Greenwald: "... the President consciously and deliberately violated the law ..."

[understandinglife]

<clip>

The overarching point here, as always, is that it is simply crystal clear that the President consciously and deliberately violated the law and committed multiple felonies by eavesdropping on Americans in violation of the law.

Recall that the only federal court to rule on this matter that the NSA program violated both federal law and the U.S. Constitution, and although that decision is being appealed by the Bush administration, they are relying largely on technical arguments to have it reversed (i.e., standing and "state secrets" arguments) and -- -- are devoting very little efforts to arguing that the program was actually legal or constitutional.

Yet even once Bush knew that both Aschcroft and Comey believed the eavesdropping was illegal, he ordered it to continue anyway.

<clip>

UPDATE IV: The always insightful Marty Lederman -- who worked in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Clinton DOJ -- which almost certainly prompted the 2004 re-evaulation of the legality of the eavesdropping program, as well why the revelations of yesterday were so extraordinary.

As Marty says, he and I are "singing from the same hymnal" on virtually every one of these issues -- particularly the high likelihood that the pre-2004 eavesdropping program was even far broader than the extremely broad (and illegal) post-2004 eavesdropping activities which satisfied Ashcroft and Comey: "This is the real heart of the Comey story -- What happened between September 2001 and October 2003, before Comey and Goldmsith came aboard? Just how radical were the Administration's legal judgments? How extreme were the programs they implemented? How egregious was the lawbreaking?"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/16/nsa_comey

And, the dude has now been called out by Kelly O'Donnell of NBC News, to wit:

O'Donnell: "Sir, did you send your then chief of staff and White House counsel to the bedside of John Ashcroft while he was ill to get him to approve that program, and do you believe that kind of conduct from White House officials is appropriate?"



O'Donnell: "Was it on your order, sir?"

Bush: "As I said, the program is a necessary program that was constantly reviewed and constantly briefed to the Congress..."

All he had to say was -- No ...


And --

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Bush isn't going to "move the story forward."

Seems like if the answer was no, he could stop the story dead in its tracks.

You've heard of the non-denial denial? Welcome to the non-affirmative affirmation.

[Supersedeas]

2. lying about oral sex (impeachable) -- breaking a law (a-ok w/Corp Media types)

[Kagemusha]

3. Congress constantly briefed without benefit of the grimy details.

And so on.

The program is necessary so who the hell cares that it's technically illegal, l33t Commander Dude Powerz cover it.

[understandinglife]

4. FDL: "As Joshua Marshall remarked, "The president's refusal to answer tells the tale. ...

... , as James Comey all but told us yesterday." (And wryly notes that Dubya wasn't even able to claim the cover of a legal investigation, even though "practically everything in the Bush administration is under investigation these days, it's a pretty handy excuse.")

What's so important about this? Early on into the scandal over the politicized firing of U.S. attorneys, White House spokesliar Tony Snow freaked out over questions of the Shrub-in-Chief's possible role, exclaiming, "Don’t be dropping it at the president's doorstep." He knew that for the low-information voters who Republicans rely on fooling in order to win elections, a scandal generally has no political meaning unless the President is shown to be personally involved. And now, another manifestation of the hydra-headed criminality that is this administration's trademark has shown up, uninvited, on Dubya's doorstep.

that Democrats were failing to get the appropriate political mileage out of the Valerie Plame Wilson leak scandal because they didn't recognize the opportunity to raise the legal questions of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation to a higher moral level, about the kind of behavior this President condones:

… the message every Democrat who gets on TV this weekend should be communicating , It's not a matter of legal or illegal, it's right or wrong — and this administration has no sense of what the difference is.

That opportunity is in front of Democrats again now.

The remainder of Swopa's comments can be found at http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/17/dropping-it-at-the-presidents-doorstep

Drop it at the President's door-step, Dems ...


IT IS TRIBUNAL TIME IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

[DemReadingDU]

5. #5 recommend!

Impeach now!

[senseandsensibility]

6. kick

and nominated.

[Disturbed]

7. Thirty Violations of the FISA Law are thirty Felonies.

Thirty Felonies are not enough for Impeachment these days.

[understandinglife]

8. maybe the magic number is 31 ;)

:hi:


BE THE BU$H OPPOSITION - 24/7

[Disturbed]

9. That must be it.

Pelosi counted the Felonies and the magic "31" was not reached. Impeachment was taken off the table.

