Gonzales - No Dissent On NSA Program?

Partisan Dem Senators kept Gonzalez in another news cycle by raising a frivolous question about his 2006 Senate testimony on the NSA program.  From the WaPo:

The Justice Department said yesterday that it will  not retract a sworn statement in 2006 by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that the Terrorist Surveillance Program had aroused no controversy inside the Bush administration, despite congressional testimony Tuesday that senior departmental officials nearly resigned in 2004 to protest such a program.

...

Gonzales, testifying for the first time in February 2006 about the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which involved eavesdropping on phone calls between the United States and places overseas, told two congressional committees that the program had not provoked serious disagreement involving Comey or others.

"None of the reservations dealt with the program that we are talking about today," Gonzales said then.

Four Democratic senators sent a letter to Gonzales yesterday asking, "do you stand by your 2006 Senate and House testimony, or do you wish to revise it," prompting the Justice Department's response.

The NY Times gave the Senators' letter one paragraph in a valentine to Comey:

On Wednesday, in a letter to Mr. Gonzales signed by three other Democratic senators, Mr. Schumer reminded Mr. Gonzales that he had testified last year that “there has not been any serious disagreement” about the N.S.A. program and asked about the apparent contradiction.

ThinkProgress has the letter itself; one wonders whether the Senators actually read it, since it seems to be self-refuting:

You testified last year before both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee about this incident. On February 6, 2006, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, you were asked whether Mr. Comey and others at the Justice Department had raised concerns about the NSA wiretapping program. You stated in response that the disagreement that occurred was not related to the wiretapping program confirmed by the President in December 2005, which was the topic of the hearing. …

We ask for your prompt response to the following question: In light of Mr. Comey’s testimony yesterday, do you stand by your 2006 Senate and House testimony, or do you wish to revise it?

I'll bite - to what program was Gonzalez referring when he limited his comments to "the wiretapping program confirmed by the President in December 2005"?  Was that the same program that DoJ objected to in March 2004?  Or was the objectionable March 2004 version Terrorist Surveillance Program 1.0, supplanted by Terrorist Surveillance Program 2.0 after incorporation of the DoJ objections?  Or did DoJ object to a specific operational element of TSP 1.0, which was dropped for 2.0?

It is clear from the testimony transcript that Gonzalez gave a heavily caveatted answer which Sen. Schumer found to be baffling and non-responsive:

SCHUMER: I concede all those points. Let me ask you about some specific reports.

It's been reported by multiple news outlets that the former number two man in the Justice Department, the premier terrorism prosecutor, Jim Comey, expressed grave reservations about the NSA program and at least once refused to give it his blessing. Is that true?

GONZALES: Senator, here's the response that I feel that I can give with respect to recent speculation or stories about disagreements.

There has not been any serious disagreement -- and I think this is accurate -- there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations which I cannot get into.

I will also say...

SCHUMER: But there was some -- I'm sorry to cut you off -- but there was some dissent within the administration. And Jim Comey did express, at some point -- that's all I asked you -- some reservations.

GONZALES: The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we're talking about today. They dealt with operational capabilities that we're not talking about today.

SCHUMER: I want to ask you, again, about -- we have limited time.

GONZALES: Yes, sir.

SCHUMER: It's also been reported that the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, respected lawyer and professor at Harvard Law School, expressed reservations about the program. Is that true?

GONZALES: Senator, rather than going individual by individual, let me just say that I think the differing views that have been the subject of some of these stories did not deal with the program that I'm here testifying about today.

SCHUMER: But you were telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program, is that right?

GONZALES: Senator, I want to be very careful here, because, of course, I'm here only testifying about what the president has confirmed.

And with respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you're identifying had concerns about this program.

SCHUMER: There are other reports, I'm sorry to -- you're not giving me a yes-or-no answer here. I understand that.

Schumer knew he was being smoke-screened, but they got a headline out of it, so whatever.

MORE:  This was obvious to the NY Times editors:

While testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006, Mr. Gonzales was asked if Mr. Comey had expressed reservations about the eavesdropping program. Mr. Gonzales replied, “There has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed.” By that, he must have meant the program that included modifications made after the hospital visit and after Mr. Comey’s meeting with Mr. Bush.

