Comments (52)

asdf wrote on August 1, 2007 12:45 PM:

Dick Cheney doesn’t make mistakes like this. Larry King doesn’t ask real questions. Something is amiss.

There is a subplot, stay tuned.

asdf wrote on August 1, 2007 12:47 PM:

Dick Cheney doesn’t make mistakes like this. Larry King doesn’t ask real questions. Something is amiss.

There is a subplot, stay tuned.

Waiting for Truth wrote on August 1, 2007 12:50 PM:

This is one more reason why, Tony Snow, transcripts are necessary. Period.

anon wrote on August 1, 2007 12:58 PM:

I think the only question that's relevant is given that the "activities" had to be re-authorized or re-approved every 45 days, was that re-authorization a single document (with a single spot for the AG's signature)? Or, was it a separate document and signature for each of the so-called separate intelligence activities???

In other words, what exactly was on the document(s) that Card and Fredo took with them to Ashcroft's hospital room, and we're they looking for a single signature on a single page?

TheraP wrote on August 1, 2007 12:59 PM:

Another reason for:

***** NO RECESS FOR CONGRESS ******

till the work is done.

jak1 wrote on August 1, 2007 1:03 PM:

>>So lump Cheney in with FBI Director Bob Mueller, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and others who've been briefed on the NSA surveillance program and refer to a single program, called the TSP for a shorthand, which dates back to October, 2001 and is comprised of more than the limited facet acknowledged by the President.<<

At least until the WH comes out and says that's not what he meant when he was explaining what he meant. He was really saying that he was talking about certain aspects of the TSP, you know the one in question. Those pesky 'other activities.'

"Terrorist Surveillance Program (i.e. the program publicly described by the president) was only an uncontroversial part."

Samsara wrote on August 1, 2007 1:03 PM:

This is the problem with the lawyerly, technical defense AGAG is using to cover his lie; they don’t stand up to every day use. Don't worry; Tony Snow already has a fresh load of spin to explain this away

drational wrote on August 1, 2007 1:06 PM:

Well there is certainly a morass to be disambiguated, but neither Comey nor Mueller use the Bogus TSP terminology. McConnel states the term was never used before 2006. The admin wants to use it to restrict discussion to the declassified protion of the NSA program revealed in 2005. There was one program that included the activities later ro be called the TSP, and the admin want to keep the big program secret to hide the illegality.

Dan Eggen at WaPo got it right today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073102137.html

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 1:06 PM:

You’re a dreamer Theresa. As far as they are concerned, their work is done.

urbinato wrote on August 1, 2007 1:08 PM:

Great point anon - how many signatures of the doped up Ashcroft were they after at the hospital?

bassface127 wrote on August 1, 2007 1:18 PM:

How about Cheney's, "hey, I haven't read the NYT story, but now let me go into detail rebutting exactly what it said in the story." Wha?

Alguien wrote on August 1, 2007 1:21 PM:

Can ANYBODY explain to me WHY doesn't Congress call Ashcroft to testify and clarify EXACTLY what was the document he refused to sign?
As heavily sedated as he was, he was obviously lucid enough to refuse to sign it.
Why can't he be called?
Has he also benn forced under the "executive privilege" blanket?

mo2 wrote on August 1, 2007 1:26 PM:

Perhaps Cheney intended to muddy the MSM waters by making TSP an often mis-used short cut for speaking with laymen.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 1:29 PM:

How are we going to keep all these lies straight if even the liars can't keep them straight?

Mark Richards wrote on August 1, 2007 1:34 PM:

Back when America had a reputable administration - one that would find unthinkable the notion of engaging in a war against Americans - we find some parallels in secrecy and lack of congressional oversight. The Manhattan Project, managed by the progenitor of the DOE, could count on one hand the number of US Senators who knew of the $1-billion-per-year project. Of those that knew, they knew little, and cared not to know more.

In short, they trusted the administration at the time because Roosevelt had earned the trust.