[bleever]

10. Can we impeach the bastards already?

Let us not talk falsely now,
For the hour is getting late.


:hi: UL. May peace and insanity regain the upper hand, and soon.

[hootinholler]

11. The thing NOBODY's picked up on

Is the simple fact that this visit was over a renewal of an existing program! Wake up people, how was this approved prior to this? Was this an illegal expansion of a lawful program or had Ashcroft been snookered in the earlier rounds?

-Hoot

[bleever]

12. Hoot picked up on it.

Thanks!

I think DOJ had finally caught on that this was illegal, after being sandbagged and otherwise conned, and was ready to cry foul.

If Ashcroft was that adamant, it means even he had realized what was really going on after having been played for a patsy.


Good point!

[hootinholler]

13. I guess he would have been like you got me this round

But I won't sign off on it again. This begs the question: How old was the program? Certainly that's not classified.

Peace,
-Hoot


:hi:

[magellan]

20. dupe delete

[magellan]

21. Pre-9/11

I've posted this before:

Bush Authorized Domestic Spying Before 9/11
    By Jason Leopold
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective

    Friday 13 January 2006

    The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping
on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to
have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document. (PDF)

    The NSA's vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the
document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step
of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American
citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups.

    In its "Transition 2001" report, the NSA said that the ever-changing world of global communication
means that "American communication and targeted adversary communication will coexist."

    "Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the Fourth Amendment and
all applicable laws," the document says.

snip...

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/16920

[understandinglife]

16. In_DEED he did!!!

:thumbsup:


Peace.

[Patsy Stone]

14. Bush has said he reauthorized it

and if you're asking about the DoJ, your friend John Yoo was in the DoJ's Office of Legal Council and produced a long BS paper justifying this surveillance as a presidential power under the Authorization to Use Military Force. So the law was manufactured to fit the crime about to happen.

It's possible that Ashcroft signed off on it, or, maybe it was Yoo or another sycophant and no one from Justice ever looked at again like they were supposed to every 45 days. Maybe Bush just signed a required form letter and that was that?

When people started to look at it closer (like Comey, who came in in 2003), perhaps the questions were raised and Ashcroft saw the light. The NYT had the story since 2004 and sat on it until 2005. Comey left in 2005. Not for nothin', I have a big feeling it was Comey who leaked it to the NYT to begin with.

Either way, it was illegal. The process for renewing this crap was a WH process, so who is to say they had to answer to anyone? You know how they can be.

:hi:

[bleever]

15. Good thought -- enforcement was lax or non-existence, and when

it became an issue, suddenly the unfiled paperwork became important, and its implications more painfully obvious to those who might have some liability.

(And I'm glad you weren't offended by the use of the word "patsy" in this context. :thumbsup: )

[Patsy Stone]

17. Yes

Like filling out lots of back taxes when the IRS calls.

(And I thought: "Hey! Whaddayamean, Patsy?")

[bleever]

18. That's how they got Capone,

right?

:appropriateicon:

[understandinglife]

19. "Like filling out lots of back taxes when the IRS calls." -- Yep ;)

:hi:


Peace.

[Patsy Stone]

26. Hi there!

Peace.

:hi:

[bdamomma]

22. What a liar this man is.

just reading his comment makes me want to do this
:puke:

[Kablooie]

23. We will NEVER FORGET. But we won't do anything about it either.

Our investigating Congress is powerless to do anything.

and Impeachment is OFF THE TABLE.

[understandinglife]

24. Digby: "Bush is personally on the run, now. They should chase him."

<clip>

In any case, Bush was deeply involved. He met with both Comey and Mueller on the issue after they all said they'd resign. The spinners are trying to say that their Dear Leader finally overruled others who had nefarious intentions , but his refusal to answer the question today should put that to rest. There's no reason for him to launch into such outdated 2003 gibberish about enemies lurking who "would like to strike" if he didn't order it. It's obvious that he did.

It would be nice of all the "Democratic strategists" pushed this today when they appear on the gasbag shows. Bush is personally on the run, now. They should chase him.

Link: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i-by-digby-i.html

He has no where to hide ....


Peace.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

25. I reiterate

A presidency "above the law" is a DICTATORSHIP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x94431