not Fitzgerald's summary, it is the CIA's summary. It is further confirmed by Conyers' opening remarks at the 3/16 House Subcommittee hearing. Prove that it's Fitzgerald's summary -- the context of the Government's memorandum makes it clear that it is the CIA's summary. Oh, and you can't use hearsay evidence to prove it.

biggerbox wrote on July 25, 2007 3:46 PM:

How exactly is Gonzo "lying" about a consensus if there was, in fact, a consensus?

If multiple people who were in the room say there was NOT a consensus, it is reasonable to assume that, in fact, there wasn't one.

Particularly if the person claiming there was has repeatedly made statements that even he admits were wrong and needed to be "revised".

714Day wrote on July 25, 2007 3:48 PM:

Sorry everyone but no matter how hard you twist it or deny it or look away from it, the pretense and assumption of 'democracy' in this land is a naked lie. At this point people are only allowed to post and email and whine because it keeps the water from a full boil and lets some steam off the sewage brew. It amounts to nothing, all the noise. And it will never amount to more than nothing.

Have fun pretending everyone.
Posted by: bohdi
Date: July 25, 2007 1:16 PM

In the light shining under that tree, surely you noticed that little is perfect. The PERMISSION for pursuit of the noble truths as a given is somewhat extraordinary. It is the striving for the optimum that gives it the gusto.

lysias wrote on July 25, 2007 3:48 PM:

Did Cheney write that memo? Isn't that the sort of thing he hired Addington to do?

mackdaddy wrote on July 25, 2007 3:49 PM:

Please don't understand me: Gonzales should be run out of town on a rail. That said, I'm afraid that the Democratic leaders probably did give him some wiggle room in the meeting prior to the hospital visit. It is ironic that the one person (well, two) who expressed outrage about the illegalities of the NSA wiretapping is John Ashcroft (and Jame Comey). We have it as public record that the Democrats (and virtually none of the press pundits) endorsed the program, just as they endorsed the decision to invade and occupy Iraq. Although the political climate has changed, they can't undo their craven indifference (when it mattered) to basic matters of right and wrong.

mike wrote on July 25, 2007 3:52 PM:

I don't trust Gonzales or Bush at all. But, there is something very fishy about the behavior of the Democratic members of the gang of 8.

I suspect them of going along, not objecting very strongly, wanting to be good team players, not trying to pin Gonzales et al down to understand precisely what they were asking...

This is what happens when national security policy is made by a "gang."

No records, no evidence, just a decision emerging from a sealed room.

Bush and Gonzales and Cheney are criminals but will we ever understand what role Daschle, Pelosi and Rockefeller played in facilitating their criminality?

JAKED wrote on July 25, 2007 4:08 PM:

What can I say, I am an ignorant Republican and will always support my party over my country. You all know if the Republicans aren't running it, it ain't a lie. We Republicans have been raised to lie without blinking an eye, that's why Reichmarshall Gonzales can lie without worrying about how stupid he looks.

True, I do spend at least 4 hours a day trolling this site with lies and ignorant statements. I say get rid of Congress and allow our dictator, George Bush, to run the country as he sees fit. Beside, I make a lot of extra money throwing shit at this site and you people are dumb enough to try to correct me. hahahahaha

pointus wrote on July 25, 2007 4:16 PM:

msmolly:
That's a troll's job: to bait, distract, annoy and disillusion the regulars on a blog.
I've trained myself (with not too much effort) to simply NOT READ any of the posts with the troll's name in it, whether they're from the troll itself of responses to the troll. After a couple days, it becomes 2nd nature. Try it! You'll find that there are still plenty of on-topic posts, and plenty of folks who DON't feed the troll. And please, stick around, OK?

Austin Cooper wrote on July 25, 2007 4:17 PM:

"Bush and Gonzales and Cheney are criminals but will we ever understand what role Daschle, Pelosi and Rockefeller played in facilitating their criminality?"

I dunno, mike; I get your point, but I'll take our politicians over their criminals.

Pelosi, Daschle, Rockefeller -- they could be accused of being lied to and approving the wrong war at the wrong time, of making the political error of enabling what amounts to a criminal conspiracy --

...but you couldn't accuse them of the level of pure greed and unadulterated human fuckery which the Dick, Our Sainted War Leader, and the rest of their crew have committed -- and incompetence can be considered criminal neglect.