There is one big difference between then and now. The Manhattan Project was not an illegal operation. What the current Bush maladministration engages in is very much illegal and, should it ever see the light of day, could well (and should) land its architects and enablers in jail.

Had the current maladministration not squandered trust by a lack of openness and through demonstrated arrogance and incompetence, we would likely not be having these arguments today.

Like everything else, they blew it.

Mark Richards wrote on August 1, 2007 1:35 PM:

Back when America had a reputable administration - one that would find unthinkable the notion of engaging in a war against Americans - we find some parallels in secrecy and lack of congressional oversight. The Manhattan Project, managed by the progenitor of the DOE, could count on one hand the number of US Senators who knew of the $1-billion-per-year project. Of those that knew, they knew little, and cared not to know more.

In short, they trusted the administration at the time because Roosevelt had earned the trust.

There is one big difference between then and now. The Manhattan Project was not an illegal operation. What the current Bush maladministration engages in is very much illegal and, should it ever see the light of day, could well (and should) land its architects and enablers in jail.

Had the current maladministration not squandered trust by a lack of openness and through demonstrated arrogance and incompetence, we would likely not be having these arguments today.

Like everything else, they blew it.

behindthefall wrote on August 1, 2007 1:56 PM:

Can't recall whether he made the call, eh? Wonder if Scooter was working late. "Hey, Scoot, call these bozos and tell 'em to get over to Ashcroft's bedsitter right sharp. POTUS would want it that way."

JEP wrote on August 1, 2007 1:58 PM:

"I don't recall that I was the one who sent them to the hospital."

"I don't recall that" is another Republican codeword for "I'm telling you a lie!" Just remove the "I don't recall that" qualifier every time and you will get the real truth, in this case it is, "I was the one who sent them to the hospital..."

Seriously, how could something that historic be so easily forgettable?

If the "shoe" fits...

EH wrote on August 1, 2007 2:03 PM:

This is all of a piece in sacrificing Alberto if necessary. As long as the story stays on Gonzales, the TSP, the USAs, etc. the less the White House has to worry.

Anna S. wrote on August 1, 2007 2:11 PM:

Heh, posters on the TPMm comment thread caught the implicit admission by about the second comment as soon as the King interview went up. You were slow on this one, Paul!

Numero Uno McLean Stevenson/Hello Larry Fan wrote on August 1, 2007 2:18 PM:

I eagerly await the next anonymous (DeepModem) post. The blogoshpere is abuzz with this man or woman's posts. Are you out there anonymous?

jw1 wrote on August 1, 2007 2:23 PM:

Gonzales is just next in the 'human-shield' lineup.

jw1

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 2:41 PM:

[ THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't recall that I was the one who sent them to the hospital.]

- Note: What Cheney refused to deny.
- How reasonable is this assertion of what he does or doesn't recall?
- Does Cheney, passing a message to Addington, mean the VP himself didn't send Gonzalez and others over; but that Addington "sent" them?
- Who are these people, under the unitary theory of executive power with one decider, pointing at?
- Did Cheney "send" them to a building "_next_ to the Hospital", and he then told them, "Go across the street"?
- Did Cheney "not send" but "order" them to the hospital?
- When Cheney talks about "sending them", is he saying, the Chauffeur "sent them" in the car, but the Chauffer was doing something else?
- Was Cheney at the meeting, did he oversee, overhear, or observe a discussion on the Internet where the _reason_ for the visit was discussed; and Cheney was _aware_ before the "decision to send" was made, that someone else _was_ sending them?
- Did Cheney have a chance to make his views known about whether a visit to the Hospital was appropriate, useful, relevant, and something that would be beneficial to the Presidency?
- Is there a record of Addington getting a call in Alexandria from Cheney who, under "guidance" from Cheney, then relayed a message from the VP to the people who made the visit; how do the phone calls square with the timing of calls to the 301 area code, within _seven_ miles (direct) of the WH?
- What is the reason that the _VP_ is involved, aware, commenting on, or in the loop with a meeting between _DoJ_ officials?