IN THE INTERESTS OF ACCURACY:  The over-excited Times editors say this about the NSA program and the Gonzalez hospital run:

Mr. Comey said the bizarre events in Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room were precipitated by a White House request that the Justice Department sign off on a continuation of the eavesdropping, which started in October 2001. Mr. Comey, who was acting attorney general while Mr. Ashcroft was ill, refused. Mr. Comey said his staff had reviewed the program as it was then being run and believed it was illegal.

The WaPo editors offer this:

When the attorney general refused, Mr. Gonzales apparently took part in a plan to go forward with a program that the Justice Department had refused to certify as legal.

...What was the administration doing, and what was it willing to continue to do, that its lawyers concluded was without a legal basis? Without an answer to that fundamental question, the coverup will have succeeded.

Both editorials would be more accurate (if less forceful) if they noted that the Office of Legal Counsel of the DoJ had, for the previous two and a half years, endorsed the NSA program - it was a change in the lawyers (from Yoo to Goldsmith at OLC) that precipitated this mini-drama, not a change in the program.

I will propose two thought experiments:

1.  A Wall Street firm has a reasonably complicated financing structure requiring legal opinions; a typical deal takes about two months to come together, and the firm has done twenty such deals with the blessing of their outside counsel.

Now comes the twenty-first deal, and the law firm informs the Wall Street financiers, forty-eight hours before the scheduled close, that they can't sign the legal opinion.  Has the relevant law changed?  Nooo.  Has the financing structure changed?  Nooo.  But a new partner at the law firm has looked at the structure and wants the deal tweaked slightly before he can sign off on it.

Take my word for it - there would be Hades to pay for this, and serious questions would be raised about the professionalism and timing of the law firm.  Bring the problem sooner, or bring it for the twenty-second deal, but being obstructive at the last minute is not acceptable.

Or let's try an example closer to home for the Times and WaPo editors here - suppose their law firms came to them and informed them that, although no laws had changed, a new partner was worried about some privacy issues, so the Times would have to suspend its website in 48 hours or face dire legal risks.

I promise you - blood would flow at the Times, or wherever it was they finally found tracked down the new lawyer with the new problem.

For my money, Comey's behavior was a joke - he was warned on a Thursday a week ahead of time of a problem with DoJ recertifying the NSA program, sat on the bad news for five days, then sprang it on Gonzalez on Tuesday for a recertification expected on Thursday.

OK, I'll grant that Ashcroft's unexpected illness may have muddled the process - Ashcroft may have planned to meet with Gonzalez on Friday and instead woke up in a hospital.  However, nothing in Comey's story suggested he alerted Gonzalez over the weekend or on Monday, and there is a mysterious void in the Wednesday timeline - per Comey, nothing happened all day and then that night Gonzalez rushed to the hospital.  Puzzling at best, derelict at worst.

Comments

[Other Tom]

Good God--does Schumer seriously believe there's "controversy" here? It's looking more and more like the Dems in both chambers have pretty much shot their oversight wad, and have done so to very little effect other than drastically plummeting poll numbers.

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

So either Gonzales was lying or there are multiple domestic spying programs going on.

At some point the Republican party is going to have to actually deal with the damage the Bush Administration is doing to their political future. Juxtapose the treatment of Bush cronies with career professionals within the executive branch. Alberto Gonzales has proven to be an incompetent buffoon of an Attorney General, "I don't know who put the list together, or how the names came to be on the list, but I do know the decision was right and I'd do it again"? Why does Alberto still have a job? Paul Wolfowitz, after misinterpreting and pushing the inaccurate intelligence that got us into the war in Iraq, obviously violates ethics rules in his first action at the World Bank. Why does Wolfowitz still have a job?

Carol Lam, very effective prosecutor, given a glowing letter of recommendation from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement is fired for ostensibly poor enforcement of immigration laws? I guess her career would have been safe if she could have gone on the record saying she had seen evidence of WMD development going on in 2002 Iraq.

Tom, sometimes I sense you are frustrated with many of the DC Republicans. Well, you should do something about it. You don't want them on your side, because they aren't helping. We all would be better off with a Republican Party that could actually present a credible argument. Right now the Republicans are littered with big egos that lack a thimbleful of credibility. The longer the congressional Republicans maintain their ostrich like posture regarding Gonzales the more morally and intellectually bankrupt they appear. While I have fun mocking Republicans that defend Gonzales, I am truly distressed at how far the party has fallen in the last six years. Somebody needs to do something to fix the problem. Maybe you should get Joe Lieberman to switch parties so he could become the Republican "conscience".