These people went after the United States of America -- my country -- and its Constitution with malice, intent, forethought, and motive.

ArtShu wrote on July 25, 2007 4:18 PM:

Let's get Congress to demand a copy of the document Gonzo was going to get signed by Ashcroft.

Tiny Toner wrote on July 25, 2007 4:37 PM:

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF PARSING!!!
At it's extreme. This jackass is doing this all along. Back a few months ago I watched some of the testimony. Comey stated that they finally signed off on the program after talking to Bush and than Bush making changes.

Every time and I mean every single time Gonzo mentions it he thinks he is weaseling out of it in the following way.

Before Bush changed it and the Justice Department signed off there was much debated. After the justice department signed it, little or no debate. So when Gonzo says, "There was no debate with the program that the president shared with the public." He's talking about after Bush signed. The Senators and Congressman are talking about before.

Technically he is not lying but he is not telling the truth. He is using it as a dodge. I'm an expert at this stuff because my ex-wife used to do it.

I wish someone would ask him this question.

Is the program you are refering to different than the one we are because the president made some slight changes? and Ehy do you keep parsing the truth?

Thanks,

Tiny

Legalize wrote on July 25, 2007 4:37 PM:

Someone in Texas please file a Bar Association Complaint against the Attorney General. Seriously.

714Day wrote on July 25, 2007 5:12 PM:

msmolly

pointus said it very well, skip the troll/troll responses and you'll not be disappointed with the remaining thoughtful exchange.
If we allow the belligerent empty heads to make us all go away, that's REALLY letting the terrorists win.

jraad wrote on July 25, 2007 5:40 PM:

why is the msm allowing the publishing of a source that will remain in anonymity who claims to be part of the group of 8 that backs up Gonzales' claims? I say if you don't say who you are, its not worth publishing.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 6:00 PM:

The most disturbing testimony was that Cheney had access to ongoing investigations by DoJ. What steps did Abu take to ensure that Cheney did not tamper with the case against his own Chief of Staff? This was not asked, and needs to be.

If Cheney even reviewed the case of Patrick Fitzgerald against Libby, that would be a very high crime indeed.

Matt wrote on July 25, 2007 6:38 PM:

How come nobody is talking about having Ashcroft testify? He was around for the genesis of all this. Plus, he's a big jerk. A segregation loving assclown, if you will.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 6:54 PM:

"Or, Fred, it could mean she was not really "covert" in terms of IIPA protection or any other meaningful sense, but CIA is trying to assert itself in an inter-agency intelligence turf war."

Posted by: Jake D

Jake, an IIPA referral involves the CIA completing an investigation and delivering a memorandum to DOJ with the results of that investigation and requesting that the FBI investigate. Do you honestly believe that the CIA did not assert in that memo that the "covert" requirement of the IIPA was satisfied? Or that if the memo was silent on that point, that the FBI wouldn't immediately ask and answer that issue before pursuing the investigation further?

JNagarya wrote on July 25, 2007 8:08 PM:

Does Harmon think it would be "proper" to declassify EVERYTHING in order to defend yourself from these false charges? Even if declassifying everything would directly lead to the deaths of American citizens. I would hope Gonzales would choose impeachment rather than risk innocent lives like that.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 10:42 AM

1. There is abundant hard evidence that Gonzales is (a) lying, and or (2) not competent to run the DOJ.

2. There is no evidence that selective declassification of national security secrets is legitimate as self-defense. (See the Marc Rich controversy on this oint.)

3. To what "false charges" do you refer? -- those for which there is no evidence that they are false?

In short: Gonzales is a documented liar and or incompetent who should, preferable to resigning, be fired. He isn't concerned with impeachment because he and his fellow gangsters don't believe Congress dares to do so, or that it can't get the votes to do so.

Nor are tere any grounds -- non-lawyer -- for smearing Harmon, who is a lawyer, and who, as a member of Congress, has much more information about these matters than do you. But yet again, given the opportunity to smear a Democrat, even in defense of contempt of Congress and apparent perjury, you will do so, because unconscionable and an enemy of our Constitution and laws.