Suggestion: Review [ August 1, 2007 2:11 PM at http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003829.php ]

lysias wrote on August 1, 2007 3:06 PM:

Speaking of Cheney interfering in DOJ affairs, how was he able to stop Philbin's promotion to Deputy Solicitor General?

sad wrote on August 1, 2007 3:21 PM:

asdf may be onto something. Cheney may have been parsing. Read it again and you can make it fit with something other than the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

He doesn't recall giving instructions to certify the President's Program (but maybe that's not what we were talking about.)

He was certainly involved (in something) because he was a big advocate of the Terrorist Surveillance Program (which may or may not be relevant.)

There was nothing new about TSP and it had been approved a dozen times. Despite the flow of questions he might treat this as a stand alone statement and his next answer may not specifically refer back to the TSA.

He dodges the two element question of 'did you send sent them' 'to get permission' (with sequence implying 'for the Terrorist Surveillance Program' ) with I don't recall that I was the one who sent them there. This sounds a little like I did not have sex with that woman. He dosen't say he didn't send them to that place, but less obviously he didn't say that whatever they were sent to do related to TSP.

lysias wrote on August 1, 2007 3:35 PM:

He doesn't even say he doesn't recall sending them there, he says he doesn't recall giving them instructions to go there.

jimbo92107 wrote on August 1, 2007 3:54 PM:

Well, if Cheney didn't order Gonzalez to twist Ashcroft's arm, then either Gonzo did it on his own initiative (which I believe he denied), or somebody higher in the administration gave the order.

This is such a fun game!

mo2 wrote on August 1, 2007 4:11 PM:

IMO, Bush is Cheney's boss, and the boss is responsible for his/her underlings. So sending Gonzales and Card was Bush's call.

But notice that Cheney does not say that he did not dispatch Gonzales and Card - he says he did not "dispath them to push Ashcroft." Perhaps they were simply sent to inform Ashcroft, blah blah blah. The message was the same, but the wording was different, perhaps something like "Does Ashcroft know what Comey is doing? Somebody should tell him as soon as possible."

So thus Cheney didn't "send" anyone anywhere. He just wondered aloud if Ashcroft knew.

JD21 wrote on August 1, 2007 4:15 PM:

Cheney is such an evil dufus. Is it any wonder he dropped out of Yale?

parrot wrote on August 1, 2007 4:35 PM:

The fact is, it is a felony to violate FISA...they're all dancing around that troubling fact...and that the violations continued for two years without informing Congress that there might we an unwarranted program of surveillance, in violation of the laws and the Constitution. An impeachment might just be "a slam dunk" at this point and they probably know it.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 4:53 PM:

Here is my question:

If warrantless wiretaps in violation of FISA and the constitution was the *uncontroversial* part, what was the part that caused so much controversy?

Gonzales' parsing may get him clear of the 'tell the truth' issue, but he also swore to tell 'the whole truth', and that still makes him a perjurer.

Linda Wood wrote on August 1, 2007 4:58 PM:

My thinking is that the Bush people have had for some time a covert means of monitoring terrorists without law enforcement or the courts knowing about it, their purpose being to keep tabs on terrorists while preventing prevention.

Linda Wood wrote on August 1, 2007 5:00 PM:

My thinking is that the Bush people have had for some time a covert means of monitoring terrorists without law enforcement or the courts knowing about it, their purpose being to keep tabs on terrorists while preventing prevention.

JEP wrote on August 1, 2007 6:08 PM:

"Dick Cheney doesn’t make mistakes like this."

No, he just makes mistakes like shooting his hunting partner...

At one time long ago, I might agree, but just like Rove's fabled genius, Cheney's micrto-manager's credentials have suffered of late.

