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!!

[lurker9876]

Looks like Wolfowitz is going to resign on June 30th.

[clarice]

Here are his and the Bank's letters upon his resignation (effective June 30)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/05/world_bank_and_wolfowitz_offic.html

[Other Tom]

In evaluating the scope of Gonzales's incompetence, a useful benchmark would be the deaths of 84 innocent people, many of them women and children, at the hands of the estimable Janet Reno. Thus far the only blood on Alberto's hands is his own.

As for "no confidence" votes, I think these folks have been out of power too long. That is a parliamentary procedure that has no place in the US congress. It reinforces my notion that the Dems, having been in power for all of four months, have accomplished absolutely nothing, and have run out of ideas. It's becoming a very enjoyable cartoon.

[clarice]

Here's obviously why Paul held out until June 30--that is the last day to approve new projects for this fiscal year--so he will still be able to stem the flow of garbage loans for this year.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4064136a13.html

[topsecretk9]

You think this conjured up visions of the Vanity Fair spread with the judge when Erwin said this?

"This isn't a case where the government said mean things about Mr. Wilson. This is about revealing the secret status of his wife to punish Mr. Wilson, " Chemerinsky said. "In the end, this is egregious conduct that ruined a woman's career and put a family in danger."

Bates, who expressed doubts about arguments on both sides, said he will rule on whether to dismiss the case in coming weeks.

[JM Hanes]

anduril:

In re Goldsmith: "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."

In trying to track down a related memo, I came across a Boston Globe article on Goldsmith's appointment at Harvard. He was, in fact, a controversial hire -- most notably among faculty members themselves. I'm afraid I haven't been following the hearings very closely myself, but has Goldsmith testified in these proceedings? I'm also almost embarassed to ask if Gooding has made an appearance yet too?

I'm not sure if Goldsmith authored the memo I've been looking for, but I seem to recall an opinion solicited by Comey from a source outside the Justice Dept. itself which got considerable play in the blogosphere. I can't remember whether it was addressing the Yoo memo, or the legal case for pre-emptive war, or a related topic of some sort, but as I recall, there were questions were about the propriety/protocol/politics of Comey essentially operating off the reservation. Ironically, it was Comey's own complaint about the attempt to circumvent his authority which brought the earlier memo to mind.

Is this ringing a bell with anyone else?

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

heheheheh

OT doesn't get it. There are more than 20 Republican Senators up for re-election in '08. So while there is technically no "no confidence" procedure in the US, a resolution regarding the fitness of Alberto to continue in his position offers a means for the Democrats to split Republicans in the senate from the President. One small step after another to drag the Republicans back to reality.

[anduril]

JM Hanes:

Yes, I recall that Goldsmith was a controversial hire, because of his association with the Bush DoJ and especially with the legal aspects of the GWOT--the articles I read while compiling my notes made that very clear (Newsweek? New Yorker?). I think I heard he had some 'splainin' to do to establish himself as a member of the human race in good standing. Having worked for John Ashcroft isn't normally something that the Harvard Law faculty considers a positive credential.

I have a very lengthy article that Goldsmith published once he got to Harvard in which he engages Yoo in debate over many of the issues that Yoo raised in "The Powers of War and Peace," but civilly I believe. However, I haven't gotten around to reading it (as so many other things). Don't know if that's what you had in mind. I've not heard of Goldsmith testifying in these hearings, nor Gooding.

If you can locate that memo, or an account of it, I'd be interested to hear more about it.

[clarice]

JMH It rings a bell with me though I cannot recall the topic of the article.
We haven't had another attacks because guys like Bolton and Libby and Addington did their best to make the laws meet the exigent circumstances not to poseurs like Comey and Schumer.

