When Ashcroft is the Voice of Reason...

[livius drusus]

It hasn't gotten much coverage, but former deputy AG James Comey appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee a couple of days ago to answer questions about Gonzales' role in the 2004 reauthorization of the NSA domestic spying program. The story he told is a jaw-dropper on several levels.

NYT article on the madness (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/washington/16nsa.html?ref=washington).

Mr. Comey, the former No. 2 official in the Justice Department, said the crisis began when he refused to sign a presidential order reauthorizing the program, which allowed monitoring of international telephone calls and e-mail of people inside the United States who were suspected of having terrorist ties. He said he made his decision after the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, based on an extensive review, concluded that the program did not comply with the law. At the time, Mr. Comey was acting attorney general because Mr. Ashcroft had been hospitalized for emergency gall bladder surgery.

[...]

Mr. Comey said that on the evening of March 10, 2004, Mr. Gonzales and Andrew H. Card Jr., then Mr. Bush’s chief of staff, tried to bypass him by secretly visiting Mr. Ashcroft. Mr. Ashcroft was extremely ill and disoriented, Mr. Comey said, and his wife had forbidden any visitors.

Mr. Comey said that when a top aide to Mr. Ashcroft alerted him about the pending visit, he ordered his driver to rush him to George Washington University Hospital with emergency lights flashing and a siren blaring, to intercept the pair. They were seeking his signature because authority for the program was to expire the next day.

Mr. Comey said he phoned Mr. Mueller, who agreed to meet him at the hospital. Once there, Mr. Comey said he “literally ran up the stairs.” At his request, Mr. Mueller ordered the F.B.I. agents on Mr. Ashcroft’s security detail not to evict Mr. Comey from the room if Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card objected to his presence.

Mr. Comey said he arrived first in the darkened room, in time to brief Mr. Ashcroft, who he said seemed barely conscious. Before Mr. Ashcroft became ill, Mr. Comey said the two men had talked and agreed that the program should not be renewed.

When the White House officials appeared minutes later, Mr. Gonzales began to explain to Mr. Ashcroft why they were there. Mr. Comey said Mr. Ashcroft rose weakly from his hospital bed, but in strong and unequivocal terms, refused to approve the eavesdropping program.

On top of this bizarre horror, Gonzales actually blocked Comey and Ashcroft from testifying about the NSA program last year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502446.html), claiming privilege and also that Comey and Ashcroft had nothing to add to the discussion, so we've got a nice coverup going on too.

James Comey testifies before Senate Judiciary

[LadyShea]

I watched a show on PBS's Frontline about this, and they interviewed Ashcroft and he was absolutely reasonable. I about fell off the couch when I found myself nodding along to his commentary.

[livius drusus]

It certainly explains why Bush shitcanned Ashcroft after he was re-elected. He had a spine and personal standards beyond blind loyalty.

[Sock Puppet]

If he would've kept his grubby mitts off our porn, he might have even been a keeper.

[LadyShea]

If you can catch a repeat of the Frontline show do so, it was really interesting. In particular a guy analyzed Gonzales testimony and noted how many times he qualified his statements with "this program we are discussing",indicating there were/are more than likely a number of other "programs" we don't know about yet.

I dunno about Ashcroft qualifying as a keeper...the guy is nutty. However, he has some reasonable views here and there.

[livius drusus]

If he would've kept his grubby mitts off our porn, he might have even been a keeper.

Not to mention that poor statue of Justice. :nude:

[livius drusus]

If you can catch a repeat of the Frontline show do so, it was really interesting.

It looks like it's available for online viewing (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/). I'll check it out for sure. :thanks:

In particular a guy analyzed Gonzales testimony and noted how many times he qualified his statements with "this program we are discussing",indicating there were/are more than likely a number of other "programs" we don't know about yet.

I can't even imagine the depths of lawlessness yet to be discovered. We'll probably never know.

[D. Scarlatti]

Ashcroft has some cockamamie ideas without the purview of the law, but on the latter subject, I believe he was considerably better informed than the douchebags who've been running the DoJ more recently (which -- appallingly -- includes Karl Rove).

In an interview with one of the fired prosecutors, the subject noted that, on his appointment, he and the others met with Ashcroft himself, who stressed both the non-partisan nature of the U.S. Attorney's function, and the importance of prosecutorial discretion, which rests on evidentiary, and not Republican Party, principles.

[JackDog]

If he would've kept his grubby mitts off our porn, he might have even been a keeper.