Rove wasn't a genius, he was a cheater...Cheney's no different, and most of his legend comes from infamy, not fame.

Cheney's screwed up a lot lately. The only sub-plot to his gaffe will be transparent damage control, like the General's letter was. They have pushed this mess past the point of no control, this one's been spun so far out of believability they can only heap another lie on top of the old ones. Cheney just screwed up the latest lie.

There's a crack in Cheney's concrete image, and the evidence of a weak leader is leaking out all over.

alma wrote on August 1, 2007 7:12 PM:

D'OH! -- Hat tip to Duncan Black wouldn't you say?

asdf wrote on August 1, 2007 7:17 PM:

JEP-Even if you're right, since when does Larry King conduct real interviews?

It's a set-up. We'll know the details later.

Roberta wrote on August 1, 2007 8:06 PM:

"Can ANYBODY explain to me WHY doesn't Congress call Ashcroft to testify and clarify EXACTLY what was the document he refused to sign?
As heavily sedated as he was, he was obviously lucid enough to refuse to sign it.
Why can't he be called?
Has he also been forced under the "executive privilege" blanket?"

In the King interview, Cheney said specifically that members of the Cabinet DO NOT fall under the executive privilege blanket:

"There is a strong tradition that the President of the United States is entitled to have people around him who advise him, who do not the have to go before the Congress and testify with respect to the advice they gave the president. It's different for a Cabinet member, for example. If you're Secretary of Defense, you are confirmed by the Senate, you testify before the Senate, you have some accountability to the Senate or the Congress for testimony. But when you're a senior adviser to the president, as Karl Rove has been, then you are not traditionally required to go testify before the Congress."

So, in Cheney's own words, Mr. Ashcroft is eligible to spill his guts in front of the Judiciary Committee.

I find it amusing (in the sick kind of way that stuff that Cheney says is amusing) that Cheney notes that Cabinet members have SOME accountability to the Senate or Congress. Priceless.

Of course, as the crawl below Cheney (good juxtaposition of words, eh? "crawl" and "Cheney") noted, quite a number of Clinton's advisers, who traditionally do not have to "go before the Congress and testify," did just that in front of the Republican-led Congress.

TheraP wrote on August 1, 2007 9:54 PM:

Roberta,

I'm thinking Ashcroft could be called, of course. But most pain medications, the really strong ones, are also amnesiacs. This, he may in fact recall little of that particular occasion, even though he was "able" to say "no" to the "visitors."

Just my best guess. So if Ashcroft says he does not recall the hospital visit, we can view that as accurate. He may indeed recall refusing to sign before he went to the hospital.

More importantly, what about his wife being called to testify? Now THAT would be interesting! Because she cannot be prevented under "executive privilege" and if she was present, she could tell us a lot. And I assume, under subpoena, she'd have to do that.

(I'm way behind the 8 ball here today. And likely to get "behinder" tomorrow. Glad you're on the case. If interested, put up a post of your own at the cafe.)

I fear we may still need to do analysis here - as from what I've seen elsewhere (though haven't searched thoroughly, others are getting distracted by the little details - and losing the big picture, something Anon keeps insisting we keep our eyes on. (Which may be why Anon is posting here.) Either that - or we just do our best to understand, and then keep asking good questions, which seem to focus Anon's comments.

I'm not sure this could all have been written beforehand - by Anon - given that answers generally take the questions or comments of others into consideration.

What worries me is that Congress should NOT recess.

bg wrote on August 1, 2007 10:43 PM:

"There was nothing new about it."

Austin Cooper wrote on August 1, 2007 11:48 PM:

My understanding of the sequence of events leading up to March 11, 2004, was

(A) Ashcroft had been signing off on approval of 'The Programs' (of which so-called TSP is a part) with no demur since their inception.

(B) Ashcroft passes AG authority to his deputy, Comey.

(C) I'm unclear on the precise detail -- whether the DoJ's Office Of Legal Counsel played a role, or not -- but Comey refused as acting AG to approve the Programs *as aspects of them were then set up*.

