Details

by emptywheel

The most telling detail in today's Isikoff and Thomas article on the USA Purge is Mark Corallo's attempt to suggest Democrats politicized the Justice Department to the same degree Alberto Gonzales and Monica Goodling have.

"But let's face it—the Democrats do this, too, they all do it. The idea that career employees are above politics is total crap. The so-called career employees are mostly liberal Democrats." He noted that in the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Francisco, career employees refused for months to hang portraits of Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft.

Which begs the question: what was the debate over the pictures of Bush, Ashcroft, and Cheney? Were career prosecutors objecting to one picture, presumably replacing pictures of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno? Or were career prosecutors objecting to the kind of hagiography that brought down the Soviet Union? Furthermore, why post the picture of Cheney in official buildings? Many--perhaps most--Americans couldn't identify the Vice President from a criminal lineup. He's not, technically, in the line of command from the career prosecutor to the President. He's best known for his influence on foreign affairs, not domestic issues. His sole influence over DOJ, presumably, has been in his wholesale assault on the Constitution. So why insist on plastering his face all over the halls of justice?

That's just an example of a quote demanding real follow-up, particularly given Corallo's role as a chief shill for BushCo.

But there are a few more details that deserve some scrutiny. For example, the article collapses the events of March 10, 11, and 12, resulting in the suggestion that the hospital confrontation, the pact of many high-raking DOJ employees to quit, and the conversation with George Bush happened overnight.

So consider these scenes from March 2004, ... On the night after [Ashcroft's] operation, he has two visitors: White House chief of staff Andrew Card and presidential counsel Alberto Gonzales. As described in public testimony, they want Ashcroft to sign a document authorizing the government's top-secret eavesdropping program to go on. The attorney general, who thinks the program is illegal, refuses.

Back at the Justice Department, there is an equally extraordinary scene. Appalled by the White House's heavy-handed attempt to coerce the gravely ill attorney general, virtually the entire top leadership of the Justice Department is threatening to resign. The group includes the director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum and the chief of the Criminal Division, Chris Wray. Some of them gather in the conference room of Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who describes Ashcroft's bravely turning away the president's men from his hospital bed. The mood that night in the conference room was tense—and sober. "This was a showdown," says a former senior Justice Department official who was there. "Everybody understood the choice they were making and the gravity of the situation. Everybody knew what the stakes were." A different source estimated that as many as 30 top DOJ officials would have resigned.

The next day Comey is summoned to the White House to meet with President Bush. The details remain murky. But it takes two weeks before a compromise is reached—averting the spectacle of mass resignation by putting more legal controls on the eavesdropping program.

But that's not right. The hospital confrontation happened on March 10. The pact to resign may have happened on March 10 or 11 (Comey had a resignation letter dated March 10, but Ashcroft's chief of staff persuaded him to hold off until Ashcroft could resign at the same time). March 11 was the day of the Madrid train bombings which didn't, Chuck Schumer made sure to point out, dissuade Comey from resigning. And the discussion between Bush and Comey and, then, Mueller, happened on March 12.

So who cares? Why worry about the dates?

Simply, because by collapsing this two day period into one, you avoid noting one of the most important parts of this story: on his own authority, Bush reauthorized the program without the support from DOJ. The program operated for at least 24 hours without even the promise of changes to satisfy the DOJ.

Maybe this is just sloppy editing. But given that Isikoff had a hand in this article, I find it troubling that a narrative trying to tie all these events together ignores Bush's clear contempt for the law (it does, however, provide a useful description of Bush's role in calling Mrs. Ashcroft to get Gonzales and Card admitted into the hospital). It's not just that Gonzales and Card attempted to override Comey's acting authority, this story is primarily about Bush's role overriding the counsel of those paid to offer that counsel.

Comments

[TomJ]

I read an article at FireDogLake that said this:

"...There in the hospital room Comey held firm. Card got all bent out of shaped and ordered Comey go to the White House the next day for a one-on-one meeting with Bush. Comey refused unless he could have an independent witness to the meeting. No deal.