Not to mention that poor statue of Justice. :nude:

Actually, it turns out that none other than Monica Goodling was behind Statue-gate (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003166.php).

[godfry n. glad]

If you can catch a repeat of the Frontline show do so, it was really interesting. In particular a guy analyzed Gonzales testimony and noted how many times he qualified his statements with "this program we are discussing",indicating there were/are more than likely a number of other "programs" we don't know about yet.

I dunno about Ashcroft qualifying as a keeper...the guy is nutty. However, he has some reasonable views here and there.

Yeah... I think of him as "oily". As in "snakeoil". Mr. "I am anointed to tell you what you can, or cannot, do in your bedroom."

He's the only man I know who lost an election to a dead man. In Missouri.

[godfry n. glad]

If you can catch a repeat of the Frontline show do so, it was really interesting. In particular a guy analyzed Gonzales testimony and noted how many times he qualified his statements with "this program we are discussing",indicating there were/are more than likely a number of other "programs" we don't know about yet.

I dunno about Ashcroft qualifying as a keeper...the guy is nutty. However, he has some reasonable views here and there.

Yeah... I think of him as "oily". As in "snakeoil". Mr. "I am anointed to tell you what you can, or cannot, do in your bedroom."

He's the only man I know who lost an election to a dead man. In Missouri.

He's batshit crazy and still functional. That's gotta count for something.

[Freddy]

At least someone had the guts to speak against Bush's plan to violate the law.
I will respect him for that, but he was scary as Attorney General.

[JackDog]

If you can catch a repeat of the Frontline show do so, it was really interesting. In particular a guy analyzed Gonzales testimony and noted how many times he qualified his statements with "this program we are discussing",indicating there were/are more than likely a number of other "programs" we don't know about yet.

I dunno about Ashcroft qualifying as a keeper...the guy is nutty. However, he has some reasonable views here and there.

Yeah... I think of him as "oily". As in "snakeoil". Mr. "I am anointed to tell you what you can, or cannot, do in your bedroom."

He's the only man I know who lost an election to a dead man. In Missouri.

He's batshit crazy and still functional. That's gotta count for something.

Dude.....you just replied to your own post. Do you really think that you're qualified to judge others as crazy?

:giggle: :wave:

[D. Scarlatti]

It gets a bit technical, but witness Marty Lederman's deconstruction of "administration surrogate" Douglas Kmiec's defense (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/17/AR2007051701973.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)of the Bushie bedsitters in the Washington Post:

Is This the Best the Administration's Surrogates Can Do? (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/is-this-best-administrations-surrogates.html)

Prof. Kmiec allows that whatever Gonzales's motives were in visiting Ashcroft's hospital room, they are "mystifying."

The fact that they are "mystifying" likely would have precluded anyone else's appointment to Attorney General.

[D. Scarlatti]

Comey Don't Play That (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=87225)

[livius drusus]

"Mahtha, Mahtha! Mah memory is back!" :lol:

[godfry n. glad]

If you can catch a repeat of the Frontline show do so, it was really interesting. In particular a guy analyzed Gonzales testimony and noted how many times he qualified his statements with "this program we are discussing",indicating there were/are more than likely a number of other "programs" we don't know about yet.

I dunno about Ashcroft qualifying as a keeper...the guy is nutty. However, he has some reasonable views here and there.

Yeah... I think of him as "oily". As in "snakeoil". Mr. "I am anointed to tell you what you can, or cannot, do in your bedroom."

He's the only man I know who lost an election to a dead man. In Missouri.

He's batshit crazy and still functional. That's gotta count for something.

Dude.....you just replied to your own post. Do you really think that you're qualified to judge others as crazy?

:giggle: :wave:

Voice of experience.

(it was an afterthought...an afterthought, y'know?)

[viscousmemories]

As mentioned, Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that AG Ashcroft was 'lucid' during his visit. Recently released notes from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III contradict that claim, revealing that Ashcroft was "feeble, barely articulate, clearly stressed" at the time.

Washington Post Story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/19/AR2007081901300.html)

[Watser?]

You broke it!

:egad:

[Nullifidian]

Yeah... I think of him as "oily". As in "snakeoil". Mr. "I am anointed to tell you what you can, or cannot, do in your bedroom."

He's the only man I know who lost an election to a dead man. In Missouri.

Not "oily" as in vegetable oil?

I thought that was The Crisco Kid's great legacy.

[yguy]

While Comey's testimony above superficially makes him appear every bit the Eagle Scout, it was not his job to protect Ashcroft - especially not from the President, represented in this instance by his Chief of Staff. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that what impelled him to intervene had more to do with his desire to get his own way than anything else.