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

"Good God--does Schumer seriously believe there's "controversy" here?"

I don't see much controversy, just another confirmation of Gonzales' mendacity. Why should anyone expect the Attorney General to have any integrity?

[Other Tom]

I think Gonzales is a fool, and he wouldn't be anywhere near Washington if he weren't a Hispanic Texan. But if I understand what has happened here, he testified truthfully about the program that the president had authorized by the time of his testimony, and that seems pretty clear from the transcript. Schumer was seeking, but didn't get, an acknowledgement that there was disagreement about the earlier program.

As to Wolfowitz, it believe it is malicious falsehood to assert that he committed any ethical violation at the World Bank, and it is just "ordinary" falsehood to accuse him of misrepresenting the intelligence regarding Iraq. That one has been investigated by two separate bipartisan commissions and found to be without merit.

[clarice]

Tom, that is just BRILLIANT work!.

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

"Good God--does Schumer seriously believe there's "controversy" here?"

Either Gonzales was lying or there was at least one other domestic spying program going on. And the DoJ had decided that at least one domestic spying program was operating outside the letter of the law.

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

"I think Gonzales is a fool, and he wouldn't be anywhere near Washington if he weren't a Hispanic Texan."

Gonzales wouldn't be AG if Bush didn't expect him to place personal loyalty above professional responsibilty. Gonzales will remain AG because the confirmation process for another AG is far too dangerous to be undertaken by a corrupt administration. This is the box Bush has put the Republican party in.

"As to Wolfowitz, it believe it is malicious falsehood to assert that he committed any ethical violation at the World Bank"

You give your girlfriend a $50,000 raise of your bosses' money, without jumping through every hoop, even the ones you aren't sure you have to. You make an extra effort. Because if you don't it smells to high heaven. Why didn't Wolfie bring it to the board in the first place to ensure this wouldn't happen? That 50 grand was to offset the disruption to her career? Yeah, that's the ticket..... Put your head back in the sand Tom. The truth is too scary for you.

[clarice]

Proves what I've suspected Looking--you are someone who can't read.

[Enlightened]

“So either Gonzales was lying or there are multiple domestic spying programs going on.”

Prove Gonzales was lying - something the Dems have yet to accomplish through their laughable committee hearings – OR – prove there were other spying programs going on. Suggesting it does not make it fact, although I know that is how leftwing Dems feed their paranoia.

“At some point the Republican party is going to have to actually deal with the damage the Bush Administration is doing to their political future”

Hilarious. I am assuming you think the Dems have a political future? Since you drool over polls I suggest you take a look at how your 110th Congress is doing.

“Alberto Gonzales may just be a buffoon.”

Buffoonery seems rampant in DC right now. Schumer. Reid. Feinstein (The most corrupt politician still seated) Pelosi. Durbin. Let’s fire them all. Buffoonery does not a liar make – or does it? Let’s start with Feinstein.

“Why does Wolfowitz still have a job?”

Because contrary to your paranoiac rantings – he has committed no crime. Another alleged scandal blowing in the wind.

“Carol Lam, very effective prosecutor.”

Yes, isn’t she something. Kind of makes you wonder why the Dems have dropped her like a IED in the USA kerfuffle.

“Right now the Republicans are littered with big egos that lack a thimbleful of credibility.”

Priceless. Perhaps you need to follow the goings on more carefully. Madame Speaker has zero credibility and is fast approaching a negative rating. Charles Schumer? Credible? Dick Durbin? Jack Murtha? DIANNE FEINSTEIN? Get your thimble, it might take years to fill it with Democrat credibility. On the other hand, keep your dump truck at the ready. The loads of s—t emanating from the 110th Congress is going to require truckloads.

“the more morally and intellectually bankrupt they appear.”

Well, appearances can be deceiving. Especially to a paranoid schizophrenic.

[Enlightened]

Oh brother - The idiots have been given their talking points for the day and are out making their blogswarms.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[Sue]

Well...I think McCain has decided he isn't going to win anyway...

[Jane]

OT (because my tolerance for idiocy is at an all time low) did everyone see this great Thompson response to Michael Moore?

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=611

[clarice]

Jane, I just read it got more viewers than the Republican debate.

[Enlightened]

Right on schedule Asshats Schumer and Feinstein want a No Confidence vote on Gonzales.

