Comments (29)

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 26, 2007 4:29 PM:

It feels different this time. Really. I think something might just happen.

Anna S. wrote on July 26, 2007 4:39 PM:

Was it just me, or did Mueller try to plead some sort of executive privilege, except instead of the executive he was referring to the attorney general? The GOP needs to brief their operatives better if people like this think that they can get out of answering Congressional questions because they're "uncomfortable" that they might not be able to give their "unfettered thoughts" to unnamed "individuals". Note to people testifying before Congress: in order for executive privilege to work, the EXECUTIVE needs to assert it, and it needs to cover your conversations with the EXECUTIVE. It's not called "individual" privilege, it's executive privilege. Get it straight. If you weren't talking to the Prez, you have to answer the question.

But wait, it gets better. The AP has Mueller confirming Comey's testimony that the program under discussion was the TSP. This is more fuel to the fire for the Gonzalez perjury case. Here's the quote from the AP article:

"Did you have an understanding that that the conversation was on TSP?" asked Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. TSP stands for terrorist surveillance program.

"I had an understanding the discussion was on a NSA program, yes," Mueller answered.

Jackson asked again: "We use 'TSP,' we use 'warrantless wiretapping,' so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?"

"The discussion was on a national NSA program that has been much discussed, yes," Mueller responded.

Steve5117 wrote on July 26, 2007 4:40 PM:

Slim Pickin's

Some republicans are finally realizing the Emperor is naked, not clothed, bare assed and a lying fool.

bobh wrote on July 26, 2007 4:45 PM:

Nice. The Director of the FBI just burned Gonzalez down to his ankles.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 4:46 PM:

How bizarre is it to realize that the Attorney General of the United States, who has just perjured himself in Congressional testimony, will probably NOT resign or be fired?

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 4:54 PM:

If I remember correctly, Comey testified that he instructed Mueller and his detail unit (FBI Agents) NOT LEAVE Ashcroft's hospital room while Gonzo and his minions were present.

Mueller testified today that he WAS NOT in Ashcroft's hospital room while Gonzo and the minions were there.

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=628

The outstanding issue, of course, is whether Gonzo discussed classified information in front of people who did not have proper security clearances to hear the discussion.

If people were present who did not have proper clearances, then Gonzo and his minions are in serious trouble.

Ms. Ashcroft would not have had the security clearance necessary. The FBI Agents (detail unit) most likely would not had a high enough security clearance to hear NSA related information.

If Comey instructed Mueller and his detail unit to remain in Ashcroft's hospital room, then Mueller did not follow a direct command if he was not in the room when Gonzo was there.

Something is not adding up?

Damian wrote on July 26, 2007 4:56 PM:

It's not as bizzare (AG perjury) as one might think with this administration. In fact, you could say it's par for the course.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/images/20070725-4_wg8o0655-515h.html

rubberpants wrote on July 26, 2007 5:00 PM:

I'm afraid that this whole "I won't answer that question because" attitude is only going to get worse unless the questioners start aggressively pursuing witnesses about it. Don't let them wriggle out of answering unless they explicitly claim executive privilege or classified matters. If they won't do that and won't answer then threaten them will a contempt citation right then and there.

retr2327 wrote on July 26, 2007 5:03 PM:

"If I remember correctly, Comey testified that he instructed Mueller and his detail unit (FBI Agents) NOT LEAVE Ashcroft's hospital room while Gonzo and his minions were present."

I don't think you remember correctly. IIRC, Comey's story was that Mueller directed the FBI agents not to leave the room. And Mueller confirmed that aspect today as well.

Phil wrote on July 26, 2007 5:15 PM:

I haven't seen all the testimony, but I didn't see a question in this clip if Mueller made his reservations known to Gonzo or the president or to someone else who did. So all he does is back up Comey's testimony.

Troll Patrol wrote on July 26, 2007 5:16 PM:

Am I out of a job?

Austin Cooper wrote on July 26, 2007 5:18 PM:

If this were my case to run:

1) Identify and interview -- separately, and on the same day -- all Agents in Ashcroft's hospital detail. Identify the Agents who were present in the hospital room itself while Ashcroft was being pressured by Card and Gonzales, and interview them -- separately, and at the same time.

2) Obtain copies of all hospital logs, FBI watch or event logs, field notes and reports regarding the incident.

3) Subpoena White House communications logs for all incoming and outgoing calls eight hours *before* the event, and eight hours *after* (Good luck getting any of this...)

4) Review Comey's previous Senate testimony and re-interview.

5) Review Mueller's testimony and re-interview.

This should provide enough factual basis to convene a Grand Jury, and begin calling witnesses with an eye towards indictments for perjury.

Mark Richards wrote on July 26, 2007 5:27 PM:

In contrast to yesterday's test-i-lying by Gonzo, Mueller actually comes across as reasonably credible, but then it doesn't take much.