The next day Bush and Comey met and Comey let it be known that he, and Mueller, and others would resign en masse if the pressure continued. Bush backed down. But within a few months, the program resumed, without Justice Department approval. No one was the wiser."

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/25/no-comment/

This also seems wrong. The threat to resign was because the program had been authorized by Bush. And Andy Card wanted to see Comey the evening of the hospital visit, and Comey went. The next day's WH visit was a scheduled daily briefing by head of DOJ and FBI. On FDL, I couldn't find any comments which pointed this out.

[emptywheel]

Agree, TomJ--that's the chronology.

Card called Comey at the hospital and made him come ot the WH that night. It's not clear when the meeting about resigning took place--though I'm skeptical that McCallum was a party to it at all. But Comey was clear: the meeting with Bush took place after an ordinary morning briefing on the 12th.

[SaltinWound]

Great points, wheel. Your close reading skills continue to amaze. Was the San Francisco USA who fought hanging the pictures the same one everyone agrees wasn't fired for political reasons? I'm probably barking up the wrong tree, but I tend to be skeptical of positions on which everyone agrees.

[emptywheel]

The SF USA wouldn't be a career appoint--he was as political as they come. Corallo's implication was that the career appoints are all raving lefties. You know--lefties are always drawn to be prosecutors...

They've made similar accusations about Civil Rights Div.

[earlofhuntingdon]

Collapsing the action allows it to be more easily manipulated. "Back at the ranch" lingo suggests this is just a daily soap; if you don't like it, change the channel.

Most damningly, it understates the enormity of the problem. I believe that at no time before in American history has the entire top echelon of the Department of Justice, as many as thirty conservative Republican lawyers, including the government's chief law enforcement officer and the director of the FBI, all appointed by the sitting President, threatened to resign.

John le Carre would describe that without exaggeration as an attempt to stop a coup.

The article also blithely repeats the unsupported assumption that this unprecedented lawyers' revolt was over "the" spying program. We don't know that. There may be many programs, including one or more that Congress has specifically prohibited, that continue in ways that grossly violate the law of the land, with nothing more to support them than the President's assertion that the Vice President said that it was OK for him to say, "Because I said so".

[Dismayed]

I love the bit about hanging the Cheney picture. Just a silent way of inserting himself into the chain of command. Man, a picture really is worth a thousand words.

[emptywheel]

Dismayed

And I'm not sure, but I think that only Bush and Gonzales are standard. Was Kevin Ryan, a good Bushie, pushing for Cheney's picture of his own accord? Because I could see objecting to that. Of course, I'm a screaming leftie, so...

[nolo]

okay -- i love this granularity here,
EW -- and i have to admit, i think you
really have hit on something with the
veep pictures thing. i am loathe to
give this hint of my long-teeth, but. . .
the last time i clearly seeing any veep's
pictures in so many government offices. . .

was. . . 1970. . . and it was spiro agnew.
and, everywhere. wow. just. . . wow.

i snorted audibly when i read your line about
how career prosecutors are generally raging
lefties, to start with! tremendous!

hmmmm. . .

i also recall that most of the members
of my law school republicans' club were,
en masse, headed off to become
public defenders, and protect the innocent. . .

really. it. could. be. true. . .

[seems 'tis often the case that the truth will
be far stranger than anything we might make up. . .]

finally, sorta' O/T, but there are
two very worthy opinions in today's
newspapers. . . that is all.

off for a bike-ride. . .

[Sandy]

If you go to AfterDowningStreet.org and look at the left-hand side of the screen, you'll find some photos

of the Decider in Chief, the "Commander Guy" and his hatchet man, "Big Time" Cheney...together.

With the photos it says: Celebrate MEMORIAL DAY with some DRAFT DODGERS.

That one's going up on my fridge for this weekend.

