Comments on The Anonymous Liberal: Was the DOJ Kept in the Dark About Key Aspects of ...

There's a diary up on dailykos right now with a co...

2007-08-19T00:57:00.000-05:00

There's a diary up on dailykos right now with a copy of a detailed complaint against Alberto Gonzales submitted to the Texas Bar.

I wasn't speaking to you, zeus. I never argue wit...

2007-08-18T16:18:00.000-05:00

I wasn't speaking to you, zeus. I never argue with authoritarian followers anymore.

But, on the off chance that you have two brain cells that may cooperate, try understanding the first sentence of my previous comment before making more of an ass of yourself. No "proof" is ever required in these cases, as it's presumed that, if the leak could have occurred, then it did.

To do otherwise would require our intelligence agencies to ask their opponents "did you get that?"

C2h50h, you've avoided my question: is there any e...

2007-08-18T15:49:00.000-05:00

C2h50h, you've avoided my question: is there any evidence that any classified information was disclosed in the presence of Mrs. Ashcroft? In the absence of any such evidence, your fanciful "clear indication" is no indication of anything at all.

Even breathing a word about "top secret" material ...

2007-08-18T14:08:00.000-05:00

Even breathing a word about "top secret" material outside of a provably secure location (and we're talking secure, as in TEMPEST here) is a huge no-no.

Of course, that's only if you are trying to keep the secret from, say, the Russians, who could pass it on to Iran, or Syria, where it would almost certainly be disclosed to al Qaeda. If you just want to keep it from the American people, you only need to make sure none of the unfriendly press are close by.

This gives a very clear indication that the primary purpose of the secrecy is to prevent the citizenry of the US from finding out what's being done, not to prevent the information from falling into the hands of foreign governments.

U.S. Attorney General Offices conduct as much Publ...

2007-08-18T01:07:00.000-05:00

U.S. Attorney General Offices conduct as much Public Fraud as they want to without fear of Federal Prosecution because the Office of Inspector Generals control investigations regarding U.S. Attorney ( illegal agreements with Federal Contractors ) Public Fraud.
.
Public Fraud - subject to prosecution
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00983.htm
983 Guidelines for Implementation of the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program
.
1998 NATIONAL HEALTH CARE FRAUD AND ABUSE CONTROL PROGRAM, under the Joint Direction ( T18CFR371-illegal agreement to induce forfiture ) of the ATTORNEY GENERAL and the Secretary of ( DHHS ) the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)(1), acting through the Department's Inspector General (HHS/OIG), Designed ( HMO Grievance Service T42CFR417 Adverse Determination / SELF-Audit Program ) to coordinate Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement activities ( T18CFR286Crime misprison of a felony T42CFR417 anti-dumping violation: defrauding federal health insurance programs - HCFA State Medicaid and OPM FEHB T5CFR890.105 Programs ) With Respect to ( Federal Hospital Insurance Benefit Claims ) Health Care Fraud and Abuse
.
The OIG has jurisdiction over all ( criminal ) complaints of misconduct against Department of Justice Employees ( T18CFR371 Misprison of a felony ), including the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Drug Enforcement Administration; Federal Bureau of Prisons; U.S. Marshals Service; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; United States Attorneys Offices; and employees who work in other Divisions or Offices in the Department of Justice. The one exception is that allegations of misconduct involving Department ATTORNEYS that arise from their AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE ( the OIG for treason ), litigate, or provide legal advice are the responsibility of the ( OIG ) Department's Office of Professional Responsibility.
.
Section 1001 of the USA Patriot Act, signed into law by the President on October 26, 2001, directs the ( OIG ) Inspector General to review information and receive ( criminal ) complaints alleging abuses ( CRIMES T18CFR24 U.S.Attorney & Office of Inspector General - Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program: subject to prosecution Public Fraud ) of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties by Department of Justice employees ( U.S.Attorneys, OIGs , FBI, as listed above OIG jurisdiction ).
.
Sincerely,
.
All Entitled Federal Employee Health Beneficiaries being criminally denied ( DHHS OIG T42CFR417 Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program ) Existing Federal Health Insurance Coverage Title18CFR1001Crime.

