Gonzales resigns

[bascule]

Well, this is all over the news at this point so I'm not really sure posting an article is relevant.

 

My question is will this finally undo the Congressional logjam regarding investigating Bush?

 

Is Gonzales's resignation in addition to Rove's resignation tantamount to the two abandoning a sinking ship? Were Powell and Ashcroft just ahead of the curve?

[Pangloss]

Well the way Democrats talk the Bush ship has been sinking since the man was elected. By now it'd have to be 10,000 leagues under the sea.

 

Anyway, the Gonzales thing really seems to me like a bad joke and a perfect example of why so many Americans have lost faith in their government. Gonzales was in office a little over two years, and during that time he's supposed to have done great harm to the Justice Department? I suspect this is nothing more than impeachment by proxy. Can't get Bush, go after the little guys instead.

 

Warrentless wiretapping? They castigate Gozales, and then go and pass a bill that does the same thing! Lying to congress? Please, I could find a federal employee to swear under oath that Bascule has voted Republican in every election since Eisenhower. (grin) But seriously, I mean, to think he actually had the temerity to lose a paper clip behind the "top secret" copy machine, and lied about it! The gall of the man!

 

Congress is the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf, and I've heard this one before.

[geoguy]

Isn't the Attorney General an important position in the USA? Regardless of whether its Rumsfeld or Gonzales, why would the President have kept an individual in office so long who had little credibility. Isn't credibility an important tool in getting the job done? Doesn't actual progress or achievement matter?

 

Then again it goes to the character of many of the Republican senators around Bush. They know that part of the problem with America's image is Bush himself. Bush is a liability in both international affairs and on getting a meaningfyul solution on Iraq. 'Loyalty' has no instrinsic value when the object of that loyalty is not a positive. The loyalty of a President should be to the people first and not to an ineffective attorney general and the loyalty of Sentators should be to their contituents and not to be Bush's sock puppets.

[bascule]

Gonzales was in office a little over two years, and during that time he's supposed to have done great harm to the Justice Department?

 

He certainly functioned as a major impediment of any Congressional investigation of the executive branch, and in that regard was harmful to the function the Justice Department is supposed to serve.

 

I suspect this is nothing more than impeachment by proxy. Can't get Bush, go after the little guys instead.

 

I'd be more likely to describe it as "Rats fleeing a sinking ship"

 

Warrentless wiretapping? They castigate Gozales, and then go and pass a bill that does the same thing!

 

Indeed, the lily-livered Democrats are afraid of appearing weak on terrorism, and thus "compromise" in the form of giving Bush everything he wants... for a time.

 

That aside, I still consider the program both unconstitutional and in violation of (then) federal law. Gonzales's attempt to get a barely conscious, heavily medicated, post-surgery Ashcroft to sign off on the program should go down as one of the most despicable acts in the history of American politics, at least if anyone were actually paying attention.

 

Sadly, you raise an important point here. One would hope that the Senate confirmation process would allow the Democrats to weed out anyone as corrupt and incompetent as Gonzales, but given their recent track record, they'd probably approve Goering.

 

And just as a bit of juxtaposition to that, I found this quote interesting:

 

"Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job. He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove. This resignation is not the end of the story. Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House." — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

[Pangloss]

Isn't the Attorney General an important position in the USA? Regardless of whether its Rumsfeld or Gonzales, why would the President have kept an individual in office so long who had little credibility. Isn't credibility an important tool in getting the job done? Doesn't actual progress or achievement matter?

 

Is there a single person in the entire Milky Way galaxy that could be nominated for any post in this administration that the left would agree has "credibility"? They're not interested in "progress or achievement", they want the president's head to roll. The want, as Bascule put it, for the ship to sink. They want that *perception* victory, and they do not care what the cost is in achieving it. They would gleefully accept the sacrifice of female suffrage, abortion, and the Everglades paved over just to see him fry. Whatever that cost is, it CANNOT be as important as convincing every man, woman and child in this universe that George Bush is the greatest evil to walk the planet since the dawn of mankind.

 

I simply do not understand how these questions of yours (which normally I would agree are perfectly reasonable) even enter into the debate. We aren't capable of having that discussion in this country anymore. Isn't this what you've been trying to tell us?

 

 

Gonzales's attempt to get a barely conscious, heavily medicated, post-surgery Ashcroft to sign off on the program should go down as one of the most despicable acts in the history of American politics, at least if anyone were actually paying attention.