As for your smear against Plame -- yet again dishonesetly ignoring the fact, substantiated not only by the CIA, and not only by the CIA Director, but also by Fitzgerald with her CIA employment record: your hatred for your country, and your putting the interests of your anti-American political party before those of your country, is unequivocal and undeniable.

Being a professional smearmongering shithead does not vindicate or justify your defense of treason, without regard for the means by which you do so.

msmolly wrote on July 25, 2007 8:25 PM:

Pointus & 714Day:

Thanks for your responses....but I can go to other blogs and get pretty much the same stuff TPM has, with no trolls. The moderators keep trolling to a minimum and enforce civility (without noticeably affecting freedom to speak one's mind).

Allowing trolls to hijack threads, day after day, and make the readers work around them by skipping all of the troll-related postings, takes more effort than simply going elsewhere and having my intelligent progressive discourse relatively troll-free. Trolls win when that happens; I understand that. But how many folks, especially lurkers, just go away elsewhere (nothing here, folks) and don't even say anything? TPM could shut Jake D. down right quick, but they don't, and the posters don't seem inclined to ignore "him" (which would shut "him" down, too), so "he" disrupts and disrupts, and some of TPM's supporters (I've been a donor) will simply go elsewhere.

JNagarya wrote on July 25, 2007 9:10 PM:

"I thought Harmon spoke about the meeting on NPR?"

Perhaps also.

"So far, it's looking good for Gonzales . . . ."

You mean he's only repeatedly shown contempt of Congress -- a crime -- obstruction of justice -- a crime -- and lied to Congress -- a crime.

For those who praise and defend criminality, such as you, it would appear it's "looking good" for him.

"-- he never claimed that any specific Congressman like Daschle approved . . . ."

Correct: he implied that the "Gang of 8" was unanimous in support -- which is clearly false.

Andother instance of it "looking good" for Gonzales, professional shithead?

"-- another member of the Gang of Eight, speaking anonymously, backs Gonzales:"

Irrelevant: without knowing the person's name, we cannot determine the person's credibility, veracity, or even knowledge of the facts.

"Speaking on condition of anonymity, he . . . ."

Being anonymous, how do you know it was a "he"?

". . . confirmed the attorney general’s testimony that the group reached a “consensus” that the disputed intelligence activity should continue and that passing emergency legislation would risk revealing secrets."

Aside from the fact that it's doubtful a tiny minority of members of Congress could speak for the entirety of Congress, it doesn't stand to reason that such a "consensus" would arise from a group of 8 who were not all Republicans. And we know from on the record instances that Republicans will claim tto have a majority, or a "mandate," even when they don't. We know, that is, that Republicans will tell any lie, including against their country, in effort to advance their anti-Americanism.

"Pelosi's office told the Times (and Spencer) that there was no "consensus" in the room that the program should proceed without Comey."

So we have an anonymouse individual asserting the implausible, and a named individual asserting an unequivocal fact. Which of the two would be credible in a court of law? Pelosi.

"According to the Times's account, her surrogates said that a "majority" did [agree to] moving forward, however."

Yeah, right: unnamed sources alleged to be Pelosi's "surrogates".

So you rely on the anonymous, against those who have the integrity and mral courage to identify themselves, when the anonymous say what you want to hear. Truth being irrelevant to nihilists such as you.

Yet again you pretend to be concerned with right and wrong, while ignoring relevant criteria as to determining right from wrong -- truth from falsehood -- such as whether the source has the moral backbone to identify themselves.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 10:49 AM

Let's, _arguendo_, assume Gonzales is telling the truth about the controversy and the hospital visit; let's assume there wasn't, as he asserted, controversy about the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" revealed by the NY Times, and which is illegal, and which Bushit said he would continue -- and to hell with the rule of law. That, rather, the controversy was about a second program.

If he told the truth on that point, then we are dealing not with one illegal wiretapping program, but two. Thus Gonzales has admitted sufficient facts that we now know he knew a program was illegal, yet he attempted anyway to coerce Ashcroft to violate the law by giving it the false appearance of legality.

Still "looking good" for Gonzales?

And if there isn't a second program, then Gonzales lied about the controversy not being about the TSP. Still "looking good" for Gonzales?