[clarice]

Here--"The Torture Papers"

http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=cache:TrnlCbGfWC8J:assets.cambridge.org/052185/3249/frontmatter/0521853249_frontmatter.pdf+Jack+L.+Goldsmith+III,+March+19,+2004+Memo>Goldsmith

[Other Tom]

Gee, Looking, why didn't I think of that? It's November of 2008--more than seventeen months from now--and the challenger to an incumbent Republican senator says, "remember, this guy didn't vote for the no-confidence resolution against Alberto Gonzales!" That oughta do it, all right--that incumbent is toast.

Meantime, there's this:

"A German citizen of Lebanese descent who claims he was kidnapped by the CIA and tortured in an Afghanistan prison was arrested Thursday in Germany on suspicion of arson, police said.

"Khaled el-Masri, 43, was taken into custody after a fire caused major damage to a wholesale market in the southern German town of Neu-Ulm during the night, a police spokesman said.

"A statement by the police said el-Masri was 'under urgent suspicions of setting fire' at the entrance of a wholesale market after having destroyed the glass door.

"A judge ordered that el-Masri be held in the psychiatric ward of a local hospital pending investigations into the blaze, which caused damage worth 500,000 euros ($675,000).

"Masri's lawyer, Manfred Gnjidic, said Thursday that his client's
act had been a gesture of despair after a dispute with the store
concerned had got out of hand."

They shoulda tortured him a bit more.

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

"We haven't had another attacks because guys like Bolton and Libby and Addington did their best to make the laws meet the exigent circumstances not to poseurs like Comey and Schumer."

Bolton, Libby and Addington, the pantheon of the modern Republican. Bolton couldn't even get confirmed when the Republicans controlled the Senate and Libby is a convicted felon. Do you have to dig to get your head that deep in the ground or is it sharp enough that all you have to do is push?

Some former members of this administration maintain that if Clinton had been in office during the summer of 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented. Where were Bolton, Libby and Addington then?

[JM Hanes]

It strikes me that Comey was doing precisely the same thing that he & everyone else seem to be excoriating Gonzales & Card for doing: He was unceremoniously racing to the hospital in order to exert his own influence on the ailing Ashcroft.

[Enlightened]

"that if Clinton had been in office during the summer of 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented."

Yeah we know, Slick Willie would have secreted OBL in the WH hallway and passed him a little cigar love under those flowing robes in return for OBL promising not to attack the US.

That is great foreign policy I tell ya.

[Other Tom]

"Some former members of this administration maintain that if Clinton had been in office during the summer of 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented."

They do? Who are they? What evidence do they cite? Has Clinton himself ever made this claim?

Libby is indeed a convicted felon. Clinton and his national security advisor (who pleaded guilty to avoid prosecution for a felony)have been disbarred. And then there's Henry Cisneros. And Hazel O'Leary. And Joycelyn Elders. And Janet Reno. And there's Kimba Wood and Lani Gueniere, who couldn't get confirmed even when the Dems controlled the Senate. And then there's Hillarycare, which was never even submitted to the Democratic congress.

Oh, those were the days, all right. Undeclared warfare in the Balkans, no UN approval, the troops still there in that quagmire, cruise missiles at the aspirin factory in Sudan. A real laff riot. But if only he'd still been in office, 9/11 would never have happened. WTCI happened, Khobar Towers happened, the African embassies happened, USS Cole happened, but 9/11? No way that would have happened; bin Laden was just too afraid.

[Enlightened]

Yep - poor little Comey didn't like it when he wasn't handed the AG position.

And now we see what happens when you reduce a puffed up wannabe to a "low level operative".....Comey can discuss with Mr. Val Plame on how to handle that stress.

Oh wait - looks like he already did! Same old song and dance, new players, new scandal.

Still ain't got Rove, Cheney, Bush....and the Democrats look more and more like Cat/Dog every minute.

[Other Tom]

I almost forgot--you want a stellar UN Ambassador, you gotta look to the likes of Madeleine Albright and Bill Richardson. Now there's a pair the country can be proud of. In the pantheon with the likes of Andrew Young.

[Other Tom]

Where you been, Enlightened? Didn't you know that Rove was secretly indicted on May 13, 2006?