And if Mueller contradicts Gonzales' claim about Ashcroft's lucidity, he also contradicts Comey, who makes it plain that he was lucid enough at least to emphatically make some sort of objection.

As usual, nothing to see here. :yawn:

[viscousmemories]

As usual, nothing to see here. :yawn:
Don't sell yourself short. Your post is at least a good example of mixing a red herring with a tu quoque fallacy.

[godfry n. glad]

Yeah... I think of him as "oily". As in "snakeoil". Mr. "I am anointed to tell you what you can, or cannot, do in your bedroom."

He's the only man I know who lost an election to a dead man. In Missouri.

Not "oily" as in vegetable oil?

I thought that was The Crisco Kid's great legacy.

That was the allusion, yes. Ashcroft has had himself "anointed" every time he's taken elected political office. To repeat, the man is batshit crazy. He may be personable as all getout, but that doesn't change the reality.

[yguy]

As usual, nothing to see here. :yawn:
Don't sell yourself short. Your post is at least a good example of mixing a red herring with a tu quoque fallacy.How very interesting. Care to elaborate?

<licking chops>

[viscousmemories]

If you don't get the very simple and straightforward point, I doubt elaboration would help.

[yguy]

If you don't get the very simple and straightforward point, I doubt elaboration would help.Yeah, I figured you were lying. You read that post with just enough comprehension to be able to able to attach a couple of "standard fallacies" to your superficial reading of it.

And you know you can't back it up.

Coward.

[viscousmemories]

Oh sorry, I got shy when you started drooling and smacking your chops at me you dirty old man.

[Watser?]

Oh yeah...:doh:

I always forget that yguy is not really a 14 year old. It is just his mental and political development that is.

[viscousmemories]

I've seen no evidence that he's older than 14, but I've met 14 yr. olds who are more willing and able to engage in mature, honest discourse.

[Watser?]

True...

Didn't mean to diss the whole species :D

[Kyuss Apollo]

Oh yeah...:doh:

I always forget that yguy is not really a 14 year old. It is just his mental and political development that is.

Oh. I just thought he was retarded.

[yguy]

I've met 14 yr. olds who are more willing and able to engage in mature, honest discourse.Hey, there's an idea: maybe you could get one of'em to give you a few pointers. :)

Anyway, since Mr. Mammaries has slunk out of the ring in his typical weaselly fashion, anybody else* wanna piece of the y-man?

<hands behind back, chin stuck out>

*If you're a "left end of the Bell curve" type like Sauron or Watser, forget it.

[davidm]

anybody else* wanna piece of the y-man?


I'm afraid people here are getting the distinct impression that it is you who is on the hunt for a piece.

[viscousmemories]

Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Ashcroft was "lucid" during his visit, whereas Director Mueller said he was "feeble, barely articulate, and clearly stressed". Ergo Gonzales lied. That was why I posted the link to the Washington Post article about Mueller's newly released notes, and why your theory about Comey's motives was a red herring and your implication that Comey was as guilty of misrepresenting the facts as Gonzales was a tu quoque.

I realize it's a mistake to give you so many words to pick apart, rearrange and mischaracterize, but since I made the accusation of fallacious reasoning I reckon I have an obligation to explain it - even if nobody else here needed it.

[Ensign Steve]

Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Ashcroft was "lucid" during his visit, whereas Director Mueller said he was "feeble, barely articulate, and clearly stressed". Ergo Gonzales lied.

Bear with me, as I have about half of this conversation on ignore, but how does that follow? Is it a given that Director Meuller didn't lie?

[viscousmemories]

As I understand it, the quote from Director Mueller comes from notes he took the evening of the hospital visit which he recently turned over to the House Judiciary Committee. So no, it's not a given that his version of events is truthful but it strikes me as highly improbable that he lied in his own notes, and I'd expect notes to be more accurate than Gonzales recollections two years later.

