Is Cheney Relying on Gonzales’ Retroactive Notes?
Glenn picked up on Cheney’s recent reiteration of a claim that Alberto Gonzales has made (and may be in trouble for lying to Congress for): that he briefed Congressional leaders on the illegal warrantless wiretap program and they all agreed it should go forward without Congressional approval. Glenn calls on those Congressional leaders who were at the briefing to respond to Cheney’s claims. But I’m more interested in the way Cheney’s willingness to repeat Gonzales’ story puts the notes Gonzales made to (presumably) back his side of the story back in play.
As I emailed Glenn and Barton Gellman explains to Rachel Maddow (at 6:30 and following), the meeting in question is the March 10, 2004 meeting at which Cheney tried to go around Jim Comey so as to get legal cover for their warrantless wiretap program.
Gellman: He’s talking about a meeting on March 10 of 2004. He’s never previously talked about it in public. And he’s backing up the official story which is that eight members of Congress–four Republicans and four Democrats–came in and were told "The Justice Department thinks this program is illegal, should we go ahead with it anyway, despite there’s no law in Congress authorizing it?"And that four Republicans and four Democrats said "Yes, go right ahead. Do the illegal thing." Now, I talked to four people who were in that meeting and not all of them were Democrats and all of them dispute that that’s the way it happened.
Maddow: Isn’t there some way that could be checked? Doesn’t somebody write down what happens at those things?
Gellman: Yeah, and it was Top Secret code word classified and remains so.
First, let me correct Gellman. Cheney’s making a somewhat different claim–one apparently disproven by the facts. He’s claiming he briefed all nine Congressional leaders: that is, the Gang of Eight, plus Tom DeLay.
CHENEY: We brought in the chairman and the ranking member, House and Senate, and briefed them a number of times up until – this was – be from late ’01 up until ’04 when there was additional controversy concerning the program.
At that point, we brought in what I describe as the big nine – not only the intel people but also the speaker, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, and brought them into the situation room in the basement of the White House.
I presided over the meeting. We briefed them on the program, and what we’d achieved, and how it worked, and asked them, "Should we continue the program?" They were unanimous, Republican and Democrat alike. All agreed – absolutely essential to continue the program.
I then said, "Do we need to come to the Congress and get additional legislative authorization to continue what we’re doing?" They said, "Absolutely not. Don’t do it, because it will reveal to the enemy how it is we’re reading their mail." [my empahsis]
This, by itself, discredits Cheney’s story, since Bush’s own Director of National Intelligence has explained that Tom DeLay–as House Majority Leader, the ninth Congressional leader–received his briefing on March 11. Perhaps Cheney is conflating his briefing on March 10–at which not all participants supported his illegal power grab–with his briefing on March 11–at which Tom DeLay presumably sanctioned whatever law-breaking his fellow Texans wanted to do. He presents this as one meeting, but it was two.
I’d like to return to Gellman’s second point: that there is a transcript of the meeting that would reveal whose version of the story is correct. I’ve actually seen conflicting version of that–whether or not the Bush Administration made any record of these briefings (they didn’t make any record, for example, of some of their torture briefings, though we do know briefing documents were handed out at the meeting).
But there is one known written "record" of that meeting–one I’m increasingly convinced was tailored to support just the story that Gonzales and Cheney are telling.
In one of the several DOJ Inspector’s General investigations into Alberto Gonzales’ conduct, we learned that, on Bush’s instructions, Gonzales made notes of this meeting.
Gonzales told the OIG that President Bush directed him to memorialize the March 10, 2004, meeting.
And, significantly, Gonzales claims he drafted the notes "a few days" after March 10.
Gonzales stated that he drafted notes about the meeting in a spiral notebook in his White House Counsel’s Office within a few days of the meeting, probably on the weekend immediately following the meeting. Gonzales stated that he wrote the notes in a single sitting except for one line, which he told us he wrote within the next day.
This would mean Gonzales drafted the notes only after after Jim Comey and Robert Mueller had already told Bush on March 12 they–and a number of other DOJ lawyers–were going to resign in protest that Bush had reauthorized the program over their objections. In other words, Bush appears to have instructed Gonzales to memorialize the events of March 10 only after he realized they might be in trouble for it.