SP Biloxi, have you seen any evidence that any cla...

2007-08-17T21:02:00.000-05:00

SP Biloxi, have you seen any evidence that any classified information was disclosed in the presence of Mrs. Ashcroft?

Interesting quote from Bertrand Russell on the mas...

2007-08-17T20:59:00.000-05:00

Interesting quote from Bertrand Russell on the masthead. I recall his claiming quite vocally and assiduously that Nikita Khrushchev and John F. Kennedy were equally wicked men who could not be morally distinguished from each other. Perhaps he held this view "tentatively," but any tentativeness was lost on me at the time.

great sleuth work. with the "secrecy" of the progr...

2007-08-17T19:45:00.000-05:00

great sleuth work. with the "secrecy" of the program and Gonzo's slippery tongue, it's hard to tell what they're talking about. Transcripts magnify the evasive, hedging answers Gonzo offers. No 'final answer' here.
what has been going on? A small article in the finance section of my local paper-"IBM & PWC agree to pay $5.3 million to settle .....on gov't. technology contracts. [AG's office reports]"- fired off a neuron. they pay over 5 mil to settle! what did they earn on the original? what was it for? who authorized either the contract or the settlement? With the freewheeling style that we've seen with the Pres. and his minions, I wouldn't be surprised to know that, like war profiteering, the same has occurred with homeland security. And,of course, Gonzo knew these contracts from the beginning to their eventual legal settlement.
'glad we quietly resolved this issue- no one wants to hear about that'

"Good faith" can also mean that they assumed appro...

2007-08-17T14:01:00.000-05:00

"Good faith" can also mean that they assumed approval where there wasn't express approval. Easier to ask forgiveness than permission, and all that.

Notes from FBI Director Robert Mueller, clearly re...

2007-08-17T13:00:00.000-05:00

Notes from FBI Director Robert Mueller, clearly revealed that the Bush administration officials may have prevented former Attorney General John Ashcroft from conducting a review of a spying program, while at the same time attempting to gain Ashcroft's approval of the program while he was recovering in the hospital. Ashcroft clearly told Gonzo and Card that Comey was the decision maker or the acting AG. Ashcroft was in no shape to make any decision according to the RSM Program log. Mueller's notes and Comey's testimony about how the Gonzo and Card were taking advantage a sick man (Ashcroft) makes Gonzo's testimony twice to the SJC null and void and unbelievable.

More importantly, Mrs. Janet Ashcroft was in the hospital room. And I wonder if she had a security clearance card.

It would also impact the calculus of whether Bush ...

2007-08-17T11:08:00.000-05:00

It would also impact the calculus of whether Bush was acting in "good faith" in authorizing the surveillance activities. That's one of the chief (theoretical) defenses offered when people describe the evidentiary hurdles facing proposed impeachment proceedings.

But it seems to me that "good faith" is very obviously an open question here. Bush even acts (albeit after the fact) to impede any investigation of whether his "good faith" reliance on his legal advice was well-founded. That usually doesn't bode well for an inquiry into the reasonableness of that reliance.

That's an excellent point, Kagro. There may be ot...

2007-08-17T10:56:00.000-05:00

That's an excellent point, Kagro.

There may be other implications, too. For example, if Ashcroft has essentially disavowed his "authorizations" from 2001-2004, that has serious implications re: the legality of everything that took place during that time period. It could impact the suits against the telecoms as well as undercut the administration's repeated claims that it was acting in good faith on legal advice.

These are the answers sought by the OPR investigat...

2007-08-17T10:43:00.000-05:00

These are the answers sought by the OPR investigation that Bush and Gonzales colluded to quash.

The DOJ and WH counsel's office, along with Addington, improperly compartmentalized the necessary information, and then later colluded to kill the OPR investigation which would have revealed the extent to which those compartmentalization activities violated the DOJ's standards of professional conduct.

Even if the more accurate rendering is that Ashcro...