[yguy]

Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Ashcroft was "lucid" during his visit, whereas Director Mueller said he was "feeble, barely articulate, and clearly stressed". Ergo Gonzales lied. Clearly a non sequitur for several reasons:

1. As ES has noted, the hidden assumption is that Mueller's testimony is incontrovertible, a fact not in evidence.

2. Mueller's assessment of Aschcroft's mental condition does not necessarily exclude lucidity.

3. Gonzales' assessment was buttressed (unintentionally or otherwise) by Comey's testimony, as I noted earlier.your theory about Comey's motives was a red herring Not at all. Comey was clearly painting a picture of Ashcroft as the intended victim, by virtue of his diminished mental capacity, of an attempt by Gonzales and Card to manipulate him. Comey's motives have bearing on his credibility, and therefore on that of his characterization of the episode.and your implication that Comey was as guilty of misrepresenting the facts as Gonzales was a tu quoque. The only way that would have any potential for making sense is if I had ever agreed that Gonzales was less than forthright in this matter, which, if memory serves, I have yet to do; and neither am I aware of any reason to do so as of now.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

anybody else* wanna piece of the y-man?


I'm afraid people here are getting the distinct impression that it is you who is on the hunt for a piece.

*keeps his pants on*

[beyelzu]

If you don't get the very simple and straightforward point, I doubt elaboration would help.Yeah, I figured you were lying. You read that post with just enough comprehension to be able to able to attach a couple of "standard fallacies" to your superficial reading of it.

And you know you can't back it up.

Coward.

someone pass some of that snake oil, yguy needs some more lovin


come here you sexy, sexy trolll


lets talk politics. and then after a little of the ol in out

if you catch my drift.


yguy is cool, his homophobia actually makes it possible to deal with him

:tmgrin:

[Clutch Munny]

Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Ashcroft was "lucid" during his visit, whereas Director Mueller said he was "feeble, barely articulate, and clearly stressed". Ergo Gonzales lied. Clearly a non sequitur for several reasons:

1. As ES has noted, the hidden assumption is that Mueller's testimony is incontrovertible, a fact not in evidence.

Obviously false, which no doubt explains why ES "noted" nothing of the kind. Since when does believing what someone says require the assumption that their report is "incontrovertible"? A garden variety report that it's raining outside wouldn't pass this absurd standard; a moment's reflection shows how stupid this idea is.

All that's required is the probabilistic assumption that meeting notes dating back to the event itself are more reliable than Gonzales' repeatedly self-admitted dreadful memory for events and conversations. As vm actually explained, in English and everything.

2. Mueller's assessment of Aschcroft's mental condition does not necessarily exclude lucidity.

No, indeed. Nor does being found over the body of a hated enemy with the smoking murder weapon in hand "necessarily exclude" innocence. Being sick, disoriented, weak and barely articulate only creates strong presumption against being lucid and able to devote focused, careful thought to an issue.

3. Gonzales' assessment was buttressed (unintentionally or otherwise) by Comey's testimony, as I noted earlier.

Of course not. The report notes only that Ashcroft declined to reinsert himself into the decision-making process -- like one would do, were one sick, disoriented, tired and barely articulate. So your main assertion, that Comey's report of Ashcroft's leaving the decision to him means that Ashcroft was "lucid", seems simply to be something you made up.

But then, making things up does seem to be, in your hilariously self-aggrandizing phrase, "the purpose of the yguy account."

[puffs up chest, sticks out chin bravely, fixes gaze into the middle distance, plants feet squarely, looks a lot like a young Charlton Heston, and fantasizes about sweet, sweet, unwilling men and how they should be humbled, dominated... mmm, Judah Ben Hur...]

[yguy]

Sheesh. You'd think poor old Crotch would know better by now than to try to mix it up with the y-monster.

Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Ashcroft was "lucid" during his visit, whereas Director Mueller said he was "feeble, barely articulate, and clearly stressed". Ergo Gonzales lied. Clearly a non sequitur for several reasons:

1. As ES has noted, the hidden assumption is that Mueller's testimony is incontrovertible, a fact not in evidence.

Obviously false, which no doubt explains why ES "noted" nothing of the kind. Since when does believing what someone says require the assumption that their report is "incontrovertible"? Since never, obviously...but just as obviously, we're not talking about mere belief. We're talking about making a bald assertion on the basis of that belief that another person is lying.All that's required is the probabilistic assumption that meeting notes dating back to the event itself are more reliable than Gonzales' repeatedly self-admitted dreadful memory for events and conversations.Actually, in this case it also requires that Comey's sworn testimony be ignored. ;)
2. Mueller's assessment of Aschcroft's mental condition does not necessarily exclude lucidity.No, indeed. Congratulations are in order. You're hitting on one out of three cylinders.
3. Gonzales' assessment was buttressed (unintentionally or otherwise) by Comey's testimony, as I noted earlier.