Ho Hum. ZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

[Enlightened]

Now if you want to talk asshole GOP'ers - let's talk about the immigration bill just passed.

They did not listen to their constituents. Here in California - that is a very big deal.

[Jane]

I just read it got more viewers than the Republican debate.

Wow. I guess I'm odd in that I like debates. I'm always interested in how the candidates handle themselves. The most interesting thing about the debates this year is the left's refusal to let Fox moderate, because their apparent goal is to spend the entire campaign season saying absolutely nothing.

[topsecretk9]

At some point the Republican party is going to have to actually deal with the damage the Bush Administration is doing to their political future.

Oh, I think the Dem Congress is doing splendid work on that front - but there is 29% still on board!

(BTW - those poll numbers must have been crushing to the Dem poll mongers)

[Appalled Moderate]

I'm not sure which is worse here. The Dem's being obsessed about convicting Gonzalez of jaywalking after fleeing his attempted bank robbery, or TM's attempt to defend Gonzalez on that charge of jaywalking.

FYI

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A lawyer for Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday that Valerie Plame ‘s lawsuit stemming from the exposure of her CIA identity is filled with "fanciful claims."

Lawyers for Cheney, Karl Rove and two others belittled Plame‘s suit, saying it should be thrown out of court.

Her lawsuit is "principally based on a desire for publicity and book deals," said Michael Waldman, representing former State Department official Richard Armitage...

I do find quite amusing that it is Armitage's lawyer getting all the quoted jabs.

http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=111200

[topsecretk9]

too funny! Another one bites the dust!

To avoid a showdown with the Senate Judiciary Committee, this afternoon the Justice Department finally turned over all the e-mails it has in possession that were sent or received by White House consigliere Karl Rove.

So, after all the sturm und drang of the past few months, what are the results? Pretty weak—only two e-mails sent to KRgeorgewbush.com, Rove's political account.

Both sent on the same day, February 28, 2007, they are from White House aide Jeffrey S. Jennings and include news articles about the burgeoning scandal over the fired U.S. attorneys.

Who previously got a peek at Rove's e-mails? Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney who prosecuted the leak of Valerie Plame's name. But it turns out that Fitzgerald, ever the uptight prosecutor, only looked for documents that related to his investigation and didn't delve into the Dark Knight's catalog of horrors.

"Mr. Fitzgerald noted that his office did not obtain all of Mr. Rove's e-mails, but rather obtained access to his electronic media for the purpose of searching for documents responsive to search terms relevant to his investigation," writes Richard A. Hertling,

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General. "Only records responsive to Mr. Fitzgerald's investigative search terms were retained by his office and none of those records are responsive to the committee's subpoena. The electronic media was returned to Mr. Rove's counsel, Mr. Robert Luskin, in a sealed condition."

ps. didn't you sort of see this coming?

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/05/to-avoid-a-showdown-with.php

[Enlightened]

But.But.But I thought Greg Palast has Rove's emails?

Here is a superb example of paranoid schizophrenia. If you can even stick with the alleged interview, scroll on down to the comments too.

God lord in heaven. This is what's on the other side folks -

http://www.gregpalast.com/amy-goodman-and-greg-palast-moms-day-broadcast/#more-1729

[Enlightened]

I just went back to that site. I think it is the all time leader in fever swamps. It's a cesspool.

There are no words to describe them. It's astonishing.

[gmax]

Right on schedule Asshats Schumer and Feinstein want a No Confidence vote on Gonzales.

Do you think these self absorbed maroons understand that they themselves have received a strong vote of NO CONFIDENCE in the voting public giving them a 29% approval rating? Maybe try legislating instead of investigating and grandstanding? Might have a positive impact on the numbers, god knows they could use it.

[Enlightened]

Re: Ashcroft Hospital visit - why does the left embellish this by insinuating Ashcroft was on his death bed?

No wait. Don't answer that. Coming from the Left explains it.

[topsecretk9]

Somewhere, Jason Leopold is having a party
____________________

Waas Watching [Stephen Spruiell]
Washington City Paper has just posted a long profile of National Journal's Murray Waas, the reporter whose "scoops" on the Valerie Plame affair routinely provided fodder for left-wing-blogger conspiracy theories. The profile stirred controversy before it even came out when Waas publicly complained that reporters treated him unfairly. It's no wonder that Waas was upset. The profile's authors report that key aspects of many Waas articles can't be confirmed by anyone, including some of DC's top investigative reporters. For instance:

Buried deep in the series, however, was perhaps its most explosive allegation—that South Africa in 1982 “was able to obtain a sizeable secret interest in the Washington Times.” In the piece, Waas suggests that the arrangement is so secret that it could never be verified. [...]