[Enlightened]

Oopsy - OT stop that. Reality Bites dontcha know?

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

They do? Who are they?

Clarke and Tenent. Both were dismayed at how cavalierly Bush reacted to the threat assessments in the Summer of '01. Never forget that PDB where Bush responds to the briefer, "well now you've covered your ass".

[Enlightened]

Clarke and Tenet?????????????

OMG somebody stop me.

[Other Tom]

Neither Clarke nor Tenent [sic] has ever made the claim you falsely attributed to them.

It is quite weaselly, and borderline dishonest, to characterize either man as a "former member of this administration" when, as you well know, Tenet was appointed by Clinton, and Clarke was a 30-year careerist. In so characterizing them, you sought to create the impression that Bush had somehow personally plucked them out of anonymity and appointed them to carry out his policies. You further asserted, quite falsely, that they now contend that Clinton would have prevented the attacks of 9/11. (This is what is known as "lying.")

It would be just as forthright to identify Aldrich Ames as a "former member of the Clinton administration."

The Left has any number of points it can effectively raise aginst this administration. When it trots out dishonest fools to make its case, it does itself no good at all.

[clarice]

JMH, I'd never try to pull a fast one on you. (Or OT for that matter.) Jeff maybe --when he's in his cups and feeling all cynical.

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

Clarke and Tenet?????????????

OMG somebody stop me.

Posted by: Enlightened | May 17, 2007 at 08:12 PM

Do your worst. Tenent rates below ground floor in my book. But the facts indicate a grave concern within the National Security aparatus about a pending attack during the Summer of '01, yet absolutely nothing was done, nothing. If you want to credit Bolton, Libby and Addington for nothing happening since lets not forget that 9/11 happened on their watch. So while Clarice can feel all warm and fuzzy about having such men in the government, I'll remember the entire story.

[Enlightened]

Funny - you didn't respond to OT's specific questions -

Please provide the statements that Tenet and Clarke made that indicate they said 9/11 would not have happened had Clinton still been in office in the summer of 2001.

Did you read Al Frankens book about Lying Liars? Just asking.

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

Didn't the Clinton Administration clean up that Aldrich Ames mess? How did that end? Some people take their responsibilities seriously, others.... not so much. Where you gonna be in August? Where's ol GWB gonna be?

[clarice]

With the kind of intelligence they were getting it's no surprse.

[Enlightened]

You are not worthy of another response - you live by the leftwing credo of news before the cycle and facts not in evidence.

Time to take your ball and go play elsewhere.

[Other Tom]

Looking for a Way Out, you made a false and dishonest assertion and you got caught. You have no credibility here.

Where am I gonna be in August? Italy. And?

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

Just for you enlightened. What was the title of the PDB? Bin Laden Determined to Attack within the US. What about Tenet's powerpoint presentation he rushed to give to Condi? Those things happened, geez. Remember the 9/11 committee? People were ringing the warning bells but the President and his National Security chief had other priorities, which according to Paul O'Neil, included Iraq at the top of the list.

[Enlightened]

The statements you attributed to Tenet and Clarke -

Link it just for me.

Anything else is just your pathetic attempts to dodge explaining your apparent lies.

[Sara]

Looking_For_a_Way_out -- I am curious. What is it about the NannyState politics of the left that you find so attractive? Why do you personally support a group who wants to control every aspect of your life from how fast you can drive, what you can drive, where you should be allowed to live, what values you should hold dear, and even how many squares of toilet paper you are allowed to use? I just don't get the appeal of the left's politics in a society a free as America's.

You complain about policies and laws that are designed to protect us from enemies bent on destroying us, yet you do not seem at all concerned about the whole NannyState mindset that demands that you give up any form of religion, who want to take away all rights of parents to decide for their children, who want to take away any way for you to defend yourself against them when they go to far, who celebrate the deaths of those they consider the enemy meaning conservatives and Republicans and glorify our sworn enemies as nothing but freedom fighters? Could you explain?