[Seamus]

One thing about Comey that really makes me wonder if he is the hero people are calling him. He kept this secret for over three years, waiting until the right somebody asked him about. What else does he know, that he refuses to reveal, until the right person asks him. This man is a lawyer, and was a USA, and is supposedly an officer of the court, but because being a Republican, and needing cover for his revelations, is more important to him than the subversion of the Justice Department by the Bush Administration. And know he is a highly paid flack for the premier war profiteer, Lockheed-Martin, reportedly taking home over a million $$$ a year. Some hero!

I don't begrudge him the right to make a good living, but his reticence about telling what he knows makes me sick.

[Mimikatz]

Of course most career appointees the Buhies found in DOJ were liberals. When the salaries that big law firms offer new grads are more than the top career salaries at DOJ, it is very likely that the kind of people who go into government service have a commitment to public service

Moreover, when Bush came in, the hires for the previous 8 years were all people who came to work for DOJ during the Clinton years. When Clinton came in, there had been 12 years of hires while there were Republican Presidents. Sometimes people choose to work for the Gov't because they like the idea of public service, and believe (as Comey did) that proescutors go catch the bad guys (although there are all kinds of civil specialists in the DOJ as well). Some are drawn by the priorities of the President in power or the mission of a particualr division.

For decades attorneys went into the Civil Rights Division because they believed in equal rights for minorities. Were they liberal Democrats? Many probably were, because as we saw under Nixon, Reagan and Bush II, when the GOP is in power there is little zeal or internal recognition for that kind of work. Whose fault is that?

When Nixon was Pres the US passed many of the seminal environmental laws, and the Nixon DOJ did enforce them. For years environmentally minded young lawyers applied to work in natural resources and enforcement of environmental laws. Of course under Reagan enforcement was less zealous, but it still took place. Again, Bush II was the big turnaround, when the corporations and the regulated industries took over the shop. That both groups had a dedication to the laws they were supposed to enforce must have made them "liberal" in the eyes of the Bush ideologues.

Since right-wing Republicans are a minority of the US population, and most Republican law grads go into investment banking or corporate law, it isn't surprising that most applicants for career DOJ jobs might have liberal sympathies and it would take some scouring to find hard-right applicants to hire and promote.

[Dismayed]

I'm pretty sure only Bush and Gonzo would be standard. It's not so different than the military where the chain of command is often on the wall. The pres (Commander and Chief), a couple of generals, a Colonel, then probably your captain and XO would be on the wall. I dont' recall ever seeing a Veep in these photo on the wall situations.

Was Ryan pushing for Cheney of his own accord? Just a wild out of my arse opinion, but knowing the mentality of Cheney I'm automatically looking for Dick or one of his minions to be driving it. I'd be interested to know about other offices, if Cheney is on the wall.

Cheney has never liked or in any way behaved as if he's out of the Chain of Command on anything. YET - ATTENTION DICK YOU ARE NOT IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND ON ANYTHING, AND WHEN YOU ACT AS SUCH YOU ARE A CRIMINAL. (unless specifically designated by your puppet)

The photo on the wall thing just seems so damn telling to me. Any good marketing person will tell you that perception is much more important than fact. The photo on the wall speaks to perception, and ever perhaps to the reality of this administration, though not to legal fact. It just fits, to think CheneyCo is driving it, though it may very well just be an isolated incident.

[DonS]

The idea of Comey being Mr. Upright, only after the right person asks the right queston at the right time, does take a bit of the gloss off for me as well. Kind of like a commenter over at the Washington Note opined about folks getting all mistry about Larry Wilkerson, not to mention Colin Powell for dropping a dime on Tenet after they're long out of power, or office at least, and Iraq is boiling away just fine.

Now its true that you and I are looking at some of these later day heroes with the benefit of hidsight -- although I will say that I was screaming and shouting about Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc., long before there was much cover for a dissenting pov.