 

You know what that story reminds me of? A couple of friends of mine who got a divorce a few years back. I thought everything was fine, but then all I hear about is how the other one is the most despicable person in the history of the world. He said, she said. Who knows what really happened, because nobody with an independent mind seems to be able to tell me.

 

Put another way, you're drawing that conclusion based on testimony from people with known and stated bias. Would you believe those same people if they told you George Bush reads 90 books per year, as another administration official recently claimed? Of course you would not. You're cherry-picking your facts to suit your predisposed belief.

[bascule]

...you're drawing that conclusion based on testimony from people with known and stated bias.

 

Therefore they're wrong? Ad hominem perhaps?

 

Would you believe those same people if they told you George Bush reads 90 books per year, as another administration official recently claimed?

 

Some administration officials are liars therefore all administration officials are liars? Composition fallacy perhaps?

 

You're cherry-picking your facts to suit your predisposed belief.

 

Actually I'm taking the FBI director and the then deputy attorney general at their word.

 

I guess you're calling them both liars. Any reason why?

[doG]

That aside, I still consider the program both unconstitutional and in violation of (then) federal law. Gonzales's attempt to get a barely conscious, heavily medicated, post-surgery Ashcroft to sign off on the program should go down as one of the most despicable acts in the history of American politics, at least if anyone were actually paying attention.

 

How ignorant! There's maybe a hundred people in this country affected by this allegedly despicable act and all they're interested in is making plans with the enemy to kill thousands of Americans. It sounds like you'd rather see thousands dead than one guy on the phone with Bin Laden having his rights violated. If there's anyone in this country on the phone with Bin Laden, I want that conversation monitored and I don't want the monitors waiting 24 to 48 hours for a warrant to enable them to do so, the call will long be over by then. This whole drawn out investigation by the democrats is an outright attempt to aid and abet terrorists because of their searing hatred of Bush. Bush is a moron but that doesn't make it OK to aid those that want to kill us. Screw those hundred people on the phone with Al-Qaeda. They don't deserve any rights to make their terrorist plans in private. If you're concerned about their rights then you do so in violation of everyone elses right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[iNow]

How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?

~ Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

 

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.

~ James Madison

 

 

Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency.

~ General Douglas MacArthur

 

 

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.

~ Albert Camus

 

 

If humanity does not opt for integrity we are through completely. It is absolutely touch and go. Each one of us could make the difference.

~ R. Buckminster Fuller

 

 

Whoever wishes peace among peoples must fight statism.

~ Ludwig von Mises

 

 

We are not going to be able to operate our Spaceship Earth successfully nor for much longer unless we see it as a whole spaceship and our fate as common. It has to be everybody or nobody.

~ R. Buckminster Fuller

[jackson33]

The shame of what *Inside the Beltway* mentality has become, is with the hundreds of qualified people who will never run for political office. Many well qualified, well meaning and comparatively moral folks will choose other fields for themselves and influence their family or friends to avoid, what our founders actually encouraged...

 

Bush II, to his generation will never get credit due, for the jobs he has done to maintain some stability to both the security and economic systems during unprecedented events. All those that were and have been through his Texas and National tenures, many of which go back to Bush I and even Reagan, have paid there dues, ten fold to what any member of Congress has or could have endured.

 

The fall of the US, will come from with in and possibly sooner than expected.

The reasons will lay in the quality and intent of those we elect as a total. No system has or will ever be perfect, but the *Patriotism*, *Love and Loyalty to Country*, which has made being American to most of us something special has long been dropped from our teachings. We, as a Nation of individuals have chose to impose our individual right to free speech on all those who prefer the traditions, morality and legal systems which gave all of us a shot at the *American Dream*.

[swansont]

The reasons will lay in the quality and intent of those we elect as a total. No system has or will ever be perfect, but the *Patriotism*, *Love and Loyalty to Country*, which has made being American to most of us something special has long been dropped from our teachings. We, as a Nation of individuals have chose to impose our individual right to free speech on all those who prefer the traditions, morality and legal systems which gave all of us a shot at the *American Dream*.

 

Maybe in part because some recognize that there is more than one way to be patriotic, and more than one way to love and be loyal to your country. IMO there are times where dissenting is the most patriotic, American thing one can do.