What throws any idea of Mueller's credibility out the window is when considering how complicit the FBI is in all the illegal activities.

The Committee should not have been so easy on him.

Bad Troll wrote on July 26, 2007 5:30 PM:

Gonzo must have some truly GREAT dirt on these bastards.

How else to explain that he still has his job ?

Stubborn little shrub ? It's more than that, kiddies ...

Biggus Dickus wrote on July 26, 2007 5:39 PM:

"Gonzo must have some truly GREAT dirt on these bastards.

How else to explain that he still has his job ?"

I believe this is true but the risk to the Administration is not him squealing but rather:

"Where are they going to find someone new for AG who has absolutely NO SHAME and no ethics who wouldn't immediately feel a moral and ethical and professional need to blow the whistle on these guys?"

Any new AG would have to come from inside and the Congress would never allow it. So Bush will go for a Recess appointment and the s**t will REALLY hit the fan.

Should be fun ;-)

Jim S wrote on July 26, 2007 5:49 PM:

Listening to the clip, I had the impression that Muller was inviting more questions and would have welcomed the opportunity to give more detail if properly asked for the facts. The questions were posed very poorly.

interested litigant wrote on July 26, 2007 6:05 PM:

He did NOT contradict Gonzales. Do you think he wants to be fired? How stupid can that be?

R Bubp wrote on July 26, 2007 6:12 PM:

Yes, the problem is that Shrub and Cheney will have a hard time finding another AG who will serve as David Addington's lapdog and essentially cede his responsibilities to the Executive branch.

They have their pawn in there, that's what they want, that's why they don't want anoyone else. It's by design that he sucks.

Douglas Watts wrote on July 26, 2007 6:49 PM:

R Bubp -- you are correct. The question again is why Bush would ever get rid of AG. Why ? The guy is doing a great job -- at stonewalling. Which is all Bush wants from an AG.

joe wrote on July 26, 2007 10:25 PM:

Watt comes off as rather unimpressive; "what do you make of this?" is not much of a question. of course mueller wouldn't "make" of it. opportunities seem to have been missed, again, to ask challenging and direct questions. if the FBI director's testimony seems damning without the context of specific and finely targeted questioning, i can only imagine what he could add if he were questioned more expertly.

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 11:07 PM:

"If I remember correctly, Comey testified that he instructed Mueller and his detail unit (FBI Agents) NOT LEAVE Ashcroft's hospital room while Gonzo and his minions were present."

No, he did not. Mueller, by phone, instructed FBI agents present at the hospital not to ALLOW Gonzales/Card to "evict" Comey from Ashcroft's room.

"Mueller testified today that he WAS NOT in Ashcroft's hospital room while Gonzo and the minions were there."

He testified to that fact because it is the fact -- as Comey made clear. Mueller arrived at the hospital later than Comey; his instructions to the FBI agents at the hospital to not ALLOW Comey to be evicted from Ashcroft's room by PHONE.

"http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=628

"The outstanding issue, of course, is whether Gonzo discussed classified information in front of people who did not have proper security clearances to hear the discussion."

That's actually relatively minor -- even insignificant -- as compared with the fact that Gonzales, knowing the program to be illegal, attempted to coerce Ashcroft to illegally (on two grounds, only one being that he was not at the time AG, therefore could not legally act in that capacity) give the appearance of legality to the illegal program.

"If people were present who did not have proper clearances, then Gonzo and his minions are in serious trouble."

Insignificant as an issue as compared with the knowing effort to get illegal cover for the illegal program. And the apparent conspiracy involving at least Gonzales and Card in that effort.

"Ms. Ashcroft would not have had the security clearance necessary. The FBI Agents (detail unit) most likely would not had a high enough security clearance to hear NSA related information."

You persist in overlooking the more significant fact: Gonzales and Card bent on obtaining illegal cover for the program they knew was illegal.

"If Comey instructed Mueller and his detail unit to remain in Ashcroft's hospital room, then Mueller did not follow a direct command if he was not in the room when Gonzo was there."

Ass: It was Mueller who instructed the FBI agents present to not ALLOW Gonzales/Card to have Comey "evicted" from Ashcroft's room.

"Something is not adding up?"

What is not adding up is your misstatement of the fats, and making big an insignificant issue as compared with the central issue: the illegal effort to coerce Ashcroft into providing the appearance of legality to a program known to be illegal.

Posted by:
Date: July 26, 2007 4:54 PM

anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 11:15 PM:

So, JakeD, Comey, Mueller, and 4 Democrats have now contradicted Gonzales and not a single Republican has gone on record in support of Gonzales's version of events.

I'm sure that is not sufficient evidence for you, since you require an indictment (but only for Republicans of course) before you would call for Gonzales's resignation.

But then again, I'm sure even if he were indicted, you would fall all over yourself claiming that prosecutors can get an indictment on a rock if they want to, that the prosecutor is politically motivated, and that Gonzales is innocent until proven guilty and should be allowed to keep his job as long as the president has faith in his innocence.