And its true that the Cheney admiistration is the most notably corrupt since the Nixon crooks. Uh, btw, didn't Elliot Richardson and a few others manage to remember what it meant to represent the people with honor, under intense pressure, with and out-of-control WH, pointing out the emperor's naked corruption on the way out?

My point would be, I guess, that the vereties of honor in public servants is timeless, regardless of how corrupt, manipulative and high tech the pols are in their fearmongering. Seems like that sort of honor is only possible when great personal courage and risk are involved, when its a very personal case of me against the CW and the powers that be. Because its right, though few may appreciate it at the time.

I, too, remember those pics of Agnew everywhere you turned in DC. Spare me.

[mamayaga]

"...it would take some scouring to find hard-right applicants to hire and promote."

They must have thought they hit the mother lode when they got to Regent. I guess that also explains why they got 150 of those -- the Repugs from the good law schools wouldn't condescend to work for government pay. The Regent lawyers may not have had as many options.

[nolo]

". . .He kept this secret for over three years, waiting until the right somebody asked him about. What else does he know, that he refuses to reveal, until the right person asks him. This man is a lawyer, and was a USA, and is supposedly an officer of the court, but because being a Republican, and needing cover for his revelations, is more important to him than the subversion of the Justice Department by the Bush Administration. . . I don't begrudge him the right to make a good living, but his reticence about telling what he knows makes me sick.

Posted by: Seamus | May 27, 2007 at 15:00

seamus -- i absolutely hear you.

but here is the nut of it:

i think -- politics aside -- because he
is licensed to practice in DC -- i.e., the
"strongest-attorney-client-confidences-
rules"-jurisdiction in the nation -- he
very well may have been precluded from
speaking about it, unless "directly asked"
pursuant to the "lawful process of [a tribunal]
of competent jurisdiction" -- and, those were the
united states congressional committees. . .

under the DC rules, as i read them, he could
not lawfully "volunteer" the march 2004 information,
except in response to a lawful process by a court,
or the congress.

this is so, because the program, at least after two
weeks, was amended to stop the violation of law.

once it was in the past, it was a confidence.

he could only lawfully disclose what he knew
if an ongoing pattern of law-violation was underway,
and that pattern was likely to result in continuing,
significant, harm to person, or property.

some even read the DC rules to say his only
course would have been to STAY MUM, and simply
resign his position.

i do not hold a license in DC, but i think
there is much room for legitimate debate about
whether there really was anything he could
have done differently, at the time -- thus the
threat of mass-resignations (30-plus, ashcroft
and mueller, included!) was about the best,
most lawful, response -- at the time. . .

just my $0.02 -- for a fellow-irishman. . .

[nolo]

". . .The idea of Comey being Mr. Upright, only after the right person asks the right queston at the right time, does take a bit of the gloss off for me as well. . ."

-- Don S

see mine, above -- it is maddening, i
understand -- but, i submit that
because mr. comey always was such
a straight-shooter, he had scarcely
any others, in the way of lawful
choices, at the time. . .

it is hard to fathom, but this is
the way the system is designed to
work -- so that clients will be
forthcoming to their lawyers, with-
out fear. . . unless they are discussing
a planned-mob-hit, etc. . . with the
attorney. . . it is hard to make sense
of, unless one has done a lot of reading
in this area. . .

i'm sorry that i cannot devote about
twenty paragraphs to the ideas, here. . .

[DonS]

I do hold a licnese to practice in DC, but mericfully have not been forced to do so for almost 40 years. While I understand the proscription against unethical lawyer behavior -- though I wasn't aware DC was so stringent -- I guess my question would be: aren't there some things in this world, albeit fraught with future financial uncertainty, more sacred even than the code of ethics of the bar association. Like turning the DOJ into an arm of the politcal mafia?

This is not intended as criticism of anyone here for the light they shed on the issue.