[jackson33]

Maybe in part because some recognize that there is more than one way to be patriotic, and more than one way to love and be loyal to your country. IMO there are times where dissenting is the most patriotic, American thing one can do.

 

Dissent/differ/disagree is very much part of the the intent and meaning of our system. As a right to do so, w/o being punished.

 

The problem is when these expressed views are motivated to undermine other than the victim. In this case the House and much of the Senate, has an expressed desire to bring down the Bush administration. AG, IMO, has many faults other than a loyal administration advocate. I feel he may be or have been wrong on many domestic issues. However these issues and especially the ones the House has used, are not sufficient to discredit an otherwise honorable and productive career.

[bascule]

How ignorant! There's maybe a hundred people in this country affected by this allegedly despicable act and all they're interested in is making plans with the enemy to kill thousands of Americans.

 

And you know that how?

 

It sounds like you'd rather see thousands dead than one guy on the phone with Bin Laden having his rights violated.

 

Give me liberty or give me death

 

Live free or die

 

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

 

And all that jazz

 

Yes, see, some of us care more about freedom than paying lip service to it while handing our civil rights over to an increasingly totalitarian government

 

If there's anyone in this country on the phone with Bin Laden, I want that conversation monitored and I don't want the monitors waiting 24 to 48 hours for a warrant to enable them to do so, the call will long be over by then.

 

I want my fourth amendment and FISA rights protected. I care about freedom. Obviously you don't.

 

This whole drawn out investigation by the democrats is an outright attempt to aid and abet terrorists because of their searing hatred of Bush.

 

Oh please. I could just as easily say that the illegal spying program is an outright attempt to undermine our civil rights because Bush hates freedom.

 

Bush is a moron but that doesn't make it OK to aid those that want to kill us.

 

Freedom is a double edged sword. I'd rather err on the side of freedom. If you don't like the fourth amendment and think it makes you unsafe, perhaps you should move to a different country where they don't have these freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

Screw those hundred people on the phone with Al-Qaeda. They don't deserve any rights to make their terrorist plans in private. If you're concerned about their rights then you do so in violation of everyone elses right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

We must take away freedoms in order to be free? That makes a whole lot of sense...

[Pangloss]

you're drawing that conclusion based on testimony from people with known and stated bias.

Therefore they're wrong? Ad hominem perhaps?

 

Therefore we can't assume they're right, which is what you were doing. Hasty generalization, perhaps? Biased sample, perhaps? Half-truths? Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

 

Logical fallacies can be a fickle beast. Be careful what you wish for.

 

Do you really think the Masters of Spin in Washington aren't WELL AWARE that all they have to do is throw out a few juicy tidbits, and people out on the Internet will leap to all the hasty generalizations that they can't afford to make on camera? Do you really want to PARTICIPATE in that detrimental, pointless nonsense? Because that's what you're doing at the moment.

 

Ask instead why they can't afford to make those hasty generalizations themselves, or why they're so clever to couch them so behind fancy rhetoric and carefully chosen verbiage. Could it be because they know full well that further evidence could appear later and prove them wrong? Could it be that they're well aware that every iota of "testimony" in Washington comes with the taint of bias? Could it be that, unlike yourself, when a political leader takes a stand like you're taking, and is later proven wrong, there can be significant consequences to their careers?

 

 

Actually I'm taking the FBI director and the then deputy attorney general at their word.

 

I guess you're calling them both liars. Any reason why?

 

I didn't call them liars, I questioned whether they might be. I questioned their bias. For most of us there is a clear difference -- unless you're predisposed to conclusions. And I have valid reason for questioning their bias, based on plenty of news stories describing outrage in the FBI community over Mueller's fued with Gonzales, allegations that Mueller specifically set Gonzales up, and more. Mueller actually went to Ashcroft in that SAME SICKBED right after Gonzales left and took notes about his interview with Gonzales -- doesn't that make him "guilty" of exactly the same "crime"? And doesn't that suggest that Mueller had an agenda of his own?

 

These people build loyalty alliances and fight turf wars all day long. The very idea that you could possibly draw a valid conclusion about a single incident like this is ludicrous. My analogy with the divorced couple each telling stories about how evil the other one is is an apt one. That's Washington to a T.

 

Here's a story you might not want people to read:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/07/30/2007-07-30_freeze_dc_lawmen_feud_over_gonzo_.html

 

How ignorant!

 

Please don't ever call someone "ignorant" on this board. Thanks.