(D) A question for Ashcroft: Sir, you had approved these intelligence and surveillance activities every 45 days, like clockwork. The FISA court wasn't then involved -- only you, and the president.

What were your precise reasons for refusing to become involved in the approval on March 11th when Gonzales and Card came to your hospital room?

(My money is on Ashcroft being enough of a straight arrow to say, 'I had transferred my authority to Comey, and couldn't take it back just for this situation.' No one has asserted that lives were in danger -- that if the Programs weren't immediately authorized it would result in another 9-11.)

buddabelly wrote on August 2, 2007 1:28 AM:

(My money is on Ashcroft being enough of a straight arrow to say, 'I had transferred my authority to Comey, and couldn't take it back just for this situation.' No one has asserted that lives were in danger -- that if the Programs weren't immediately authorized it would result in another 9-11.)>

If this is the case and I could see it being true, then also if it truly was only Ashcroft in the DOJ who was involved in the prior authorizations then the attempt to have Comey sign the authorization is what broke the story. Once Comey found out it went to Mueller and thats why the resignation threats came into play then instead of earlier. This was the first anyone had heard to be able to protest.

Roberta wrote on August 2, 2007 2:30 AM:

TheraP,

I don't think ALL the posts have been written beforehand, but the short time in between some posts--ones that lay out a case or provide a kind of time line for events or processes--are pretty well organized and fairly long to be written without some preparation.

Of course, if Anon is so hip to all of these inner workings, it may just be a matter of transcription from memory to keyboard. But I can see some of the more complicated posts being written ahead of time, as if in preparation for the posting of the articles they reference. That would, indeed, be inside information.

I'll be working tomorrow, trying to stay with the big picture. Maybe I can figure out a way to do a reverse outline of some of them, to find recurring information expressed in different contexts.

Fortunately, I find this kind of thing enjoyable.

Insofar as doing my own blog, not right now. I prefer to have a virtual net.

JNagarya wrote on August 2, 2007 2:55 AM:

At least until the WH comes out and says that's not what he meant when he was explaining what he meant. He was really saying that he was talking about certain aspects of the TSP, you know the one in question. Those pesky 'other activities.'

"Terrorist Surveillance Program (i.e. the program publicly described by the president) was only an uncontroversial part."

Posted by: jak1
Date: August 1, 2007 1:03 PM

Cheney shoots friends in the face, then gets drunk.

Reliable.

wigwam wrote on August 2, 2007 2:58 AM:

Per Lord Cheney

But certainly I was involved because I was a big advocate of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and had been responsible and working with General Hayden and George Tenet to get it to the President for approval. By the time this occurred, it had already been approved about 12 times by the Department of Justice. There was nothing new about it.

Per Paul Kiel:

D'oh! So according to Cheney, the dispute was about the TSP. Too bad Cheney doesn't understand that the dispute was really about certain intelligence activities authorized by the president of which the Terrorist Surveillance Program (i.e. the program publicly described by the president) was only an uncontroversial part. Why can't he keep that straight?

Quite the opposite. Cheney says that "By the time this occurred, it had already been approved about 12 times by the Department of Justice." Thereby implying that it wasn't controversial.

wigwam wrote on August 2, 2007 2:59 AM:

Per Lord Cheney

But certainly I was involved because I was a big advocate of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and had been responsible and working with General Hayden and George Tenet to get it to the President for approval. By the time this occurred, it had already been approved about 12 times by the Department of Justice. There was nothing new about it.

Per Paul Kiel:

D'oh! So according to Cheney, the dispute was about the TSP. Too bad Cheney doesn't understand that the dispute was really about certain intelligence activities authorized by the president of which the Terrorist Surveillance Program (i.e. the program publicly described by the president) was only an uncontroversial part. Why can't he keep that straight?