There are several more details that make me believe this document was crafted to support a false narrative of what happened on March 10. Gonzales explained to DOJ’s IG that he took the notes to memorialize Congressional reactions–which is precisely the issue that is being contested.
Gonzales said that his intent in drafting the notes was to record the reactions of the congressional leaders during the meeting, as opposed to recording any operational details about the program that were discussed.
And Gonzales treated the notes as his personal security blanket, taking them with him after he left the White House and storing them in his potentially unlocked briefcase somewhere at his house. He took them home rather than storing them in a safe available at DOJ because he did not feel "comfortable" leaving them at DOJ (where, presumably, they might be accessible to others).
We also asked Gonzales why on that first evening he did not leave the notes in the Justice Command Center, a facility available to him for storage of TS/SCI materials. Gonzales responded that he did not recall thinking about it, and that he might not have “felt comfortable” leaving the notes there at that time.
[snip]
Gonzales said his decision to take the notes with him when he left the White House was “instinctive,” and that he wanted to “protect” the notes. He also stated that his decision to take the notes was in part based on the fact that he was remaining with the federal government and would continue to be involved with the NSA surveillance program as Attorney General.
This sure makes it sound like, so long as Gonzales was going to be involved in the illegal wiretap program, he intended to keep those notes in his personal possession.
Finally, we know that Gonzales retrieved the notes in response to Jim Comey’s testimony revealing some of Gonzales’ actions on March 10.
Gonzales said his decision to take the notes with him when he left the White House was “instinctive,” and that he wanted to “protect” the notes. He also stated that his decision to take the notes was in part based on the fact that he was remaining with the federal government and would continue to be involved with the NSA surveillance program as Attorney General.
And that he then used those notes to prepare for his July 24 testimony–the testimony at which he first publicly alleged that Congressional leaders supported the continuation of the program in spite of DOJ concerns about its legality.
Gonzales told us he also used the notes in connection with his preparation to testify before a congressional committee in July 2007. According to Steven Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, Gonzales produced the notes to Bradbury and other Department officials on July 19, 2007, as they helped prepare Gonzales for his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 24, 2007.
In other words, Gonzales took the notes after it became clear he might get in trouble for his actions; he treated them as personal CYA rather than official record; and his testimony based on the notes alleged that Congressional leaders assented to the decision to continue the program.
And now Cheney is spouting the same line.
This may end up being a he said-she said, with Gonzales’ retroactive CYA notes being pitted against the memories of others who attended the meeting. But with Cheney repeating this same line as part of his effort to whitewash the Bush Administration’s illegal program, I’m guessing those notes may one day be public (or, at least, reviewed in an inquiry into this program). With Gellman’s representation that at least one Republican disputes the Cheney-Gonzales version, though, we may well demonstrate that Gonzales’ retroactive version doesn’t match the memories of those at the meeting.
Well, I’d certainly like to see/hear testimony from all the people at those two meetings. Not that I don’t think Pelosi and Reid were at that meeting – but Cheney makes it sound as if they were the cheerleading squad.
Grammar Police: Glenn calls on those Congressional leaders who were at the briefing to respond to Cheney’s claims.
Hmmm … I wonder which blogger is going to win the first Pulitzer and what we can do to facilitate that ?
Sorry officer! I started the post before coffee.
Thanks.
How can it be that Cheney (who is also under the same restrictions imposed by the “Top Secret” designation as all the other participants) is allowed to openly discuss how people voted – when others are not so entitled?
Didn’t Cheney violate the law by discussing this – and if not, why are the other individuals not afforded the same luxury under the law to reveal their own version of what transpired at that meeting relative to their own votes?
Only under a Dictatorship is everyone else obligated to remain silent while the Dictator relates a fanciful and false narrative to his subjects via his controlled press.
Excellent point, plunger!
Cheney has said there is an executive order that gives the vice president, along with the president, the authority to declassify information. He therefore can dicuss what he wants when he wants with who he wants.
His coming pardon from Bush should clear up any lingering doubts.
Fine. If he does declassify the information, then the other who were in the room are free to speak about how they voted, and refute Cheney’s contention that he had unanimous support.
