|
I listened carefully to someone's clip of the testimony yesterday, and here's what I picked up. It's at the beginning of Comey's story. He's talking about the meeting between him and AG Ashcroft that precipitated this series of events (which ended with the incredible late-night scene at Ashcroft's ICU bed, about a week later). Comey and Ashcroft were meeting about "the program" in question (he declined to specify, but everyone thinks it's the NSA spying program). The DoJ was supposed to re-authorize it. A deadline was looming. Comey says, in his testimony, that he and Ashcroft discussed their concerns about the legality of the program and "laid out what we had learned." Neither Schumer nor other Senators backed up and asked him "what had you learned?" That phrase has connotations that go beyond a simple policy review, to the details of the spying program. What had they learned?
Within hours of this Ashcroft/Comey meeting, Ashcroft is stricken with pancreatitis and is rushed to the hospital, critically ill. (Very painful and dangerous condition; from medical discussions, I gather that his gall bladder was removed.) On Ashcroft's 6th day in ICU, with all visitors and calls banned, Comey--to whom Ashcroft had signed over AG authority while he was ill, and who had followed Ashcroft's wishes, and his own opinion, by NOT authorizing the spying program--was driving down Constitution Ave. at night, and gets a call from an aide who had just been called by Mrs. Ashcroft, who said that WH Counsel Gonzales and Bush aide Andrew Card were heading to Ashcroft's ICU room, to get him to sign off on the illegal spying program. Thus we go to the subsequent drama--Comey rushing to the hospital, calling FBI head Mueller to meet him there, getting there minutes before Gonzales and Card, and all the rest. His stated concern is that Gonzo and Card were going to use undue influence on the very ill, drugged Ashcroft, and that Ashcroft wouldn't know what he was signing. Ashcroft had turned AG powers over to Comey for this very reason--that he was too ill to make decisions. Gonzo and Card were trying to get around Comey. Notably, when Ashcroft raised his head from the pillow and said, "I'm not AG. He is!," pointing to Comey, Gonzo and Card IGNORED Comey, didn't acknowledge his presence, and turned and left the room. (Then part 2 of the story unfolds--Card phoning Comey and demanding that Comey come to the WH, at 11 pm; Comey saying he will not meet with Card "without a witness," etc.)
What had they learned--that would end in such amazing, late-night dramatics--with a few officers of the US trying to uphold the law, and agents of the White House acting like the goddamned Mafia?
What had Ashcroft, Comey and Mueller learned about the spying program? What was the WH doing with this warrantless spying apparatus, and who were they relying on to misuse it (if that's what they were doing)? (US attorneys? Corrupt agents?) What information were Ashcroft and Comey reviewing, at the beginning of this drama? ("...we laid out what we had learned.") What got these upright lawmen--Comey, Mueller (thorough-going establishment types) so exercised that they and their aides were all prepared to resign on the spot? AG Ashcroft, Acting AG Comey and FBI head Mueller, all ready to resign (Comey says so in his testimony.)
Legal niceties? I don't think so. Behind Comey's testimony--explosive as it was--lay something more explosive. That's surely a reasonable surmise. And WHO the WH was spying on is a reasonable guess as to what this crisis was all about.
Comey and Mueller are not the sort of people to risk terrorist attacks over legal niceties. If they thought that the NSA spying program had gone outside the law for a legitimate purpose, my guess is that they would have looked the other way--and, at the least, there would have been no such confrontation with Gonzo and Card. The matter would have been resolved quietly.
Comey, in speaking of his own motivation, in rushing to Ashcroft's side, says two things: That he was concerned about Ashcroft, about his health and about his ability to understand what he was signing, AND, he was concerned about what was best "for the country and for the DoJ." The country. It's a good guess then that what he and Ashcroft "had learned" ("...we laid out what we had learned") about a spying program that had been up and running for some time (just needed re-authorization) was BAD FOR THE COUNTRY. And it wasn't terrorism. What WAS it that they had judged "had no legal basis"? Again, a good guess is MISUSE of the spying program, for which they likely had some evidence. Again, Comey and Mueller are NOT government types who would raise such a stink about NOTHING, about skirting the law to keep the country safe (in a true sense). They would likely only react the way they did about substantial and dangerous activity by the WH that had nothing to do with preventing terrorism.
And here the Comey testimony dovetails with Rove's interference with the US Attorneys--with Gonzales once again being the enabler. They were not only trying to use DoJ for political prosecutions to influence elections and cover up Republican corruption, they were also very likely using the NSA anti-terrorist spying program to spy on the domestic political opposition. (And some have speculated here at DU that they were spying on Ashcroft and Comey, and thus had early warning that Ashcroft and Comey--and Mueller--were onto them. The very ill, drugged Ashcroft presented them with an opportunity to get around that opposition, by scurrilous means.)
Let's hope that the refreshing light of day is soon allowed to shine on this entire story of White House crime and treason. We, the people, who have been funding all of this crime, against our will, and whose votes have been stolen in so many ways, have a right to know.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(415 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