In short: you couldn't care less whether a Republican lies in order to subvert and violate the law; you only care when they get caught -- at which point you smear those who are against violations of the law. You accurately reflect the criminal vision which is the ideology and agenda of the Republican party.

JNagarya wrote on July 25, 2007 9:20 PM:

Nina:

Perhaps he can live with himself because if he actually "lied under oath, before Congress or in court" -- as opposed to Bush-haters simply screaming that he did based on some Harper's article that doesn't prove he did -- he would have resigned.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 10:53 AM

How many times -- and ways -- must it be pointed out to you that Gonzales has repeatedly lied and or admitted that he's not competent to run the DOJ before you stop lying against that fact, shithead?

No one who authorizes and defends the war crime of torture, which cannot be made legal, has the capacity to feel shame -- not WW II Nazis, not the Bushit criminal enterprise, not Gonzales. Nor its conscienceless supporters and defenders such as you. Thus there is no reason -- cause -- in Gonzales' vocabulary which would give him reason -- cause -- to resign.

Get it through your anti-American criminality: torture is a war crime that cannot be made legal. And anyone sane, and mentally healthy, would be ashamed to seriously consider doing it, let alone actually doing it. In fact, some who have done it, in pursuant to orders, have since reported the damage it does to the perpetrator of it. Unlike shitheads such as you, they feel remorse, guilt, shame, revulsion, and self-disgust.

demit wrote on July 25, 2007 9:22 PM:

msmolly, I'm with you. There's nothing wrong with moderators enforcing a 'stay on topic' rule, in my view. I don't often read TPM comments, but I made it through this one and yes, found it tiresome, so I don't know when I'll be back.

Also, word of advice to the folks who can't seem to resist feeding the trolls—you can't win. FireDogLake commenters, e.g., have excellent control in regard to trolls. No one engages them, everyone ignores them, their one comment hangs out there dangling, until it dies of loneliness, & the troll slinks away.

LOL! Security code: adjust.

JNagarya wrote on July 25, 2007 9:26 PM:

". . . based on some Harper's article that doesn't prove he did . . . ."

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 10:53 AM

Unlike you, Scott Horton, author of the "No Comment" column in "Harper's," is a lawyer. If you read his column closely, you'll see that he incorporates the ethical requirements that bind upon lawyers. Gonzales is a lawyer, and thus those ethical requirements bind on Gonzales. The laws also bind on Gonzales -- beginning with the Constitution -- the law of the land -- and those additional elements of the law of the land -- treaties -- to which the US is signatory. Those treaties include definitions of and prohibitions against the war crime of torture.

Those treaties also bind upon Bushit himself.

Only by lying can anyone claim that Gonzales and Bushit haven't violated the law.

JNagarya wrote on July 25, 2007 9:37 PM:

TheraP:

You have yet to prove it was a "lie".

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 10:59 AM

Asshole: torture is a war crime, and it cannot be made legal. The prohibitions against torture define the tortures -- which are acts, not labels -- which are prohibited, among those being "waterboarding" (renaming it "involuntary surfing" does not change the act, therefore does not make it other than what it is: prohibited torture). Gonzales asserts that "waterboarding" is arguably not torture.

On that point he is lying. Moreover, in view of the fact that torture is a war crime that cannot be made legal, his efforts to give it the appearance of legality is itself a crime. Read Horton on the point in his "Harper's" column, keeping in mind that Horton is an expert in international law, which includes treaties, and such as Geneva.

-----------------------

tom:

"I doubt the outing of Plame, even if she was still technically "covert" risked any innocent American lives."

"Doubt" all you want, though you have no grounds for such other than the fact that you're constantly dishonest in effort to defend the indefensible. Even were it the fact that no "innocent American lives" -- those not being the only consideration, lying asshole -- were "risked," the outing was still illegal. And, as Bushit's father said, "Treasonous".

Regardless whether anyone, American or otherwise, were "risked" as result, treason is a high crime, and not to be treated as if nothing with which to be concerned.

"Neither of us will know that, however, because any damage assessment itself would be classified."

That isn't certain, though you would hope it were so you could deny findings of liability and guilt by those who illegally revealed her identity.

"I'd wager her lawsuit actually put her at greater risk . . . ."