In 1985, Waas published the same allegations in the National Reporter, another obscure outlet.

The allegations got the attention of the Washington Post. Jim Hoagland, a South Africa expert who served as the paper’s top foreign editor at the time of Waas’ stories, dispatched staffer Michael Isikoff to look into the piece and possibly write a follow-up in the Post.

Isikoff (now at Newsweek) met with Waas to vet the sourcing behind the funding claims. After spending “a lot of time” with Waas on the matter, Isikoff moved on to other projects. “I couldn’t confirm any aspect of it,” says Isikoff.

As for Waas's Plame reporting, the profile's authors write, "a close look at Waas’ reporting yields few giant things. In fact, his stories often feature lame “revelations” surrounded by a great deal of rehashed reporting."

05/17 12:09 PM

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWEzYWRhNWQxMzg2M2I0NDVmODQzOGRkMDhkOTBiOTA=
--------

The last sentence, sounds like they read TM!

[seamus]

Gonzales is such an incompetant hack. The perfect man for Bush. The no-confidence vote is the least the Senate can do. Maybe up to 10 Repubs will vote for no-confidence too. They will try to shame Gonzales to step down. But the corruption of the Justice department is so pervasive, Bush can't afford to lose his flunky.
I really am surprised more Republicans aren't jumping ship. The Dems need to keep the drumbeat of investigation going til the next election. One party rule has really, really been bad for us all around.

[topsecretk9]

here is another bit from the Waas piece

...In March 2006 columnist Dan Froomkin, author of a Washingtonpost.com blog called “White House Watch,” shined the spotlight on Waas in a column titled “A Compelling Story.” He wrote: “Slowly but surely, investigative reporter Murray Waas has been putting together a compelling narrative about how President Bush and his top aides contrived their bogus case for war in Iraq; how they succeeded in keeping charges of deception from becoming a major issue in the 2004 election; and how they continue to keep most of the press off the trail to this day.”...

...Yet there’s a hole in the story of Waas’ ascent to heroism. Froomkin mentioned it in the column that arguably started the bandwagon rolling, concluding, “Waas’ fellow reporters at major news operations should either acknowledge and try to follow up his stories—or debunk them. It’s not okay to just leave them hanging out there. They’re too important.”

Whether Froomkin knows it or not, many major news operations do vet Waas’ pieces. “We look at them to see if there’s new information and see if the new information is of a nature that we want to write about it ourselves,” says Philip Taubman, former Washington bureau chief for the New York Times. But the majors aren’t often able to advance Waas’ reporting. A shared experience among Washington correspondents is following up a Waas story and coming away empty-handed.

Perhaps Waas has simply developed sources and unearthed scoops that his competitors have never been able to get. But there’s another way to look at it—namely, that many of Waas’ stories fail to pan out, and many offer less than meets the eye.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=1532

[Enlightened]

"But there’s another way to look at it—namely, that many of Waas’ stories fail to pan out, and many offer less than meets the eye."

The Leftwing Motto.

No one ever said the stories had to be factual. If you are busted, you just say you got in front of the news cycle and move on to the next wet-dream scoop.

Now I know why their sites always feel so - boogery.

[Enlightened]

2.5 Trillion Amnesty bill

Bravo 110th Congress

[PeterUK.]

"The Dems need to keep the drumbeat of investigation going til the next election. One party rule has really, really been bad for us all around.!

So you are sincerely hoping no party gets a majority next time round?

[anduril]

Tom, that is just BRILLIANT work!.

Posted by: clarice | May 17, 2007 at 02:19 PM

Tom, I'll second that: the analogy is brilliant. But here's my problem--see if you can help me. You say:

Now comes the twenty-first deal, and the law firm informs the Wall Street financiers, forty-eight hours before the scheduled close, that they can't sign the legal opinion. Has the relevant law changed? Nooo. Has the financing structure changed? Nooo. But a new partner at he law firm has looked at the structure and wants the deal tweaked slightly before he can sign off on it.