Of course not. The report notes only that Ashcroft declined to reinsert himself into the decision-making process -- My dear Mr. Runny, it really is time you and I had a little heart to heart talk. I cordially invite you to review my sig line. I put it there because it reminded me of the kind of people who tend to congregate in forums like this one: heavy on intellectual firepower, but show little evidence of having found anything constructive to do with it. You are, in fact, the first guy I thought of in that vein...

...but now you force me to rethink that idea. How in hell would anyone with brains enough to know modus ponens from Mother Jones be dumb enough to fabricate a lie that is so easily discoverable?

The interested reader will load the video in the OP and fast forward to around the 6:45 mark, and thus verify that the following partial transcription is substantially accurate:

"AG Ashcroft then stunned me, lifted his head off the pillow and, in very strong terms, expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me, drawn from the hour long meeting we'd had a week earlier...but then that doesn't matter because I'm not the AG.

Now then, Mr. Runny, I humbly - well, at least as humbly as anyone can when he knows he's dead right :cool: - await your explanation as to why you believe a person who has expressed "in very strong terms" a view that is "rich in both substance and fact" is more accurately described as "barely articulate" than as "lucid".

In any case, Crotch should perhaps, in this instance, be commended for his ineptitude, which led me to review the Comey vid. Doing so revealed the following additional information:

1. Mueller did not enter the room until "several moments after" Gonzales and Card left. Discounting the possibility that either he was listening at the door or somebody was wearing a wire, his assessment could not have been based on what Gonzales heard, in which case his written notes cannot possibly falsify Gonzales' testimony.

2. Mueller then had a conversation with Ashcroft which Comey described as "brief" and "memorable". One cannot help but wonder what could be memorable about a conversation with a man who was anything but lucid.

[puffs up chest, sticks out chin bravely, fixes gaze into the middle distance, plants feet squarely, looks a lot like a young Charlton Heston, and fantasizes about sweet, sweet, unwilling men and how they should be humbled, dominated... mmm, Judah Ben Hur...]Say, that's quite an imagination you have there...but let's face it, pilgrim: projection is just not pretty. :)

[Clutch Munny]

Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Ashcroft was "lucid" during his visit, whereas Director Mueller said he was "feeble, barely articulate, and clearly stressed". Ergo Gonzales lied. Clearly a non sequitur for several reasons:

1. As ES has noted, the hidden assumption is that Mueller's testimony is incontrovertible, a fact not in evidence.

Obviously false, which no doubt explains why ES "noted" nothing of the kind. Since when does believing what someone says require the assumption that their report is "incontrovertible"? Since never

Exactly. Your first reason was utterly daft.

All that's required is the probabilistic assumption that meeting notes dating back to the event itself are more reliable than Gonzales' repeatedly self-admitted dreadful memory for events and conversations.Actually, in this case it also requires that Comey's sworn testimony be ignored. ;)

No. But it does mean that an extra assumption is needed -- that Mueller's observations indicate Ashcroft's condition beyond the precise time that Mueller saw him. On reviewing them, I agree that Comey's observations on the video are more illuminating than Mueller's, though Mueller's certainly confirm Comey's -- making it still less likely that Comey is lying in the just-so way he'd have to be, in order for your fantasy to be correct.

2. Mueller's assessment of Aschcroft's mental condition does not necessarily exclude lucidity.No, indeed. Congratulations are in order. You're hitting on one out of three cylinders.

Thanks, yes, I did show the continued irrelevance of your appeals to necessary truth.

3. Gonzales' assessment was buttressed (unintentionally or otherwise) by Comey's testimony, as I noted earlier.

Of course not. The report notes only that Ashcroft declined to reinsert himself into the decision-making process -- My dear Mr. Runny... You are, in fact, the first guy I thought of...

Yuck. Again with the angry fumblings toward intimacy.

How in hell would anyone with brains enough to know modus ponens from Mother Jones be dumb enough to fabricate a lie that is so easily discoverable?

The report to which I alluded was the one to which vm linked in making the claim to which you responded. I quite agree, reviewing the earlier OP vid, that Comey attributed a single outburst of lucid argument to Ashcroft, after which he fell back on the pillow, "spent".

He also says that he did prep work to orient Ashcroft, laying in a darkened room, as to "time and place" before Gonzales and Card showed up.

So Comey's testimony absolutely reveals a sick, weak man -- one who was confused before the meeting, and who exhausts himself with one burst of speech. This is confirmed by Meuller's finding Ashcroft in this exhausted state upon his arrival. How, exactly -- and do explain this, now -- does this testimony acquit Gonzales and Card of attempting to take advantage of a sick man?