[bascule]

Therefore we can't assume they're right, which is what you were doing. Hasty generalization, perhaps? Biased sample, perhaps? Half-truths? Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

 

Can you detail for us what specific assumptions you believe I'm making in my conclusion which are generalizations of established premises?

 

This seems largely a debate about what facts have actually been established in the matter and how much is speculation.

[Pangloss]

Come on bascule. You asked me a question and I responded to it on point.

 

Bascule:

Actually I'm taking the FBI director and the then deputy attorney general at their word.

 

I guess you're calling them both liars. Any reason why?

 

Pangloss:

I have valid reason for questioning their bias, based on plenty of news stories describing outrage in the FBI community over Mueller's fued with Gonzales, allegations that Mueller specifically set Gonzales up, and more. Mueller actually went to Ashcroft in that SAME SICKBED right after Gonzales left and took notes about his interview with Gonzales -- doesn't that make him "guilty" of exactly the same "crime"? And doesn't that suggest that Mueller had an agenda of his own?

 

Bascule:

Can you detail for us what specific assumptions you believe I'm making in my conclusion which are generalizations of established premises?

 

I answered your question. Have the decency to do the same, please.

[bascule]

Can you perhaps link me to one of these "plenty of news stories"?

 

Can you also detail why you don't trust Comey, who was actually present during the alleged events? After all, his testimony is what you need to discredit, not Mueller's. If anything Mueller's allegations only further to substantiate Comey's.

[doG]

Here are samples of the U.S. citizens that want their privacy protected while they work on their brand of Patriotism:

 

1. The U.S. branch of Al-Haramain Foundation filed a lawsuit on February 28, 2006.[12] The suit asserted that the Bush administration had circumvented the US Constitution by authorizing warrantless wiretaps. They asserted that the President lacked the authority to authorize wiretaps that circumvented the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

 

Three individuals whose conversations were intercepted, Suliman al-Buthe, Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor, learned of the eavesdropping when U.S. officials accidentally delivered logs of phone calls to them.[12] Al-Buthe, who had been the Foundations U.S. director, moved back to Saudi Arabia. Belew and Ghafoor were two of the Foundation's U.S. lawyers.

 

2. An Ohio truck driver and al Qaeda operative who pleaded guilty in 2003 to participating in a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge wants to rescind that plea if the National Security Agency ever eavesdropped on him without a warrant.

 

Iyman Faris was sentenced to 20 years in prison in October 2003.

 

3. Yassin M. Aref is a resident of Albany New York, who was captured by Federal authorities on August 6, 2004, as part of a counter-terrorism sting operation.[1] An undercover agent approached an associate of Aref's, Mohammed Mosharref Hossain, seeking help in trying to obtain rocket-propelled grenades. The government alleges that Hossain agreed to help the undercover agent. Wanting a third party involved in the deal, as is customary for Muslims, Hossain then brought Aref into the arrangement.

 

4. Petitioner Hamdi, an American citizen whom the Government has classified as an “enemy combatant” for allegedly taking up arms with the Taliban during the conflict, was captured in Afghanistan and presently is detained at a naval brig in Charleston, S. C....because it was undisputed that Hamdi was captured in an active combat zone.

 

These citizens, with no allegiance to this country, are the ones you want to defend by using our own Constitution against us. How can this be seen as anything but support for their missions? All these people want to do is kill Americans and you want to argue that they should also be able to use our Constitution as a weapon against us. Is that what you call allegiance to our flag? Is this the freedom you care about? The freedom to kill and maim Americans while hiding nehind our Constitution?

[swansont]

These citizens, with no allegiance to this country, are the ones you want to defend by using our own Constitution against us.

 

Strawman. Why was the fourth amendment added to the constitution?

[ParanoiA]

These citizens, with no allegiance to this country, are the ones you want to defend by using our own Constitution against us.

 

No. It's the other 300 million citizens you didn't mention in your post that I want to defend by using our constitution.

 

Freedom has a price. It's worth it. You don't get to cherry pick when the constitution should matter and when it shouldn't. If the constitution is going to mean anything, and have clout, then it has to be respected even when it's not convenient - especially when it's not convenient.

 

How can this be seen as anything but support for their missions?

 

By realizing that freedom has disadvantages - and this is one of them. And even though it's a disadvantage, it's worth it to keep being free and jump through the hoops necessary to maintain its integrity.