Fair enough: Comey was new to his job as DAG, as was Jack Goldsmith at OLC. But take a decko at their curricula vitae: they may be "new partners" but they certainly weren't new kids on the block in any sense that the legal profession would understand.

Here's Comey, per Wikipedia:

James B. Comey was Deputy Attorney General of the United States, serving in President George W. Bush's administration. As Deputy Attorney General, Comey was the second-highest ranking official in the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and ran the day-to-day operations of the Department. He was appointed to the position after serving as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. In December 2003, as Deputy Attorney General, Comey appointed the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, close friend and former colleague Patrick Fitzgerald, as Special Counsel to head the CIA leak grand jury investigation after Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself. In August 2005, Comey left the DOJ and he is now General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin.

Education

Comey graduated from the College of William and Mary in 1982, majoring in chemistry and religion. His senior thesis analyzed the liberal theologian Reinhold Niebuhr and the conservative televangelist Jerry Falwell, emphasizing their common belief in public action.

He then attended the University of Chicago Law School, graduating in 1985.

Career, 1985-2005

After law school, Comey served as a law clerk for then-United States District Judge John M. Walker, Jr. in Manhattan. Then, he was an associate for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in their New York Office. He next joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, where he worked from 1987 to 1993. While there, he served as Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

From 1996 through 2001, Comey served as Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney in charge of the Richmond Division of the United States Attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia. He then was the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, from January 2002 to the time of his confirmation as Deputy Attorney General.

After leaving public office

In April 2005, Comey announced that he was leaving the Department of Justice in the fall. In August 2005, Comey was appointed as General Counsel and a Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin. He and his wife Patrice are the parents of five children.

Goldsmith's Wikipedia entry is pretty sparse:

Jack Goldsmith is a Harvard Law professor who has written a number of texts on topics in international law and regarding the Internet. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney General in 2003 and 2004.

although the fact that he's a professor at Harvard Law and writes textbooks gives you a clue as to his standing in the legal community.

Here's a slightly fuller curriculum vitae for Goldsmith:

Prior to being nominated to his current post by President Bush in April 2003, Mr. Goldsmith served as Special Counsel to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense. At the time of his nomination, he had accepted a position at the University of Virginia Law School, and had been on leave from the University of Chicago Law School. He earned his first bachelor's degree from Washington & Lee University and a second bachelor's degree from Oxford University. Mr. Goldsmith received his master's degree also from Oxford University and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He went on to earn his Diploma in Private International Law from The Hague Academy of International Law.

OK, I think you get the picture. These guys didn't become "new partners" because their dads did a lot of business with the firm or their dads were already partners. They knew what they were doing. Therefore, to say that what they did was "Puzzling at best, derelict at worst," doesn't quite fit the bill. I can't say that I'm really puzzled at what they did, and I do think it's a lot worse than dereliction. Anyway.

Here's some notes I put together for a friend this morning. Perhaps some of you will be entertained by the way Comey and Goldsmith's careers and actions at DoJ dovetailed, and how Comey was involved with several other matters, all of them highly detrimental to the Bush Administration. They're notes, and a bit rough, but here goes:

Summer 2003 -- Yoo leaves OLC to teach.

Per Newsweek: Addington and Gonzales had both wanted to make Yoo head of the OLC when Bybee went off to take a federal judgeship in March 2003, but Attorney General John Ashcroft balked. Ashcroft's reasons were apparently bureaucratic. (He declined to speak for this story.) According to colleagues, he resented Yoo's going behind his back to give the White House a private pipeline into the OLC. Yoo denied circumventing Ashcroft. "OLC kept the attorney general or his staff fully informed of all of its work in the war on terrorism," he said.

Jack Goldsmith becomes head of OLC.

July 14, 2003 -- Robert Novak, in his syndicated commentary, reveals that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA operative. November,ak attributes the information to "two senior administration officials."

September 28, 2003 -- CIA Director George J. Tenet calls on the Justice Department to investigate the leak.

September 30, 2003 -- The Justice Department launches a full criminal investigation into the leaking of Plame's name.

