Skullduggery at the Highest Levels

The testimony that former Deputy Attorney General James Comey delivered to Congress on Tuesday was certainly compelling. He described how, in March 2004, Alberto Gonzales and then-White House Chief of Staff Andy Card ambushed Attorney General John Ashcroft in the intensive-care unit to get him to approve the secret illegal NSA wiretaps of American citizens. John Ashcroft, to his eternal credit--yes, it's that John Ashcroft--refused to give his approval to something that was clearly illegal. Of course, the Prez being the Prez, he decided to overrule Justice Department concerns and authorize the program his own self. After much back and forth in which Comey was ready to resign and understood that a number of top Justice Department officials--including Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller--were ready to join him. The White House apparently took all this seriously and rejiggered the wiretapping program to meet Justice concerns.

All this not new, of course. The story has been floating around for over a year, although it does pick up quite a bit of credibility with Comey's Congressional testimony. The story appeared in The New York Times, although admittedly on New Year's Day 2006, and then in Newsweek in that same week. I remember at least a few people writing about it, but then the story just seemed to drop. Will the same thing happen this time? Are we going to get some titillating "hospital intrigue" and then forget about it?

One intriguing (and maddening) question that's so far been unanswered in all this is, if the program had to be reauthorized by the Justice Department every 45 days, what had changed so that Justice wouldn't reauthorize it this time? Was it a big power grab by the White House to expand their authority and powers? Or, as Glenn Greenwald suggests, was the program illegal all along and the Justice Department's understanding of the legality change? According to the transcript (graciously provided by Think Progress), Comey sidestepped whatever his concerns were in refusing to sign off on the surveillance program. While I understand that there are concerns about national secrets that may not allow these details to become public, that can't be a justification to allow lawbreaking with impunity. Somebody on Capitol Hill needs to keep digging.