 

All these people want to do is kill Americans and you want to argue that they should also be able to use our Constitution as a weapon against us.

 

No, I'm more concerned with you using our Constitution as a weapon against us. We can figure out how to get these guys, but there is no workaround for totalitarianism. Sacrificing civil liberties is not an american option. Why is out of the question to work harder to deal with our constitution and get these guys?

 

Is that what you call allegiance to our flag? Is this the freedom you care about? The freedom to kill and maim Americans while hiding nehind our Constitution?

 

Yes. That's the freedom I care about. The kind of freedom where you have to have a good reason to violate my privacy. If people die, and they will, so be it. It's worth it.

 

This is consistent with our justice system. Our system was designed with the idea that we'd rather let 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person falsely imprisoned. We err on the side of liberty - not on the side of security. We've always been that kind of country, more or less. It's a conscious decision whose consequences were weighed and considered over 200 years ago. And I still agree with them today.

[doG]

Strawman. Why was the fourth amendment added to the constitution?

 

To protect our people, not the foreigners that come here long enough to become a citizen so they can use it against us. Why should an enemy, one that we have declared war against, deserve Constitutional protections in their efforts to kill Americans?

 

BTW, the 4th Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

What is unreasonable about wiretapping those that are consorting with the enemy? The 4th Amendment does not protect from all search and seizure, only unreasonable search and seizure. What part of "promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" do the rest of us get from our Constitution when it is reasonably used to intercept enemy communications? It's one thing when a warrantless wiretap is used to intercept communications between 2 individual citizens located in the U.S. but those are not the cases that keep surfacing. Time and again it is phone calls to or from known ememy agents abroad. I cannot understand any concern from anyone but the enemy that these communications are intercepted.

 

FWIW, I tried finding warrantless wiretap victims and/or cases where the communications were between 2 citizens physically located within our borders and couldn't find any except for cases brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against AT&T and the ACLU case against the NSA over the general principles. Is anyone aware of any such cases?

[swansont]

To protect our people, not the foreigners that come here long enough to become a citizen so they can use it against us. Why should an enemy, one that we have declared war against, deserve Constitutional protections in their efforts to kill Americans?

 

But how do you tell them from all the rest of the immigrants (of which you are presumably one, or the descendant of such), who came here to live the American way of life?

 

What is unreasonable about wiretapping those that are consorting with the enemy? The 4th Amendment does not protect from all search and seizure, only unreasonable search and seizure. What part of "promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" do the rest of us get from our Constitution when it is reasonably used to intercept enemy communications? It's one thing when a warrantless wiretap is used to intercept communications between 2 individual citizens located in the U.S. but those are not the cases that keep surfacing. Time and again it is phone calls to or from known ememy agents abroad. I cannot understand any concern from anyone but the enemy that these communications are intercepted.

 

FWIW, I tried finding warrantless wiretap victims and/or cases where the communications were between 2 citizens physically located within our borders and couldn't find any except for cases brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against AT&T and the ACLU case against the NSA over the general principles. Is anyone aware of any such cases?

 

Is anyone announcing wiretaps that turned out to not involve terrorists? Are you contending that such wiretaps aren't taking place?

 

You have listed a few wiretap results that provided evidence of terrorism — how did the authorities know these people were terrorists? If they already knew, then what's so hard about getting a warrant, since you can go ahead and do so after-the-fact?

[doG]

Is anyone announcing wiretaps that turned out to not involve terrorists? Are you contending that such wiretaps aren't taking place?

 

You have listed a few wiretap results that provided evidence of terrorism — how did the authorities know these people were terrorists? If they already knew, then what's so hard about getting a warrant, since you can go ahead and do so after-the-fact?

 

No, I am not contending that other, unjust wiretaps have not taken place, In searching SCOTUS, the District Courts and PACER I have not been able to locate any cases where those cases were jeopardized by warrantless wiretaps. Only cases where known Islamic terrorists have used their attorneys to turn our own system against us. I suspect it is cases like this that convinced the Democrats to give Bush the power to continue them for now.

 

The ones we do hear about in the media are the ones where a call from a known terrorist abroad came into the country or someone in this country called a number in another country of a known terrorist operative. How would anyone know in advance when someone in this country is going to be in contact with any of these people to get a warrant? The call would be long over to get one after the fact.