[Seamus]

i do not hold a license in DC, but i think there is much room for legitimate debate about whether there really was anything he could have done differently, at the time -- thus the threat of mass-resignations (30-plus, ashcroft and mueller, included!) was about the best,most lawful, response -- at the time. . .

just my $0.02 -- for a fellow-irishman. .

Posted by: nolo | May 27, 2007 at 15:35

Nolo,
I am not an lawyer, and i am sometimes very grateful for that fact. This is one time. It is very difficult for me to get my head around this the fact that a DOJ lawyer, and DAG, not being able to blow the whistle on a White House end-run around the law, and the Constitution he is sworn to uphold & protect? Who is his client supposed to be, whose confidentiality he is protecting, and why can he not ask to be released from said confidentiality?

.

[Tracy]

Isakoff and Thomas don't give any indication that they fact-checked Corallo's story about the allegedly recalcitrant career attorneys. The story sure doesn't ring true to me. First of all, I'd wager that DOJ attorneys don't hang pictures -- a job more appropriate for the custodial department. Second, if the career attorneys were told to hang the pictures and failed to do so, the USA or someone in D.C. could have ordered the custodial department to do so. Or someone in D.C. could have ordered the USA to order the custodial department to do it.

[DonS]

OK, I agree, the threat of mass resignations may have been the most effective tool at the moment. But obviously Comey hung around for another couple of years. We're not dealing with some flaming lefty here of course (not that there is anything wrong with flaming lefties, ahem).

Who knows, perhaps he was feeding all sorts of subersive information to committee staff on the qt. Deep throat style. Doubtful.

[freepatriot]

so we can assume that Mark Corallo doesn't have children

why else would he use the favorite excuse OF A FUCKING CHILD

will all the Mothers out there like to help me with the rejoinder ???

all together now, one, two, three ...

Bill Clinton Did It Too

If Bill Clinton Jumped Off A Cliff, Would You Jump Off The Same Cliff ???

kinda makes you wonder about the parenting skills of this hack's mother

[nolo]

i will admit that i sort of cringe
when i try to explain this particular
facet of the DC rules -- understand
that the district of columbia, has,
for almost a half-century, departed
from the model rules of the ABA in
this critical respect. . .

let me say that this same result
would not necessarily always obtain
OUTSIDE the DC-beltway. . . now,
were i a political creature, i might
suggest that the DC rules are designed
the way they are -- WITH A PURPOSE.

and, we just saw that purpose play
out -- but, since i am NOT a political
creature. . . i won't make any such
suggestion. [he he!]

but it is true that the comey-facts
are absolutely the most difficult ones
to help understand the general rule,
because the comey situation invokes about
five exceptions to that general rule. . .

maybe this warrants a post, over at my
joint, on client confidences -- it will
take some time and research, but i will
(ultimately) get to it. . .

i hate telling everyone, just trust me,
it is complicated -- but it is. especially
inside the district of columbia. . .

gotta.jet.now. . .

[William Ockham]

There is an undercurrent to Corrallo's argument that is deeply disturbing, even though we get it all the time from this Administration and its shills. They delight in setting up false equivalences that trivialize the depth of their own depravity. An alleged disagreement over whose pictures should be displayed in one U.S. Attorney's office proves that repeated violations of the Hatch Act, firing U.S. Attorneys to protect ones' friends from corruption investigations, and using the DOJ to disenfranchise voters are all "politics as usual". This deviancy is only possible because the old-line media's rules ensure that they never question these absurdities.

[nolo]

ah -- sir william of occam -- DING!

and a great handle -- parsimony, indeed!

[dalloway]

Seconded, William of Occam! Rove has noticed a salient fact about 21st Century America, that he who comes up with the coolest sound bite wins. Truth doesn't matter. All you need is 25 words or less that your kool-aid drinkers can repeat ad nauseum: "Cut and Run." "Defeatocrats." "Support the Troops." "Surrender Dates." "Politics as Usual."