Now then, Mr. Runny, I humbly - well, at least as humbly as anyone can when he knows he's dead right :cool: - await your explanation as to why you believe a person who has expressed "in very strong terms" a view that is "rich in both substance and fact" is more accurately described as "barely articulate" than as "lucid".

I wouldn't press the point that this specific statement was a lie. I would say that Gonzales probably spoke something close enough to the literal truth when he said that Ashcroft was lucid during the visit, but deliberately minced around the fact most relevant to the question, which the same testimony, and Meuller's notes, establish: that G and C tried to press a very sick man, and were prevented from doing so by his great effort to summon a single lucid contribution -- leaving himself exhausted and barely articulate.

Mueller then had a conversation with Ashcroft which Comey described as "brief" and "memorable". One cannot help but wonder what could be memorable about a conversation with a man who was anything but lucid.

You can't have wondered very hard. Given that Comey had just filled him in on the behaviour of G&C, you don't think that it was Mueller's remarks that were memorable?

[puffs up chest, sticks out chin bravely, fixes gaze into the middle distance, plants feet squarely, looks a lot like a young Charlton Heston, and fantasizes about sweet, sweet, unwilling men and how they should be humbled, dominated... mmm, Judah Ben Hur...]Say, that's quite an imagination you have there...

I wouldn't have done it if I'd known how excited it would make you.

ETA: I assume this was obvious from the explicit wording above, but I prefer to be particularly clear about such things. This:
your main assertion, that Comey's report of Ashcroft's leaving the decision to him means that Ashcroft was "lucid", seems simply to be something you made up.
...I retract. While making shit up does seem to be your primary purpose, it's quite clear that you didn't make that up.

[Clutch Munny]

And while this is quite clearly despicable behaviour on the part of Gonzales and Card at a personal level, the part of Comey's testimony by far the more hair-raising is that dealing with the prelude to G&C's arrival at the hospital. As Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/16/nsa_comey/)put it:

[J]ust consider what it says about this administration. Not only did Comey think that he had to rush to the hospital room to protect Ashcroft from having a conniving Card and Gonzales manipulate his severe illness and confusion by coercing his signature on a document -- behavior that is seen only in the worst cases of deceitful, conniving relatives coercing a sick and confused person to sign a new will -- but the administration's own FBI Director thought it was necessary to instruct his FBI agents not to allow Comey to be removed from the room.

Comey and Mueller were clearly both operating on the premise that Card and Gonzales were basically thugs. Indeed, Comey said that when Card ordered him to the White House, Comey refused to meet with Card without a witness being present, and that Card refused to allow Comey's summoned witness (Solicitor General Ted Olson) even to enter Card's office. These are the most trusted intimates of the White House -- the ones who are politically sympathetic to them and know them best -- and they prepared for, defended themselves against, the most extreme acts of corruption and thuggery from the President's Chief of Staff and his then-legal counsel (and current Attorney General of the United States).

Does this sound in any way like the behavior of a government operating under the rule of law, which believes that it had legal authority to spy on Americans without the warrants required for three decades by law?

[yguy]

Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Ashcroft was "lucid" during his visit, whereas Director Mueller said he was "feeble, barely articulate, and clearly stressed". Ergo Gonzales lied. Clearly a non sequitur for several reasons:

1. As ES has noted, the hidden assumption is that Mueller's testimony is incontrovertible, a fact not in evidence.

Obviously false, which no doubt explains why ES "noted" nothing of the kind. Since when does believing what someone says require the assumption that their report is "incontrovertible"? Since never <relevant comment snipped by the Crotch monster in a vain attempt to avoid looking stupid>

Exactly. Your first reason was utterly daft.Actually it was typically cogent and exactly on point.On reviewing them, I agree that Comey's observations on the video are more illuminating than Mueller's, though Mueller's certainly confirm Comey's -- making it still less likely that Comey is lying Who said Comey was lying about Ashcroft's condition?in the just-so way he'd have to be, in order for your fantasy to be correct.What fantasy would that be?

3. Gonzales' assessment was buttressed (unintentionally or otherwise) by Comey's testimony, as I noted earlier.

Of course not. The report notes only that Ashcroft declined to reinsert himself into the decision-making process -- My dear Mr. Runny... You are, in fact, the first guy I thought of...