Which "wager" is pure malarkey, as it is based upon a groundless doubt, that being basis for unevidenced speculation.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 11:07 AM

longnose wrote on July 25, 2007 9:42 PM:

Dear Jake, Get out of your filthy bed, wash your self and your "jammies" and do something useful. There are agencies and organizations that will help you. You must only ask.

longnose

JNagarya wrote on July 25, 2007 9:44 PM:

I thnk I know why there is conflict over whether Comey's disagreement was or was not the same program. A while back, Schumer and Gonzoles had this exchange in a hearing about the NSA program:

Schumer: Has the government searched someone’s home, an American citizen, or office without a warrant, uh, since 911, let’s say?
Gonzales: Sir to my knowledge that has not happened under the terrorist surveillance program, and I’m not going to go beyond that.
Schumer: Wait, I don’t know what that, what does that mean, under the terrorist surveillance program? The terrorist surveillance program is about wire tapping.

At this point, Gonzales starts refusing to amplify for national security reasons.

Posted by: Daniel
Date: July 25, 2007 11:21 AM

No: at that point he referred to "another" program, about which he would not talk. Comey's testimony was similar.

But that doesn't help Gonzales any, as it would simply mean that, were he not lying on the point, there are two, not one, illegal wiretapping programs; and that it was the second about which the threatened mass resignation occurred, and also about which Gonzales, knowing the program was illegal, tried to coerce Ashcroft into illegally giving the program the appearance of legality.

JNagarya wrote on July 25, 2007 9:50 PM:

Jake D.,

This inability to accept what has clearly been established (Plames CIA status) in many venues is annoying. You can have your own opinion but not your own facts!

Posted by: BEM
Date: July 25, 2007 11:27 AM

Plame's status as covert was verified by the CIA -- and its referral of the revelation of her identity for investigation (not to determine whether the revealation was illegal -- that was presumptively established; but to determine who violated the law prohibiting the revelation). And by the CIA Director, and by Fitzgerald during the Libby trial with Plame's CIA employment record/s.

There is no question about it: Plame was covert. Any assertion against that fact, regardless degree, is knowing and deliberate lie. "Jake"/"Jake D." is here to lie, and lie, and lie again in support and defense of the Bushit criminal enterprise, and to smear Democrats, against Constitution and law, and his country.

"Jake" wants a one-party dictatorship.

msmolly wrote on July 25, 2007 9:54 PM:

demit: I am with you, I rely on FireDogLake for commentary. They are somewhat less "breaking news" and more comments (but lots of liveblogging of the hearings), lots of good input and NO Jake D.

JNagarya wrote on July 25, 2007 9:55 PM:

interested litigant:

You are like the Dephic Oracle. Maybe you could come and see me, confidentially of course, and show me a couple of those cards? The suspense is killing me!

Posted by: TheraP
Date: July 25, 2007 10:56 AM

Anyone can claim to be an "interested litigant". Doesn't make it true.

JNagarya wrote on July 25, 2007 10:02 PM:

BEM:

"Show me" where the CIA directly (not Waxman saying they did, etc.) confirmed Plame's status? As I understand, they won't even allow her to write about it.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 11:36 AM

Again, asshole:

1. The CIA directly confirmed that Plame was covert -- the revelation of which presumptively a violation of law -- when it referred complaint for investigtaion to determine who violated the law by doing so.

2. The CIA Director said she was covert.

3. Fitzgerald, in the Libby trial, substantiated her covert status by submitting her CIA employment record.

Stop lying against the incontrovertible fact, multiply established directly by the CIA itself, shithead. Else you continue to support and defend treason against your country by continuing to knowingly and deliberately lie.

Every time time you lie against the established facts, directly or by innuendo, you again reveal yourself as enemy of truth and your country.

JNagarya wrote on July 25, 2007 10:13 PM:

In re: A.G. Authori-ta

Not that it makes Gonzales' nocturnal excursion to Ashcroft's bedside any less creepy and low, but does anyone know for a fact that only 1 person at a time has A.G. authority? That is, during the time Comey was temporarily given the authority to act as A.G., did Ashcroft still possess it also or not?

Posted by: dzman49
Date: July 25, 2007 11:51 AM

1. There can only be one Atty. General at a time.

2. Contrary to Gonzales' "there aren't any rules" concerning such,such transfers of authority, such as that from Ashcroft to Comey, must be made in writing.