LOL.

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 11:18 PM:

"I'm afraid that this whole "I won't answer that question because" attitude is only going to get worse unless the questioners start aggressively pursuing witnesses about it."

Where have you been!? Subpoenas are aggresive -- as serious as a heart attack. Contempt citations are aggressive.

What you want, instead, is "action" -- as if this is some juvenile's notion of a football game. What you want is for the Democrats to act like Republicans: ignore the law in order to keep you awake.

"Don't let them wriggle out of answering unless they explicitly claim executive privilege or classified matters. If they won't do that and won't answer then threaten them will a contempt citation right then and there."

This thread is about Mueller's testimony. I haven't seen any evidence of him attempting to avoid answering questions.

Posted by: rubberpants
Date: July 26, 2007 5:00 PM
____________________________

"Watt comes off as rather unimpressive; "what do you make of this?" is not much of a question."

Watt was trying to indicate what he wanted without "leading the witness" -- without asking leading questions, which are intended to elicit the answer one wants, not necessarily the truth.

". . . of course mueller wouldn't "make" of it."

He would if the question were direct and clear.

"opportunities seem to have been missed, again, to ask challenging and direct questions. if the FBI director's testimony seems damning without the context of specific and finely targeted questioning, i can only imagine what he could add if he were questioned more expertly."

You base that view on a snippet of exchange between Mueller and one member of the Committee. That one member is far from being the whole committee.

Posted by: joe
Date: July 26, 2007 10:25 PM

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 11:24 PM:

I haven't seen all the testimony, but I didn't see a question in this clip if Mueller made his reservations known to Gonzo or the president or to someone else who did. So all he does is back up Comey's testimony.

Posted by: Phil
Date: July 26, 2007 5:15 PM

Gee, I think his threat to resign sorta musta communicated that he had "reservations".

In addition to which, it isn't as if Congress can only take testimony from Mueller once and once only. Mueller was scheduled to testify before Gonzales' Tuesday testimony, probably as part of a strategy to put pressure on Gonzales. And notice the actions today: Schumer and three other Senators, supported by Reid, called (by means of a writing to the appropriate individual) for the appointment of a Special Counsel, and Leahy served subpoenas on Rove and Jennings.

All while twits demand that the Democrats "do something".

Er -- "Jake" is apparently out of excuses, and guffaws at the rule of law.

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 11:28 PM:

He did NOT contradict Gonzales. Do you think he wants to be fired? How stupid can that be?

Posted by: interested litigant
Date: July 26, 2007 6:05 PM

See if you can follow:

1. Comey contradicted Gonzales;

2. Mueller, without hesitation of equivocation, backed Comey's account.

3. _Ergo_, Mueller contradicted Gonzales.

Jess wrote on July 27, 2007 12:39 AM:

It is conceivable that Mueller did not contradict AG. Read at his answers carefully. Do not assume there is only a single NSA program (i.e. TSP is the only NSA program) -- what makes you think they only run one such program? After all, intercepting email and postal mail are two other programs that have been outed. I am willing to bet my lunch there are other programs still in effect.

Q: "Did you have an understanding that that the conversation was on TSP?"

A: "I had an understanding the discussion was on a NSA program, yes,"

Jess: Yes, but was it TSP?? Yes or No?

Q: "We use 'TSP,' we use 'warrantless wiretapping,' so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?"

A: "The discussion was on a national NSA program that has been much discussed, yes."

Jess: Again, Mueller did not answer the question directly. He mentioned "a[n] NSA program" (with nationwide impact) twice,
but he did not specify TSA. Of course the program has been much discussed, but has it been publicly discussed? Twice Mueller gave accurate answers ... it was an NSA program, much discussed (not saying by whom), but he did not say "TSP"

-- Jess

blac wrote on July 27, 2007 2:57 AM:

this changes nothing... in a few days Fredo will correct the record when he "misspoke"... the WH has this thing sewed up... it's like asking the deputy to arrest the local sheriff.. ain't gonna happen... the corruption is so deep that neither house of congress can get straight answer... i'm mad that more Dems aren't outraged (i expect complicity from Pubs)

Al in Austex wrote on July 27, 2007 5:39 AM:

blac,
Are you stoned , or just not fully paying atttention ? The Democratic Oversight Committee Leadership has made it abundantly clear that this process of holding BushCo accountably is unfolding with all due deliberate speed .Many Administration figures are now in Jail . This is not some Law N Order made for TV thriller- this is real life -its going to take awhile to get BushCO back under the rule of Law.
Meanwhile blac go to the tpm archives to see how much has already been done to bring this rougue regieme to heel ...(Wait a minute-- Jake is this you posting under another name ?)

Kelvin Phillips wrote on July 28, 2007 5:53 AM:

What I want to know is how can the AG just contradict himself (or other contradict him), and not get called on it? Am I missing something here?