Yuck. Again with the angry fumblings toward intimacy.Dayum. Real preevert, ain'tcha? :)So Comey's testimony absolutely reveals a sick, weak man -- one who was confused before the meeting, and who exhausts himself with one burst of speech. This is confirmed by Meuller's finding Ashcroft in this exhausted state upon his arrival. How, exactly -- and do explain this, now -- does this testimony acquit Gonzales and Card of attempting to take advantage of a sick man?I never said it did. I'm saying the most charitable interpretation of it has no probative value with respect to that accusation.Now then, Mr. Runny, I humbly - well, at least as humbly as anyone can when he knows he's dead right :cool: - await your explanation as to why you believe a person who has expressed "in very strong terms" a view that is "rich in both substance and fact" is more accurately described as "barely articulate" than as "lucid".I wouldn't press the point that this specific statement was a lie. That would be wise, considering that every last bit of the evidence presented here says it wasn't. I would say that Gonzales probably spoke something close enough to the literal truth when he said that Ashcroft was lucid during the visit, but deliberately minced around the fact most relevant to the question, which the same testimony, and Meuller's notes, establish: that G and C tried to press a very sick man, and were prevented from doing so by his great effort to summon a single lucid contribution -- leaving himself exhausted and barely articulate.Of course you'd say that - even though your basis for doing so must be considered entirely speculative, seeing how his testimony WRT his few minutes conversation with Ashcroft doesn't contradict Comey's testimony in the least.

As for the whole idea of "taking advantage of a sick man", while that's an obvious possibility, it cannot be reliably inferred from the mere fact of Ashcroft's illness. If Gonzales' testimony about his meeting with the "gang of 8" could be falsified, that would indicate something is amiss; but the predictable denials from Democrat participants are underwhelming. Daschle excoriates Gonzales for saying something he never said in the first place, AFAIK. Pelosi admitted that though she herself objected, the consensus was to continue the program, according to the NYT. Harman claims there was only one program, but that it had many parts, a claim which cries out for cross-examination; and then goes on to cryptically accuse Gonzales of some mysterious impropriety of "selective declassification". Mueller then had a conversation with Ashcroft which Comey described as "brief" and "memorable". One cannot help but wonder what could be memorable about a conversation with a man who was anything but lucid.You can't have wondered very hard. Given that Comey had just filled him in on the behaviour of G&C, you don't think that it was Mueller's remarks that were memorable?Well that would certainly make sense if the "exchange" Mueller had was with himself...but of course such an interpretation poses other problems.

[yguy]

Comey and Mueller were clearly both operating on the premise that Card and Gonzales were basically thugs. And Othello was operating on the premise that Desdemona was basically a slut. So while this characterization is no doubt very savory indeed to the raw meat crowd, it is not the least bit enlightening. Does this sound in any way like the behavior of a government operating under the rule of law, which believes that it had legal authority to spy on Americans without the warrants required for three decades by law [statute]?The difference is anything but trivial in wartime.

[D. Scarlatti]

The rule of law doesn't include for them pesky and irrelevant statutes, apparently.

Because the executive can just ignore 'em in "wartime," and it's "wartime" because, uh, the executive said so.

Seriously, what kind of a buffoon crosses out "law" and replaces it with "statute," as if the latter has any less -- or even different -- effect than the former? A fucking ridiculous one, that's what kind.

[yguy]

The rule of law doesn't include ... them ... statutes, apparently.Of course it does. I never said anything different.Because the executive can just ignore 'em in "wartime," If they interfere with carrying out his oath of office, he is constitutionally obligated to do so, obviously.and it's "wartime" because, uh, the executive said so.Actually Congress said so too...but it's not wartime because somebody said it is. It's wartime because we're at war.Seriously, what kind of a buffoon crosses out "law" and replaces it with "statute," as if the latter has any less -- or even different -- effect than the former?The law includes constitutional provisions. Statutes do not.

[D. Scarlatti]

If [the statutes] interfere with carrying out his oath of office, he is constitutionally obligated to do so, obviously.

Hello? His Oath is to faithfully execute the Office and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, you know, the Constitution that created his office.

Actually Congress said ["it's wartime"] too...

No, Congress didn't. Only a formal declaration of war would constitute Congress saying, "It's wartime." Congress authorized the use of military force against Iraq; specifically, an Iraqi regime that was ousted some time ago. Mission accomplished, remember? Surely you at least noticed the oversized jockstrap.

It's wartime because we're at war.

On drugs? Or poverty? Illegal immigrants? Dog fighting? Christmas?

The law includes constitutional provisions. Statutes do not.

Which has nothing to do with why you changed the word. Statutes are law. Typical of your laughable attempts to shift the goalposts. You're full of shit.