2007-08-17T07:35:00.000-05:00

Even if the more accurate rendering is that Ashcroft himself was made aware, but that his key staff were excluded, this still cripples DOJ in its mandated and proper role of assessing the legality of 'the program'.

With every new piece of information regarding 'the program', and events surrounding it, Gonzales sinks lower and lower, as does the Vice President. By looking at the attendees at the meetings listed in Mueller's notes, VPOTUS is all over this issue--President is firewalled. It is shameful that the media are not all over this-- shameful.

If AG Ashcroft "found 'it' legal" without resort t...

2007-08-17T06:49:00.000-05:00

If AG Ashcroft "found 'it' legal" without resort to AUMF (or, in the alternative, Article II powers) ... yet Gonzales, after migrating from WH Counsel to AG position found the AUMF as necessary in order to conclude orders to telcos were correctly stated, then I can see why Gonzales would be reluctant to say Ashcroft got it right, and instead say "Ashcroft believed he got it right."
.
"It" being the deliberate acquisition of communications where one party is in the US, one party is not in the US, one party is Al Qaeda, and the acquisition occurs in the US. I.e., what the administration referred to as the TSP.

I believe that may be what Ashcroft was referring ...

2007-08-16T22:59:00.000-05:00

I believe that may be what Ashcroft was referring to.

It's possible, but I doubt it. That wouldn't explain Gonzales' clarification (see update) or the reason Gonzales was so cagey in the exchange with Sen. Whitehouse.

A.L.,One more point - classified top secret inform...

2007-08-16T22:52:00.000-05:00

A.L.,

One more point - classified top secret information can only be discussed in a "SCIF."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_Compartmented_Information_Facility

The hospital calearly would not classify as such a secure location.

I believe that may be what Ashcroft was referring to.

JaO,You make an excellent point, one that occurred...

2007-08-16T21:49:00.000-05:00

JaO,

You make an excellent point, one that occurred to me on my commute home tonight. See my update.

There's already been enough evidence of impropriet...

2007-08-16T20:40:00.000-05:00

There's already been enough evidence of improprieties by Gonzales, the White House, the NSA, the telecoms, and anybody else who was involved in this sordid history-- even insofar as they just gave (or withheld ) testimony.

This is a brilliant piece of inductive reasoning, but aren't we well past the point of trying to figure out if somebody committed a crime, perjury, or just deceived somebody else in the Administration, or the public, for that matter?

Anybody in Congress who doesn't act to throw these sleazebags in jail is complicit and should likewise be tried for treason, before 2008.

A.L.,My compliments on pulling these loose threads...

2007-08-16T20:18:00.000-05:00

A.L.,

My compliments on pulling these loose threads together.

I do wonder about the meaning of this key quote from Mueller's notes:

The AG then reviewed for them the legal concerns relating to the program. The AG also told them that he was barred from obtaining the advice he needed on the program by the strict compartmentalization rules of the WH.

I first read that to mean that Ashcroft was prevented from contacting certain lawyers, within or without DOJ, about questions of law. You seem to be reading this to mean that some facts were withheld from whatever lawyers were advising Ashcroft.

Is that your meaning? Withholding material facts about the program from the AG would seem much more serious to me, but I'm not sure we can read that into what is in front of us.

I agree with badgervan--excellent analysis. This ...

2007-08-16T20:10:00.000-05:00

I agree with badgervan--excellent analysis. This really feels solid to me. If I were Leahy I'd go back to Comey, Goldsmith, Ashcroft. Goldsmith, if I remember right, was the one who first raised the flag, went to Comey, convinced him, and then Comey convinced Ashcroft.

This is great stuff.

Once again, you've confirmed the old addage, "It c...

2007-08-16T20:01:00.000-05:00

Once again, you've confirmed the old addage, "It can always get worse," and successfully applied it to the Bush Administration.

Excellent detective work. I'm sure the WP, NYT, Po...

2007-08-16T18:17:00.000-05:00

Excellent detective work. I'm sure the WP, NYT, Politico and others are on this too, right?