Cheney is always looking to create some fig leaf of authority creating the color of legitimacy. He thrives on the distractions and uncertainties of novel processes coupled with his own capacity to insist. The actors in his schemes insulate Cheney in their complicity and Cheney exploits this. The tendency to use national security issues as the basis of his actions, exploiting the fear of failure in this context, is the principle manipulative tool playing on deep psychological tendencies. It is a textbook deployment of totalitarian methods in contravention of the checks and balances inherent in the rule of law and constitutional balances.
I suppose one owes some gratitude to the actions Comey, Tamm and Goldsmith in taking stands whether self-interested or not. Cheney’s defensive rationalizations at this time give rise to a continued openings to question the validity of his methods in critical inquiry. Thank you for persisting in following these stories.
“gratitude for” maybe
Cheney says
Hey you stinking Dick, Cheney, that does absolutely NOTHING to make it legal, that just engages, at best, more people in the illegal conspiracy. It is mind boggling how people, including the insipid press, seem to think that, even if this is true (I am with Marcy and am not convinced it is correct) it is sufficient to make it all okay.
It is not.
Cheney painting Cheney as some law abiding V.P. is absurd. As if Cheney has ever asked permission of anyone during the last 8 years.
Cheney “I then said, “Do we need to come to the Congress and get additional legislative authorization to continue what we’re doing?” They said, “Absolutely not. Don’t do it, because it will reveal to the enemy how it is we’re reading their mail.”
Cheney trying to paint himself as a dog rolling over is just too much to take.
You give him way more credit than he deserves. Cheney isn’t trying to make it legal, he’s happy to implicate others, especially democrats, in the scheme.
Legality, per se, meant nothing then and less now.
But the kind of dispute you are highlighting here is exactly the kind which would require submission to a jury – and might be sufficient to scotch a grand jury from ever indicting, at least on the “lying” variety of charges.
This is a carefully thought-out, sophisticated piece of cover-your-ass coverup. Make no mistake.
I think Scribe may be right. Recall that Cheney was noted for his expertise on how Congress works from the beginning of the Bush-Cheney administration.
I think he, in some way or other, has the Democratic leadership over a barrel. I think this is of a piece with Pelosi’s taking impeachment off the table. We ought to have a Watergate style Select Committee with subpoena powers, taking public testimony, under oath, from all of the principles. Cheney knows that the Democratic leadership doesn’t want that, and he’s throwing down the gauntlet. Well, we need to do it, and the heck with Pelosi and Reid if their asses are in the sling.
Bob in HI
temporarily in IL
Cheney means the american people, doesn’t he???s
THE CHENEY PLAYBOOK:
The nine chapters cover topics such as Special Forces, Psychological as well as Civil Affairs Operations, while also covering general doctrine, policies and planning considerations in respect to Army special operations forces.
Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare
http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/…..0_Sep_2008
they’re STILL violating the law with impunity .. Cheney just revealed code-worded access only top secret info … and gonzales has taken TS-code worded materials out of a secure environment into his personal possession as a private citizen ..
and just for the record here .. aren’t “notes” of a meeting supposed to be composed during the meeting and not days afterward ??
imo .. hangin’ is too good for this collection of scummy bottom-dwellin’ sum-biches …
Are you saying Cheney and Addington wrote up Gonzo’s notes some time before his July testimony before Congress?
Maybe when Gonzo says he doesn’t recall something, he really means it.
Not much time, but I’m glad you mentioned the 9 – that is something I had pointed out to someone else on Monday, bc it makes it really look as if he was trying to stack the deck to make sure he had a “majority” of Republicans.
The other point that stood out to me is that he tried to make “teh program” be all about “reading their mail” i.e., an email only program. That fits with the then existing status of the FISA language, which would have prevented free for alls with emails, and with the way Wainstein tried to frame the issues at that ABA luncheon. But it does NOT fit with Judge Taylor’s ruling, AFTER she made the DOJ brief her on the program. Her ruling made it pretty clear that there was a call surveillance element as well, since it is the data mining part that she doesn’t enjoin in her order.
There’s no reason for DOJ et al to have fallen apart over her order if all that was involved was an email reading program. And of course, there’s the bigger issue on an email reading program of the storage aspect as well. I don’t have time to go back through all the issues on the email front (Wainstein et als arguments that, bc you never knew for sure where a known terrorist was physically located when they pulled up their emails, you had to give the Persident carte blanche to look at all Americans emails without a warrant) but I am pretty damn sure that ‘teh program’ was NOT just the data mining of emails (as illegal as that might have been).