3. And, contrary to Gonzales' BS "there aren't any rules" concerning such, the re-transfer of authority from Comey to Ashcroft must also be done in writing.

JNagarya wrote on July 25, 2007 10:25 PM:

"Yes, they did teach that" [at Stanford Law]. . . .

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 11:56 AM

In presenting a case, a legitimate lawyer is allowed to assert any theory of the case s/he wants -- hopefully one sufficiently plausible that it will be accepted by the judge and or jury. And that theory of the case must -- must -- accomodate and account for all the facts of the case.

An actual, legitimate, ethical lawyer does not, however, lie against the facts, or -- especially -- continue to lie that a proven fact is not a proven fact. There is absolutely no question that Plame's status was covert, despite your continuing the lying against that proven fact, both directly and by innuendo.

And any "question" about that status was settled the moment the CIA referred the exposure of her identity to th DOJ for investigation -- not of whether she was covert -- that was established by th CIA before the referral was made, and thus was why the referral was made -- and not of whether the law prohibiting such exposers had been violated, that being the presumptive fact -- but of who violated the law by exposing her identity.

Were ytou actually a lawyer, you would not only know those facts, but would also comply with them, especially those concerning the ethics of lying against proven facts being that: proven facts.

Again:

1. Her covert status was directly established by the CIA in and as cause of their referral of the exposure for investigation;

2. Directly stated by the CIA Director,; and,

3. Established yet again by Fitzgerald in the Libby case by submitting as evidence Plame's CIA employment record.

Questioning that established fact, either directly or by innuendo, at this point, in the face of the foregoing facts, is to knowingly and deliberately lie in behalf and defense of treason, and against rule of law and your country.

Rene wrote on July 26, 2007 12:58 AM:

Several of you have commented that Gonzalez and the whole Bush team have been trampling the Constitution, but don't you all realize that it is obsolete and most of it's provisions have been rendered quaint?

Sully18 wrote on July 26, 2007 1:49 AM:

There are still several reasons to impeach.I read this whole story,and the thing that jumps out is the hard driving arrogance of Gonzo .Those flippant answers to Schumer were almost scoffing,blatantly hostile, displayed by an "I don`t care what you do.I dare you anything,period.

Josh seems astounded:"I'm not sure I've seen a more open, casual or brazen display of the attitude that the body of rules which our whole system is built on just don't apply to this White House."
My take on all of this is that these people have something up their sleeve.And we won`t find out unless we impeach.Also if impeachment doesn`t happen Gonzo gets to protect Bush et.,al.And I have seen many theories about whether or not there will be 2008 elections.
Code word crime--how fitting

Mstessyrue wrote on July 26, 2007 1:56 AM:

It is probably no surprise to anyone that our president and his administration have, yet again, hid the truth from the American public. Similar to the dealings with the war in Iraq, this administration has been feeding lies to the public. Now the war has proven to be a failure and is causing more violence, terror and poverty in this world. According to the Borgen Project, it only takes $19 billion dollars annually to eradicate world hunger and poverty. However, our government has already spent more than $450 billion dollars over this fruitless war in Iraq. It is time for the Bush Administration to take a real interest in the lives of the American people as well as people who are in desperate needs around the world. Stop the lies and stop poverty now.

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 4:03 AM:

To lying troll "Jake"/"Jake D.," from "new" document --

""The dissent related to other intelligence activities," Gonzales testified at Tuesday's hearing. "The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program."

""Not the TSP?" responded Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. "Come on. If you say it's about other, that implies not. Now say it or not."

""It was not," Gonzales answered. "It was about other intelligence activities."

"A four-page memo from the national intelligence director's office shows that the White House briefing with the eight lawmakers on March 10, 2004, was about the terror surveillance program, or TSP."

So, "Jake," your "WHO HOO" was yet another instance of your laughing at the Constitution and rule of law, in support and defense of the Bushit criminal enterprise, and against the health, well-being, and survival of your country.