 

I also remember reading about an instance where a call from Afghanistan to Indonesia went through a U.S. satellite and the attorney argued that the case should be dismissed for lack of a warrant.

 

I might also add that I'm beginning to have other Constitutional concerns. There was a recent case where a Liberian immigrant had his case dismissed for lack of a speedy trial because the court soent 3 years trying to find an interpreter that spoke his native language. While he got his Constitutional protection the 7 year old girl that his was accused of sexually assaulting repeatedly was denied her day in court. I think the founding fathers would be ashamed to see our Constitution used like this.

 

The recently deported Elvira Arellano claims she was denied her "due process". The truth is that Arellano was given due process in the past and was ordered by the courts to get the hell out. Why was she entitled to anymore due process than a hearing to determine her citizenship status? Why are illegal immigrants like her entitled to the courts, due process, speedy trials, 5th amendment Miranda rights, etc..

 

IMO, it's about time we re-examine the portions of the Constitution that address the rights of "the people" as opposed to "the citizens".

[iNow]

These citizens, with no allegiance to this country, are the ones you want to defend by using our own Constitution against us. How can this be seen as anything but support for their missions? All these people want to do is kill Americans and you want to argue that they should also be able to use our Constitution as a weapon against us. Is that what you call allegiance to our flag? Is this the freedom you care about? The freedom to kill and maim Americans while hiding nehind our Constitution?

 

This is blatant jingoism, and it's disgusting. It is exactly this type of archaic isolationist thinking that is preventing us from tackling the more potent problems we face as a global community.

 

 

It's not Us and Them, and you need to stop generalizing about large masses of people whom you identify under a common label.

[swansont]

The ones we do hear about in the media are the ones where a call from a known terrorist abroad came into the country or someone in this country called a number in another country of a known terrorist operative. How would anyone know in advance when someone in this country is going to be in contact with any of these people to get a warrant? The call would be long over to get one after the fact.

 

If it's a known terrorist you tap the phone and get a warrant after the fact under FISA. That's not the issue. The tapping was occurring and nobody was bothering with the paperwork, and the possibility that warrants couldn't have been issued anyway because they were tapping the phones of people that weren't known terrorists, so there was no probable cause to justify a warrant.

[Pangloss]

Bascule, stop dodging and don't change the subject. You owe me an answer to my question about Mueller's follow-up interview with Ashcroft (while he was still sick!), and you're not getting squat from me until you answer it.

 

...doesn't that make him "guilty" of exactly the same "crime"? And doesn't that suggest that Mueller had an agenda of his own?

 

As for Comey, I didn't say he was wrong, I said I have no reason to take his word on faith. You're assuming he's correct, accepting his story, questioning nothing, and you're doing it in spite of the fact that this man is a Republican appointee and therefore your sworn enemy, so you're doing it not because he's trustworthy but because he's telling you something you want to hear. If he were saying something you didn't want to hear you'd be ignoring him or casting aspersions on his credibility. That makes your comment spin-doctoring, not fact-finding.

 

As to whether there is reason to doubt, how about the fact that Comey stated that Ashcroft, who was supposedly so ill he couldn't make decisions, in fact actually did make a decision -- DENYING Card and Ashcroft's request! That's by his own statement that you've already accepted. And then he was MORE than happy to let Mueller interview him as well!

 

I don't think you're interested in getting at the truth here at all, I think you want to support the facts that support your predetermination, and pretend the rest don't exist. That may cut it at DemocraticUnderground.com, but it doesn't cut it here. I have a higher expectation here, and so should you.

 

If it's a known terrorist you tap the phone and get a warrant after the fact under FISA. That's not the issue. The tapping was occurring and nobody was bothering with the paperwork, and the possibility that warrants couldn't have been issued anyway because they were tapping the phones of people that weren't known terrorists, so there was no probable cause to justify a warrant.

 

Actually FISA might have given then the warrant anyway. Well, that was James Bamford's speculation, if memory serves. The phrase "blanket warrants" kept coming up when this was in the news earlier. I'm sure opinions vary on this, but it does raise an interesting question, which is whether we would ever have heard about wiretapping Americans making overseas calls if FISA had approved such warrants.

 

My personal opinion is that tapping calls to suspect countries would be consistent with other monitoring methods. But I think it's high time we Americans got off our duffs and had a discussion about what's okay and what's not okay, instead of sitting back, doing nothing, and then acting all surprised when someone takes the decision out of our hands.