[JM Hanes]

andruil & Clarice:

Unless Goldsmith was providing opinions before he signed on at Justice, I think it must have been someone else, because the author's unofficial "outsider" status was a salient part of the story. Maybe more details will occur to me if I give it a rest over night. What's bizarre is that I can actually picture the formatting (but alas, not the name) of the blog where the PDF pages were posted.

Thanks for the Goldsmith link in any case. It's a useful compendium on its own. As a total aside, I was interested to note that Greenburg, the anthologist, was Executive Director of the Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law. I was checking out the Center just recently, when it was cited for the obvious purpose of lending putative gravitas to Mother Jone's Iraq Effect. The intro to "The Torture Papers" certainly removes all doubt as to the Center's center of gravity:

The memos and reports in this volume document the systematic attempt of the U.S. government to authorize the way for torture techniques and coercive interrogation practices, forbidden under international law, with the concurrent express intent of evading liability in the aftermath of any discovery of these practices and policies.

Just in case we might not get it from the collection itself....

[Other Tom]

Looking, you have now firmly established yourself as a liar, and a very poor liar at that. I suggest you invent a new name for yourself, though if you don't improve your lying technique we'll quickly spot you. You've blown it.

[clarice]

JMH, I know what you mean..It is at the back of my rapidly aging brain, and I can't get it to pop up.

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

Facts:

John R. Bolton was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security on 9/11/01.

I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby was Chief of Staff to the Vice President Cheney and National Security Advisor on 9/11/01. Libby is currently awaiting sentencing after being convicted of Perjury, Obstruction of Justice and Lying to a Federal Investigator, crimes committed during an investigation into the outing of a covert CIA agent.

David Addington was Legal Counsel to Vice President Cheney on 9/11/01.

If you want to credit them for saving us from another 9/11 remember they didn't save us from the first one.

[Other Tom]

You've been caught lying, Looking. Give it up.

Meantime:

"NORFOLK -- A military jury found Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Diaz guilty this afternoon of four of the five charges against him relating to revealing secret information about detainees in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"He was found not guilty of printing out national defense information with the intent or reason to believe it would be used against the United States.

"The most serious charge he was convicted of was communicating secret information that could be used to injure the United States. That charge carries a maximum 10-year sentence.

"The sentencing of Diaz will begin Friday."

Good.

[Jeff Dobbs]

anduril, another reason to say GREAT job on that piece yesterday....

Powerline.....bing

"sophisticated reader"....bang

Boom

[Other Tom]

More excellent news:

" In a written statement issued by Larry Breuer, Mr. Berger's attorney, the former national security adviser said he pleaded guilty in the Justice Department investigation, accepted the penalties sought by the department and recognized that his law license would be affected.

"'I have decided to voluntarily relinquish my license,' he said. 'While I derived great satisfaction from years of practicing law, I have not done so for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession. I am very sorry for what I did, and I deeply apologize.'

"In giving up his license, Mr. Berger avoids being cross-examined by the Board on Bar Counsel, where he risked further disclosure of specific details of his theft. The agreement is expected to be formalized today.

"Mr. Berger, national security adviser from 1997 to 2001, was convicted of removing documents from the Archives in 2005 while preparing to testify before the September 11 commission."

[PeterUK.]

"Some former members of this administration maintain that if Clinton had been in office during the summer of 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented."

9/11 was planned during the Clinton administration.

[Other Tom]

So was WTC I, Peter. So was Khobar Towers. So were the African Embassy bombings. So was USS Cole. Clinton's response was to bomb an aspirin factory.

[Other Tom]

"One of the big myths about the Clinton years is that no one knew about bin Laden until Sept. 11, 2001. In fact, the bin Laden threat was recognized at the highest levels of the Clinton administration as early as 1993. What's more, bin Laden's attacks kept escalating throughout the Clinton administration; all told bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of 59 Americans on Clinton's watch.

"President Clinton learned about bin Laden within months of being sworn into office. National Security Advisor Anthony Lake told me that he first heard the name Osama bin Laden in 1993 in relation to the World Trade Center attack. Lake briefed the president about bin Laden that same year.