The above conclusive evidence of Gonzales' lying -- under oath -- makes clear why Bushit has said the DOJ -- rule of law notwithstanding -- will not be prosecuting anyone in -- or formerly in -- the Executive: because the breadth and depth -- the extent -- of the criminality is gov't-wide, and the least prosecution will break the whole case wide open. That reality is summed up in the Taylor revelation that she -- as have all "loyal Bushie"'s -- "Took an oath to the president". Only in dictatorships does one take an oath not to the rule of law, not to the state, but to the person of the dictator.

That is the blatant -- and publicly so -- anti-Americanism you support and defend, and in behalf of which laugh at and mock the rule of law. By contrast, and not incidentally, when lawyers are sworn into the practice of law, the oath includes the commitment to "uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States".

Impeachment -- and conviction in the Senate -- would then be, to borrow Tenet's term, "a slam dunk". And as Gonzales' contemptuous disregard for Congress, and for the rule of law -- lying under oath -- demonstrates, as does that by Bushit and Cheney, impeachment is inevitable because nothing short of that will stop the lawless Bushit criminal enterprise.

And don't minimize matters: this is no ordinary criminal enterprise, in which the principles believe in the rule of law, despite the fact they make the effort to clothe and obscure their actions behind a smokescreen of pseudo-law; it is, rather, sociopathic -- it has no conscience regarding public safety, or anything remotely considerate of the meaning of "society"; the fact that none of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations for securing the "homeland" have been implemented should be sufficient evidence even for stooges such as you for that fact.

This is not a game; and it is not some small, petty issue, such as that -- as you view it -- inconsequential exposure of a covert agent who was focused on preventing WMDs falling into the hands of terrorists, and the destruction of that effort -- though that should be sufficent evidence for the least informed as to the seriousness of the situation, the danger this country, its Constitution and rule of law, and We the people, are in because of and at the whims of the Bushit criminal enterprise.

Anyone who supports and defends the Bushit criminal enterprise, in any respect whatsoever, is complicit in their crimes, and an enemy of the United States. How will you be known from now on?

RBS wrote on July 26, 2007 4:47 AM:

msmolly et al:

I'm with you: Jake D's unrelenting attempts at hijacking the discussion are, unfortunately, successful--the thread always ends up being about him and his inane diversions (which is exactly what he wants) rather than about the subject matter at issue--and I, for one (or two or three), am ready to forego TPM's comments entirely rather than having to slog through such massive amounts of troll shit.

Legitimate expressions of "other" viewpoints are fine, but when Jake's "expressions" disproportionately and egregiously hog the bandwidth, with the intent to disrupt the actual thread of the conversation and prevent real discussion of the issues, there's no reason for TPM to put up with it (the First Amendment only restricts the government from censoring expression, Jake) and legitimate reasons not to put up with it (losing readership).

Enough is enough.

If there's a TPM moderator, please get rid of this guy; he adds nothing and only disrupts the true flow of the commentary. Too many people "bite" and feed this guy, which is understandable, but the tipping point has been reached.

Could others who feel the same way as msmolly and myself pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease let TPM know how you feel?

Thanks.

(We now resume our regularly hijacked programming . . . )

RBS

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 2:27 PM:

"the gang of 8 were bound by National Security interests to not speak on the matter."

Posted by:
Date: July 25, 2007 12:24 PM

--------------------------------

Looks ike this was a lie: Look at this document issued many months ago, clearly disclosing the very thing that Pelosi and others said "We couldn't talka bout" -- Pelosi WAS THERE, couldn've asked qeustions, but didn't and now keeps rubber stamping legislation.

This is a sham oversight: It's not real. Pelosi has taken impeachment off the table to avoid the attention on her, the DNC, and GOP: they've been complicit with this illegal activity; and have no asserted all lawful options. This Congress is a kangaroo Congress.

Look at page 2 of 4:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/may_17_tsp.pdf

Pelosi and others were there, had the chance to ask qeustions; but despite knowing about illegal activity, in 2007, they still keep rubber stamping legislation. This whole "concern" with the US Atty firings is small potatoes: The Congress will not impeach; and the President will not prosecute. BOth branches have agreed to defy their oaths and o nothing about it.

State AGs need to be called: Let's get some indictments issued: Against, President, VP, and Members of Congress. They have been lying to We the People; blocking enforcement of the law; not asserting their oath; and paying for activites they know were illegal.