Cheney is also glossing over the fact that Jello boy did send him that letter.
Another big gloss over, that apparently no one asked him about, is that the National Security Act does not allow for a “big 4″ briefing and so he is admitting that for 3 years they knowingly violated the National Security Act’s requirement for briefing the big 8 (actually, given the nature of the program, the requirement for the entire intel committees to have been briefed) and that when they did finally comply, they arbitrarily tacked on someone not required to be briefed by the NSA while CONTINUING to not brief the entire intel committees.
So basically, he confirms violation for years of the NSA – and whether Gonzales made up his note or not,it’s pretty clear that Pelosi and Rockefeller never pushed for the big 8, much less the full intel committees, to be briefed, not even when Pelosi moved from intel to become the non-intel part of the big 8. I know Harman’s call to go after the NYT and reporters was pretty damn egregious, but to give her due, she was a (finally) driving force to go with briefing for the full committees.
I don’t know how you abuse your office more than to take impeachment “off the table” for the sole purpose of insulating yourself from reprucussions that an impeachment investigation revelations would have.
OT – lawyers for Binyam Mohammed have accused Gates of fibbing to the court
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…..e-affidavi
And they just might be able to get a UK court to order the release of information to prove it too.
Exactly. Pelosi has been guilty of gross abuse of office, and should, at a minimum, be busted to the back bench and never entrusted with leadership again.
Bob in HI
Mary, that link does not work for me, and I’m not having any success searching at the Guardian. Help?
Of the gang of eight- which ones had (have) to travel the most air miles to return to their constiuencies; what comercial flights and do any fly small planes?
There are so many things, imvho, that Bush and Cheney ought to be thoroughly investigated on – but, of All of Them, imvho – the Collision of the Rule of Law with the Pre-Magna-Carta King on March 11th is the One that has it All.
After Obama is Inaugurated, my guess is an Impeachment Inquiry will be opened in the House, and Prior to turning-over Any of the UE Empowerment Documents or Gonzo’s Meeting Notes or the March 11th Re-Certification where Chimpy Crowned himself – Bush and Cheney will make their UE Case to the Supreme Court.
I’m speculating, of course, but essentially Bush and Cheney would be asking the Supremes to ‘roll-back’ 800 years of Settled Law in Western Civilization – with Bush claiming that ‘exigent National Security circumstances called forth the president’s inherent Article II Powers to Secretly elevate himself into the Above-the-Law figure of the Militarily Propped-Up Unitary Executive…in order to Protect the Rule of Law.’
Once the Supremes either refuse to give cert (heh, heh) or otherwise throw cold-water on Bush’s Claim, the House can then have the Evidence to move forward with the Inquiry.
It could happen…and, if it does, there can be no doubt that Bush will argue that he had “the Consent of the Congress’ Leadership” – just like it shows in Gonzo’s Ex-Post-Facto Notes.
Pre-Magna-Carta King and Ex-Post-Facto Notes…from the Loyal Legal Sycophant who witnessed the King’s Crowning on the March 11th Re-Certification.
I would also guess that this is why Holder is being stiff-armed – Mukasey isn’t going to ‘render service’ on the documents unless the Court tells him to – a la Marbury.
jm2c
Hmm, Cheney is awful chatty these days, ain’t he? Wouldn’t it be nice to feel like he’s being chatty because he’s worried about prosecutions?
Nah, that might be a bridge too far…
Bob are you temporarily in the parts of IL that are iced and bitter cold?
I don’t think Pelosi will ever have any reprucussions – I always thought Obama’s FISA vote was in large part a pay off to Pelosi and Rockefeller. Right now, I’m so completely embittered about both parties and about all the laughably “nonpartisan” entities and agencies like FBI and DOJ, that I don’t have any interest in the strategerizing about who gets what leadership – I just thoroughly and completely dislike them all. The only creatures more repellant than the politicians of both parties have been the lawyers at Justice.
uh – Merry Christmas??
I propose a Blue Ribbon Commission to study your concerns!!