Oct 1, 2003 -- "[Richard] Armitage was up at 4 a.m. for a predawn workout when he read a second article by Mr. Novak in which he described his primary source for his earlier column about Ms. Wilson as "no partisan gunslinger." Mr. Armitage realized with alarm that that could only be a reference to him, according to people familiar with his role. He waited until Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, an old friend, was awake, then telephoned him. They discussed the matter with the top State Department lawyer, William H. Taft IV. Mr. Armitage had prepared a resignation letter, his associates said. But he stayed on the job because State Department officials advised that his sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in the leak, the people aware of his actions said. Later, Mr. Taft spoke with the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, now the attorney general, and advised him that Mr. Armitage was going to speak with lawyers at the Justice Department about the matter, the people familiar with Mr. Armitage's actions said. Mr. Taft asked Mr. Gonzales whether he wanted to be told the details and was told that he did not want to know." [Johnston, NYT]

Oct 2, 2003 -- "One day later, Justice Department investigators interviewed Mr. Armitage at his office. He resigned in November 2004, but remained a subject of the inquiry until this February when the prosecutor advised him in a letter that he would not be charged." [Johnston, NYT]

"October 3, 2003 -- President Bush nominated Jim Comey to serve as Deputy Attorney General. Richard Armitage and Colin Powell inform DoJ and FBI that Armitage was Novak's source re Plame. DoS Counsel gives WH Counsel Gonzalez a "general" briefing.

"Christopher Wray, former U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division chief, handpicked the Washington prosecutors prior to the appointment of the special counsel, says a former Justice Department official familiar with the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity. [Wray resigned on FEBRUARY 28, 2005] John Dion, head of the department's counterespionage section, who led the charge until Fitzgerald -- the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois -- came on board as special counsel in December 2003. ["Dion cut that sweet deal with Sandy Berger."] "Legion of lawyers"

October 24, 2003 -- FBI agents begin interviewing White House administration officials about the leak.

Christopher Wray, former U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division chief, handpicked the Washington prosecutors prior to the appointment of the special counsel, says a former Justice Department official familiar with the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity. John Dion, head of the department's counterespionage section, who led the charge until Fitzgerald -- the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois -- came on board as special counsel in December 2003.

October, 2003 -- Goldsmith begins to review all the war on terror memos that OLC had generated up to that point. Goldsmith "took the position that the so-called Fourth Geneva Convention--which bars the use of physical or moral coercion on prisoners held in a militarily occupied country--applied to all Iraqis, even if they were suspected of belonging to Al Qaeda." [Newsweek]

December 9, 2003 -- Comey unanimously confirmed as Deputy AG, President signs commission on December 11, 2003. Nomination was strongly supported by Chuck Schumer.

December 2003 -- "Goldsmith informed the Defense Department that Yoo's March 2003 torture memo was "under review" and could no longer be relied upon." [Newsweek]

December 30, 2003 -- Attorney General John Ashcroft recuses himself from the leak investigation and Deputy AG Comey appointed the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, close friend and former colleague Patrick J. Fitzgerald, as Special Counsel to take over the probe.

"When Fitzgerald took over the reins of the investigation, Dion remained on the team, as did Ron Roos, Dion's deputy, and Bruce Swartz, deputy assistant attorney general of the Criminal Division at Main Justice.

Swartz is second-in-charge in the leak investigation, says Samborn, and he's been "hands-on" throughout the case. Prominent among both politicians and law enforcement officials in Washington, Swartz frequently testifies at congressional hearings on national security matters. The former DOJ official says Swartz often travels abroad and serves as a sort of diplomat for the department with international counterparts."

Jan-Feb 2004 -- A federal grand jury questions White House administration officials

2004 -- Baker warned Kollar-Kotelly he had a problem with the tagging system. He had concluded that the NSA was not providing him with a complete and updated list of the people it had monitored, so Justice could not definitively know -- and could not alert the court -- if it was seeking FISA warrants for people already spied on, government officials said. Kollar-Kotelly complained to then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, and her concerns led to a temporary suspension of the program. The judge required that high-level Justice officials certify the information was complete -- or face possible perjury charges. (WaPo)

March 2004 -- "John Ashcroft was in the hospital with a serious pancreatic condition. At Justice, Comey, Ashcroft's No. 2, was acting as attorney general. ... Goldsmith raised with Comey serious questions about the secret [NSA] eavesdropping program, according to two sources familiar with the episode. He was joined by a former OLC lawyer, Patrick Philbin, who had become national-security aide to the Deputy AG. Comey backed them up. The White House was told: no reauthorization. [Newsweek]

"A compromise was finally worked out. The NSA was not compelled to go to the secret FISA court to get warrants, but Justice imposed tougher legal standards before permitting eavesdropping on communications into the United States." [Newsweek]

[This whole episode--wouldn't Baker have been in close touch with Goldsmith and Comey? Was this a case of all three collaborating with Kollar-Kotelly for an end they all agreed upon? It may have been that Comey and Goldsmith actually OKed Baker going to Kollar-Kotelly so that they would have extra ammunition to force suspension of NSA program. The Newsweek account shows that they all saw eye to eye.]