"In addition, starting in 1993, Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla.) repeatedly wrote to President Clinton and warned him and other administration officials about bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists. McCollum was the founder and chairman of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and had developed a wealth of contacts among the mujihedeen in Afghanistan. Those sources, who regularly visited McCollum, informed him about bin Laden's training camps and evil ambitions.

"Indeed, it is possible that Clinton and his national-security team learned of bin Laden even before the 1993 World Trade Center attack. My interviews and investigation revealed that bin Laden made his first attack on Americans was December 1992, a little more than a month after Clinton won the 1992 election. His target was 100 U.S. Marines housed in two towering Yemen hotels. Within hours, the CIA's counterterrorism center learned that the Yemen suspected a man named Osama bin Laden. (One of the arrested bombing suspects later escaped and was detained in a police sweep after al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in 2000.) Lake says he doesn't remember briefing the president-elect about the attempted attack, but that he well might have.

"So it is safe to conclude that Clinton knew about the threat posed by bin Laden since 1993, his first year in office."

--Richard Miniter

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

Just saw President Bush responding to questions about Warrantless Wiretapping during a press conference today. Is he lying? Oh yeah, and its a big one..... Are you through with him OT? Oh yeah, some lies are okay. I bet you've got a screw top head, all you have to do is put the point in the ground and start spinning to get your eyes and ears below the surface and and since its threaded there is less chance it will come out. My god! The willfull denial of fact that is necessary to maintain a point of view in line with the Bush administration is amazing, and disturbing.

[Enlightened]

JM Hanes -

Is the memo you are thinking of? This refers to a Goldsmith/Comey memo tha thit the blogs - the actual memo I think can be found online...

By June 2004, the crisis came to a head when the torture memo leaked to The Washington Post. Goldsmith was worn out but still resolute. He 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 until December, when the OLC issued a new memo that was hardly to the taste of human-rights activists but contained a much more defensible (and broader) definition of torture and was far less expansive about the power of the president to authorize coercive interrogation methods. The author of the revised memo, senior Justice Department lawyer Daniel Levin, fought pitched battles with the White House over its timing and contents; yet again, Comey's intervention was crucial in helping Levin and his allies carry the day.

[Other Tom]

Oh, it's nice to stroll down memory lane:

"In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

"The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

"The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

"The 1998 indictment said: 'Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.'

"Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.

"To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.

"Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission."

[Maybeex]

JMH-
I think I know what you may be thinking about. Was it the letter that many were it touting, and Anonymous Liberal was saying had been requested by the Pentagon, when in reality it was just a guy who issued his un-asked-for anti-Admin position of his own volition?
It was not Wilkinson or Paul Pillar, but it came out right about that time. And I thought the guys name was Scott.
I remember discussing it on this blog, and I remember AL went away for a long time after that.
Hmmmm....let me think.

[clarice]

Cathy f, Prof Kmiec seems to be reading your posts. In any event he agrees with you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/17/AR2007051701973.html>Comey's histrionic account

[wow power leveling]

wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
ffxi power leveling
ffxi powerleveling
lotro powerleveling
lotro power leveling

wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
ffxi power leveling
ffxi powerleveling
ffxi
ffxi gil
lotro powerleveling
lotro power leveling
lotro gold

wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
wow powerleveln
wow power leveln
world of warcraft power leveln
world of warcraft powerleveln

ffxi powerleveling
coh powerleveling
cov power leveling

[laptop battery]

http://www.batteryfast.com/toshiba/pa3534u-1brs.htm>toshiba pa3534u-1brs battery

[battery]

I think I know what you may be thinking about. Was it the letter that many were it touting, and Anonymous Liberal was saying had been requested by the Pentagon, when in reality it was just a guy who issued his un-asked-for anti-Admin position of his own volition?
It was not Wilkinson or Paul Pillar, but it came out right about that time. And I thought the guys name was Scott.