Democrats & Liberals Archives

End-around politcs

James Comey, a former Deputy Attorney General for John Ashcroft, testified before Congress the other day. What he said before Congress should put another, and possibly the final, nail in the coffin of Mr. Gonzales” career as the Attorney General. (link)

According to Comey, Gonzales, then White House counsel, along with Andy Card, then White House chief of staff, visited Ashcroft in his hospital room while Ashcroft was recovering from pancreatits. The purpose of the visit wasn't to wish him a speedy recovery or bring him some flowers; no the purpose was have Ashcroft re-authorize Bush's domestic surveillance program of wiretaps and electronic eavesdropping on American citizens.

Comey, then Acting Attorney General because of Ashcroft's illness, said that Gonzales and Cared met with Comey and Comey refused to signoff on the program. The negative answer prompted Bush to send out his consigliere and chief thug to pressure a sedated and ill man into signing off from his hospital bed.

Can you imagine the mind that thinks up these things? What kind of man sends his henchmen out to pressure a man lying in his hospital bed?

In any case, Comey's testimony confirms that the Ashcroft's Attorney General's office refused to signoff on Bush's warrantless domestic spying program, saying that the program was unconstitutional. Comey also testified that Ashcroft threatened to resign over the issue because he believed so strongly against the constitutionality of the program.

Gonzales should never have been confirmed. It's obvious that he puts loyalty to his friends and his President above the law of the land. Mr. Gonzales, sir, please resign.

Posted by john trevisani at May 17, 2007 8:15 PM
Comment #220675

Pay attention to the whole testimony, not the Dem spin

This is what Comey actually said. Was Comey pressured by Card - “I don’t know that he tried to pressure me, other than to engage me on the merits and make clear his strong disagreements with my conclusion.”

Did they threaten him? “No sir, I didn’t feel threatened, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be read [as threatening].”

What did Bush say? Comey explained, “The President said the Justice Department should do what the Department thinks is right.”

If Dems do not like the idea of wiretapping potential terrorists, they can say so, but they do not need to spin the truth so fast that it becomes a lie.

It sounds like Bush disagreed with Comey. What a crime! What a threat. Bring out the comfey chair.

Posted by: Jack at May 17, 2007 9:10 PM
Comment #220693

Jack, you are misreading the whole affair. Many including the then Head of the Justice Dept. had already said this was not legal. Bush and Cheney’s lackey’s did an end run around the those who said it was illegal and went to Ashcroft in the hospital to try to pressure him to controvert Comey’s opinion. Ashcroft himself had previously indicated he did not believe these no-warrant searches were legal.

The Bush inner circle wasn’t going to allow the law to win, they were determined to subvert the law in their usual manner, find someone who would say it was legal and then hide behind that opinion. That is precisely what they did with Iraq, disregard the valid advice and find someone to give them the opinion they could hide behind.

It is a perversion of the law, a subversion of the Constitution, and the actions one would expect of King Henry VIII, or other tyrants or dictators, not elected representatives of a Constitutional democratic republic.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 17, 2007 11:51 PM
Comment #220700
It sounds like Bush disagreed with Comey. What a crime!

LOL! Interesting that you should phrase it that way, Jack. If the Justice Department — Ashcroft or Comey — told Bush the wiretapping was illegal, and Bush went ahead and did it anyway, that’s an impeachable crime.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 18, 2007 1:59 AM
Comment #220707

“Pay attention…”
Jack, that’s terrific advice. And for the past six years, i think i’ve been paying attention.

Wasn’t it the ‘right’-side that was complaining about the Democrat’s response to Tim Johnson’s illness, questioning their sincerity and saying that if Johnson was on life-support, the Democrats would still want him as a Senator?

Bush has always had Gonzales as his faithful consigliere. As a good consigliere, they will carry out their orders until their last, dying breath. (In Gonzales’ case, he will forget the details until his last, dying breath.)

The interesting thing about the TESTIMONY is that Comey, for the first time, publicly testifies that the Justice Department declared Bush’s Warrantless Domestic Spying program was unconstitutional. That should put to bed any of Bush’s explanation about having this power or that power; the Justice Department ruled on the matter. Period.

And like AP so aptly stated, since the Bush administration WOULDN’T take the law as the final answer, they did an end-around. Bush was quoted yesterday as saying that he (in essence) is taking the 5th amendment, saying that he will not comment on who gave his consigliere and his Chief Thug the orders to try and shakedown Ashcroft as he lay in a hospital bed.

Gonzales must go and Bush should be impeached.

Posted by: john trevisani at May 18, 2007 7:01 AM
Comment #220717

Where does the debate come from? Bush has done 20 things that could be considered impeachable five times over.

I have disagreed with an administration politic’s before, but was able to point out several good things that had come out of their presidency. Under Bush, i cannot think of one good thing or good decision that he has made, ever.

Worst. President. Ever.

Posted by: tree hugger at May 18, 2007 9:53 AM
Comment #220729

What about George Bush’s decision to protect the Northwest Hawaiian Islands? That was cetainly a good decision.

Posted by: Warren P at May 18, 2007 12:30 PM
Comment #220808

I don’t know about you guys, but Comey’s testimony might well be the final nail in Torquemada Gonzales’ coffin.

By the way, did any of you take note of the hilarious flip-flop on McNulty he did?

Gonzales, April 19, 2007: “Looking back, things that I would have done differently? I think I would have had the Deputy Attorney General more involved, directly involved.”

Gonzales, May 15, 2007: “The Deputy Attorney General would know best about the qualifications and experiences of the minds; it’s a community and he signed off on the names.”


John Trevasani:
“Gonzales must go and Bush should be impeached.

So true. Pick a high crime and misdemeanor, any high crime and misdemeanor…

Posted by: Adrienne at May 18, 2007 11:55 PM
Comment #220817

Warren P, was the funding to protect the Hawaiian Seas in Bush’s budget? Ha! Wiley little man in that White House.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 19, 2007 12:13 AM
Comment #220916

Interesting article: Ex-Prosecutor’s Testimony Raises New Doubts About Embattled Attorney General.
Second page of the article suggests that Comey would be welcomed as a replacement for Gonzales if the AG resigns, or is fired.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 20, 2007 3:04 PM
Comment #220956

David, it seems that in Bush’s FY08 does include money to support the new national monument in Hawaii. At least according to this Whitehouse Press Relaease.

Also if anyone is interested, here is a link to the new monument’s website.

Posted by: Warren P at May 21, 2007 12:28 PM
Comment #221133

Thanks, Warren P, so it amounts to a barter. Bush will give a new environmentally protected area to Hawaii in exchange for defiling ANWR and recalling its protected status in trust for the American people and wildlife that exists there. Which is another way of saying the Hawaiian protected zone will be protected only so long as commercial interests have no designs on it.

Damn decent of him to be so conciliatory.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 23, 2007 2:59 PM
Post a comment