OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE-Investigations Unnecessary-We NOW Have The Answers

[kpete]

How Mueller's notes implicate Gonzo in obstruction
by Kagro X

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

WHY

We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program. Beginning in January 2006, this office made a series of requests for the necessary clearances. On May 9, 2006, we were informed that our requests had been denied. Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have closed our investigation. http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0525nj2.htm

WHO

Who denied those clearances? The president himself, according to Gonzales.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071800601.html
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002861.php

THE QUESTION

But now, we no longer need the investigation.
The question was:
whether or not DOJ personnel acted legally, ethically and in a professionally responsible manner
in rendering "legal advice" to the president regarding these surveillance activities.

THE ANSWER

Mueller answers the question for us:

No. They did not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081601358.html?hpid=topnews
All of which should renew focus on Bush's personal decision to nix the investigation
and Gonzales's role in advising him on it.

If Gonzales, as Attorney General and chief of the Department of Justice,
advised Bush to kill a DOJ investigation which would necessarily have probed
(and likely implicated, if Mueller is correct)
Gonzales's own activities as White House counsel, that's grounds for impeachment.

more at:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/08/how-muellers-no.html#more

[Mnemosyne]

1. KnR n/t

[Richard Steele]

2. K&R

[porphyrian]

3. Is anyone going to do anything with this?

I can't get excited about it if it's just ignored and disregarded.

[tom_paine]

13. You know the answer to that porphyrian

No. Nothing will be done. Not with this addition ironclad piece of evidence, not with the half-dozen other televised Perjury Ones, not any of it.

I'm sorry, I take no pleasure in saying this, but the way forward is now quite clear for the Dems. Stall until 2008. Investigate, and expose...but no concrete legal action against Felonious Bushies, no matter how extensive or straightforward the evidence.

It is a terrible gamble and could cost us everything this nation could have ever been had it remained free.

As an aside, I long ago asked in jest: Would Bushler being caught on videotape running down Pennsylvania Ave. with the dripping severed head of Howard Dean result in a subpeona? Being put under oath? Prosecuted? Convicted? Or nothing of the sort? Once Faux News "explained" what REALLY happened and the rest of the MSM all jumped in line, after a few days of mass pundit repetitions of RNC talking points, why, the quetsion of guilt would just sort of get...murky.

I once said that in jest, now I am almost certain that is exactly what would happen, 50-50 chance at least, and that is 49.5% more Twilight Zone-y than it should be!

[robinlynne]

4. I'm with you kpete, and so sad our senators and congresspeople are not...

[Tuesday_Morning]

5. from emptywheel yesterday:

- Mueller refers to a "program," singular. Which backs up what everyone has been saying: Gonzales is a lying sack. There was one program that was the subject of a DOJ revolt, not the parsing tidbits of programs Gonzales would like to pretend there were.

- All Cheney, no Bush. With the exception of the famous meeting where Mueller met Bush directly, Bush was uninvolved, at least from Mueller's perspective. Cheney, on the other hand, attended all the group meetings (though Card was in charge of twisting Mueller's and Comey's arms). And the final meeting Mueller felt the need to record was one with Cheney. Is there any doubt, then, when Gonzales say "at the behest of the President," he really means, "Dick"?

- Mueller almost seemed to be a go-between between those in DOJ preparing to resign and the White House, with Gonzales as the point of contact.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/08/muellers-chrono.html

[Hydra]

6. It's too late

Bush asked for this to be made legal, and is now using the argument that because it is now legal, it was NEVER ILLEGAL. If that flies, that means that the DoJ was advising them regarding a completely legal program.

Where is the damn rule of law here?

[donkeyotay]

7. Previously there were scholarly types around here saying that you can't

go back and change something from illegal to legal. My understanding was that you can't make laws retroactive to redeem prior illegal acts. :shrug:

[Hydra]

9. That's the theory, and my POV

But apparently "It's not illegal when the President does it"

Really, laws are not as cut and dry as most people think. The law has to be enforced, and that can be tough when a person has enough economic, political or social power. Also, the enforcement can be overridden by "emergency circumstances"

The question boils down to whether we have a big enough gun to force Bush down.

[Raejeanowl]

12. Well, Except in the Parallel Universe...

...that the U.S. is becoming/has become, it is still true that you can't retroactively criminalize or decriminalize.

[donkeyotay]

8. That would make the Decider Commander Guy the Obstructer in Chief

a job which he might finally be qualified for having had so much practice, ie., with Plame and torture and WMD and Katrina, etc.

[Disturbed]

10. What happened.

Comey, the acting AG, refused to sign off on an Illegal Spying operation of the NSA. Cheney pressured Josh Bolton & Gonzo to go to Ashcroft to pressure him to sign off on it. The problem was that Ashcroft was not the legal AG at that time & he also refused to sign off on it. Instead of following the FISA Law Busholini went ahead & ignored the Law & did the illegal spying for several weeks until it became apparent that many in the DOJ would resign if the violations continued. At that time the FISA Law was adhered to.

I still do not understand why Warrentless Spying is necessary. The FISA Law as it was allowed spying for 72 hours without a warrant then one had to be applied. Why was that such a problem?

[Hydra]

11. well

The FISA law says that you MUST go to the FISA court within 72 hours to get a warrant. I don't know enough about the law(waste of time now, since it's defunct) to know whether if you don't get a warrant that the evidence is simply inadmissible, but I would suspect it goes beyond that- I bet you have performed an illegal act if you don't follow up and cover why you were wiretapping that person.

Bush never made any bones about what he wanted- he wanted access without oversight. Wiretapping whoever, whenever he wanted.

If you were hoping for some reason related to fighting "terrorism," I'm afraid he "doesn't give it much thought."

[donkeyotay]

14. Bush obstructed a DoJ investigation into wrongdoing

An internal Justice Department inquiry into whether department officials -- including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft -- acted properly in approving and overseeing the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program was stymied because investigators were denied security clearances to do their work. The investigators, however, were only seeking information and documents relating to the National Security Agency's surveillance program that were already in the Justice Department's possession, two senior government officials said in interviews.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0525nj2.htm



President Bush effectively blocked a Justice Department investigation of the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program, refusing to give security clearances to attorneys who were attempting to conduct the probe, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said yesterday.

Some legal experts and members of Congress who have questioned the legality of the NSA program said Bush's move to quash the Justice probe represents a politically motivated interference in Justice Department affairs. Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.), one of the lawmakers who spearheaded calls for the Justice review, said the move is an example of "an administration that thinks it doesn't have to follow the law."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071800601.html

This politically motivated interference was to protect Gonzales who was conducting his own interference to protect the president's illegal acts. They should both be impeached.

[donkeyotay]

15. We now know that the DoJ was in an uproar over domestic spying

Gonzales has authorized the illegal acts of torture and spying by this president with absurd legal reasoning. After the visit to Ashcroft's sick bed, the DoJ launched an investigation into the handling of the NSA authorization. This investigation into wrongdoing or unethical behavior by DoJ was blocked by the Bush. The OP's links contain many quotes about this being a highly unusual intervention by a president into the running of DoJ. Bush is covering for Gonzales, and Gonzales is covering for bush. They are co-conspirators, obstructing the investigations that would reveal each other's criminality.