June 2004 -- "...the crisis came to a head when the torture memo leaked to The Washington Post. ... He [Goldsmith] told Ashcroft that he was formally withdrawing the August 2002 torture memo. With some prodding from Comey, Ashcroft again backed his DOJ lawyers--though he was not happy to engage in another battle with the White House. Comey, with Goldsmith and Philbin at his side, held a not-for-attribution background briefing to announce that the Justice Department was disavowing the August 2002 torture memo. At the same time, White House officials held their own press conference, in part to counter what they saw as Comey's grandstanding. A fierce behind-the-scenes bureaucratic fight dragged on... [Newsweek]

June 17, 2004 -- AG Ashcroft announces the resignation of Goldsmith, Assistant AG for the OLC. Goldsmith’s resignation is effective July 30, 2004

[gmax]

But the majors aren’t often able to advance Waas’ reporting.

Isn't that a mealy mouthed comment. Why dont they just say he makes **** up? Not that its a surprise to anyone who reads here even semiregularly.

[seamus]

I think we benefit from a divided government with real oversight. It made life harder for Reagan and Clinton, but in the final analysis better for the U.S. Bush has been unmitigated disaster partly because his own party blindly followed him over the cliff. The Dems are doing their job. Hopefully Repubs will do the same. Neither Dems or Repubs can be trusted with the keys to the kingdom. Corruption, hubris and incompetance is bi-partisan.

[hoosierhoops]

RE: Wiretapping
Have you ever called tech support and got the following message? ' This call may be monitored for quality control or for training purposes' something to that effect..
Well lets make this real easy..Anytime you call the middle east from the USA a voice should come on the line explaining that your call may be monitored.
Should have put that into the patriot act.
See..no secret wire tapping going on..you will be monitored during a time of war..
Gosh that was easy...

[Enlightened]

Except that the war is a Global War on Terrorism, not a War on the Middle East.

So every call made from America to any overseas location must have the recording that it may be monitored for terrorism.

[maryrose]

Schumer on Hardball as we speak. I don't know if I can watch so you don't have to. Every time I see his face I want to smack him upside the head.

[hoosierhoops]

Enlightened:
I guess you're just going to have to take away my easy button....

[Enlightened]

Oh gawd. Plame civil Suit going forward.

Visualizing more slobber dripping from Chris Mathews chin.

[clarice]

I want to see Schumer and Reid and Waxman and Pelosi on tv 24/7.

[PeterUK.]

Clarice,
"I want to see Schumer and Reid and Waxman and Pelosi on tv 24/7."
Should be easy,so do they.

[Enlightened]

Ok maybe premature on Plame Civil Suit. No one reporting that - just some leftwing maroon at AJ's place.

[topsecretk9]

Oh gawd. Plame civil Suit going forward.

What you talking about Willis? Or are you imaging what it would be like?

[Enlightened]

I was practicing leftwingism. I might need to "blend" at some future date. :o)

[clarice]

He lied, enlightened. The judge took it under advisement.

[lurker9876]

You sure that the Plame civil suit going forward?

Just read that Judge Bates will take several weeks to make his decision. Bates was not convinced by either side.

[Enlightened]

You sure that the Plame civil suit going forward?

I'm sure that I was zinged by a leftwing maroon at AJ's. He said it, oddly he sounds very Leopoldish.

I mea culpa'd a couple posts later....

[lurker9876]

Ah, I see....Clarice provided a link disproving sooth-copperhead.

[lurker9876]

And is Wolfowitz's position still intact as of today?

[lurker9876]

Ridiculous!!

At least Bush can refer to that particular amendment (also a violation of the US Constitution) next time the Democrats blame him for NOT planning contigencies against Iran!!

[lurker9876]

Ridiculous!!

At least Bush can refer to that particular amendment (also a violation of the US Constitution) next time the Democrats blame him for NOT planning contigencies against Iran!!