Quite the opposite. Cheney says that "By the time this occurred, it had already been approved about 12 times by the Department of Justice." Thereby implying that it wasn't controversial.

Mulkum wrote on August 2, 2007 5:00 AM:

The sequence of events were this
Ashcroft and Comey agreed that it should not be signed as it stood.
Ashcroft became ill, handed authority over to Comey, had surgery.
Comey was approached and asked to sigh, he refused.
Ashcrofts wife called and said President's office contacted her, telling her people were coming over.
Comey was alerted, he contacted the FBI, raced to the hospital, got there before Gonzales and Card, asked Ashcroft to instruct FBI to keep Comey in the room.
It was the third day after surgery and Ashcroft was pretty lucid, he spelled out in detail his reasoning for refusing to sign it, as he said he had told them before his illness. He stated he was not Atty Gen at this time, he had signed it over to Comey and he would not conduct Country's business, it was Comey's job to do so.
Comey was pleasantly surprised at Ashcrofts mental ability.
Gonzales and Card left in a very perturbed state.

I have to give props to Ashcroft for standing up to the rule of law as he did (not being a GOP yesman). I believe he would testify. Also his wife was supposedly called by Bush, not Cheney.
It should be in the transcripts of the Senate testimony

Mulkum wrote on August 2, 2007 5:10 AM:

The reason it had been approved so many times before is that it had taken until this time to "vet" it, and Ashcroft and the legal staff had determined it was illegal as it was written.

Legalize wrote on August 2, 2007 9:52 AM:

My guess is that their setting Gonzo up, by contradicting him like this. They'll be able to say, "oh! Looks like the AG didn't tell the truth after all," during the recess. They'll appoint another Rove-chosen flunky to continue sullying the DOJ, and breaking the laws they enjoy breaking.

They don't care that each successive lie damages the presidency, the DOJ, and the country a little bit more each time; all they care about is running out the clock and covering their asses before they jet off to Argentina.

David Dobson wrote on August 2, 2007 10:50 AM:

First of all - nothing said on TV counts, legally.

Secondly - the trip to Ashcroft's hospital room was a failure, suggesting it was not well thought through -- a rash decision.

IMO - Bush sent them and that's what everybody is covering up, since it was such a monumentally bad idea. Further, I would suggest Bush sent them with the VP (and everyone else) advising him not to. My guess is that Cheney can dance around this all he wants to, since he actually didn't do it (plus which if he did recall, he'd be expected to recall a great deal more.); and in order to preserve any last notion the our President isn't a spoiled, arrogant, idiot child, covering it is necessary (or maybe out of loyalty, though from Cheney that would, be, well, creepy.)

Also, the implication of the visit, that there is no respect for even common decency at the white house (never mind the law or tradition) is one big fat nail in their collective coffin. But I'm not sure they get that, which may be why they are not having a problem lying about it . . . or they have no souls.

code word "fear" -- need I say more.

davcbr wrote on August 2, 2007 10:55 AM:

This guy remembers with relish, detail, and a certain dark pride in telling Leahy to go perform an impossible & unnateral act on the floor of the Senate. But "I don't recall..." WHAT A COWARD

davcbr wrote on August 2, 2007 10:56 AM:

This guy remembers with relish, detail, and a certain dark pride in telling Leahy to go perform an impossible & unnatural act on the floor of the Senate. But "I don't recall..." WHAT A COWARD

FlaLibrul wrote on August 2, 2007 12:43 PM:

Legalize said:
"My guess is that their setting Gonzo up, by contradicting him like this. They'll be able to say, "oh! Looks like the AG didn't tell the truth after all," during the recess. They'll appoint another Rove-chosen flunky to continue sullying the DOJ, and breaking the laws they enjoy breaking."

Or John Yoo is waiting in the wings, and the unitary presidential coup of the unighted states will be complete. Maybe Gonzales has been instructed to keep on doing what you're doing, cuz it's all good... just get us to the recess.