[Clutch Munny]

Comey and Mueller were clearly both operating on the premise that Card and Gonzales were basically thugs. And Othello was operating on the premise that Desdemona was basically a slut. So while this characterization is no doubt very savory indeed to the raw meat crowd, it is not the least bit enlightening.

How did you manage to miss the point? Greenwald is not (in that passage) assuming that Card and Gonzales are thugs; he is pointing out that the highest levels of administration are riven with open hostility and distrust, and are split on the question of whether the admin's conduct is effectively criminal. This would be a ghastly situation in any regime, but is particularly a sign of dysfunction in the Government By Personal Buddies system of Bush and Cheney.

Does this sound in any way like the behavior of a government operating under the rule of law, which believes that it had legal authority to spy on Americans without the warrants required for three decades by law [statute]?The difference is anything but trivial in wartime.

:lol: More careful point-missing.

[D. Scarlatti]

I forgot to mention, the U.S. is also at war with Satan.

[Clutch Munny]

So Comey's testimony absolutely reveals a sick, weak man -- one who was confused before the meeting, and who exhausts himself with one burst of speech. This is confirmed by Meuller's finding Ashcroft in this exhausted state upon his arrival. How, exactly -- and do explain this, now -- does this testimony acquit Gonzales and Card of attempting to take advantage of a sick man?I never said it did. I'm saying the most charitable interpretation of it has no probative value with respect to that accusation.

And that is a ridiculous falsehood, obviously. Comey's testimony, bolstered by Mueller's, depicts a confused man who was left "spent" and "barely articulate" after a single contribution.


As for the whole idea of "taking advantage of a sick man", while that's an obvious possibility, it cannot be reliably inferred from the mere fact of Ashcroft's illness.

:lol:

You're a twit.

[D. Scarlatti]

Gonzales finally resigns (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/washington/27cnd-gonzales.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin).

[Clutch Munny]

As recently as Sunday afternoon, Mr. Gonzales was denying through his press spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, that he intended to leave.

Mr. Roehrkasse said Sunday afternoon that he had telephoned Mr. Gonzales about the reports circulating in Washington that a resignation was imminent, “and he said it wasn’t true, so I don’t know what more I can say.”

Bringing truth and honesty back to the White House, right up to the end.

[Watser?]

Gonzales finally resigns (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/washington/27cnd-gonzales.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin).

:chairdance:

[viscousmemories]

That good news was the first thing I heard this morning. :goodbye: Albie.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

It would be nice if, as a nod to actual justice and not the shenanigans which make yguy even harder than when he is looking at pictures of the Backstreet Boys, Gonzales would let the door hit him on the ass on his way out. Maybe knock him over, make him drop his stuff and cry a little, etc.

[Stormlight]

Let's hope that tomorrow he still remembers that he resigned.

[D. Scarlatti]

Bringing truth and honesty back to the White House, right up to the end.

I believe it's known in the trade as implausible deniability.

[Watser?]

Let's hope that tomorrow he still remembers that he resigned.

:rofl:

[yguy]

If [the statutes] interfere with carrying out his oath of office, he is constitutionally obligated to do so, obviously.

Hello? His Oath is to faithfully execute the Office and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, you know, the Constitution that created his office.We've been over this before, nitwit. As Lincoln obviously knew, the Constitution was created for America, not the other way around.Actually Congress said ["it's wartime"] too...

No, Congress didn't. Not explicitly, but they might as well have.Congress authorized the use of military force against Iraq; specifically, an Iraqi regime that was ousted some time ago.Yes, we won that battle, but we're still at war...and most likely we'll still be at war even after Iraq is stabilized. Surely you at least noticed the oversized jockstrap.Really, the things you people have an eye for...The law includes constitutional provisions. Statutes do not.

Which has nothing to do with why you changed the word. Statutes are law.And constitutional provisions are law...but constitutional provisions are not statutes.

Get it now, stupid? :rolleyes:

[yguy]

And Othello was operating on the premise that Desdemona was basically a slut. So while this characterization is no doubt very savory indeed to the raw meat crowd, it is not the least bit enlightening.

How did you manage to miss the point? I didn't, trust me. ;)

[beyelzu]

wow, you turn me on so much yguy when you troll ridiculous right wing bullshit


come here my little troll


who has the lube?

[yguy]

:lol:

You're a twit.Must be irritating knowing a "twit" like me has a hundred times as much sense as you do, eh? :)

[beyelzu]

nah, its sexy as hell, trollbaby

[D. Scarlatti]

Not explicitly ...

:laugh:

Fucking clown.