Mary,
I’m in Champaign-Urbana. My sister can’t fly out of here today– her flight to Chicago has been cancelled. Hopefully, my flight tomorrow will not be cancelled, but if it is, then we’ll drive up to Madison, the next stop on our itinerary, with my brother, over the river and through the woods to Grandmother’s house we go…
Anyway, I think that when Cheney took over in 2000, he knew that he could control the Republican Party leadership, and from his prior work in Congress he knew that he needed to neutralize the Dem party leadership. And apparently, he figured out exactly how to do it. Pelosi et al. were putty in his hands. And now he’s flaunting it.
I hope it puts Pelosi in such an awkward place that she gets mad and, at last, does the right thing.
Bob in HI
Oh, yeah. That too. *g*
Felicidades.
Bob in HI
temporarily in IL
Hoping to get to WI for Christmas
Ot
Bob if you get stuck. One of my daughters who lives in Chicago (committed to not having a car) is always hopping on Megabus a relatively new bus company that travels in the midwest. I believe goes to Madison from Chicago and those parts. Inexpensive.(she has traveled from Chicago to Colubus Ohio for 25.00)
Megabus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabus_(United_States)
http://www.megabus.com/landing.php
Thanks!
Bob in HI/IL
AGAG described taking the notes home “instinctive”. Is he obliged by law to store those “notes” in the White House?
When are they going to demand that Cheney testify under oath about this meeting? Who the “bleeping” would believe anything that Cheney says? That thug is a pathological liar.
Glen Greenwald is calling on Congressional leaders who were at that meeting to respond to “Cheney’s claims” Can they? I thought that they are unable to talk about what went on at those meetings unless they are asked to testify. Is that right? Can you reveal classified information when you are testifying under oath? Who can those Congressional members reveal their take on that meeting to?
Keep thinking about Senator Rockefellers notes in his safe? What were those all about?
18 – damn I’m having problems getting this comment up.
Here’s another try for the link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…..-affidavit
If that still won’t work, go to the Guardian home page that the error links you to, and at the top they have the “sections” like World and Sports – go to the “United States” section and it was the second story headline on that page.
Thanks. What an interesting couple of pieces of news. Sheesh, can you believe Miliband? He’s fighting disclosure of documents that could save a man’s life because that might damage relations with the U.S.? We hear that excuse here all the time too. What part of “human life” do these guys not get?
And otherwise, best wishes to Stafford Smith. I’m assuming he’s the British lawyer, not the U.S. military lawyer Mohamed must have?
FYI:
Head of Fund Invested in Madoff Said to Commit Suicide
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes……f=nyregion
13 Mary..so the NSA laws require that Cheney/Gonzales should have briefed the full intelligence committee about the program? By when? Should this have happened before the program was initiated?
14 RadioFreeWill “It could happen” I swear if the American public (the world) witnessed our Congress, the Obama administration hold the Bush administration accountable for this illegal program or any of their other crimes we would feel the earth shift under our feet.
19 Mary “I just thoroughly and completely dislike them all” 90% of the American people agree with you.
How many American people have faith in congress? Last I heard 10%
18 – YEAH! I got my link to post finally and I think this one may work.
OT – some background. Binyam Mohammed (B) is discussed in Grey’s “Ghost Plane” and if true, he tells a pretty gruesome story of the US shipping him from one torture center to another, including a shipment to Morocco where his genitals were razored as a part of Cheney’s beloved “enhanced” interrogations. And supposedly the CIA crew that picked him up from Morocco followed their standard procedure of torture victims strip in front of women who took their pictures. And supposedly even someone who happily tripped around the world on torture flights recoiled a bit from what her strip and exploit actions revealed. No one has been pushing much for info or production on the still pics that supposedly the CIA took.
In any event, B’s lawyers had asked the US for info on his torture to use in his defense at GITMO and were turned down/told there was nothing. So they went to the UK and filed suit there for MI5’s info on B’s treatment. At this point, they were just asking for themselves to have a classified, limited, access. Milliband intervened and said – YIKEs, no no no no no, national security, we can’t let them see this info and then made the pretty disturbing allegation to the court that the United States had threatened Britain that if the MI5 let B’s lawyers see any info about B’s US coordinated torture, the US would quit sharing any intel about terrorist threats to Britain (and to Americans in Britai).
Apparently that kind of thing worked with the BAE case and they thought they’d try it again.
But this time the High Court did something really interesting. Not only did they order that B’s lawyers get some access (after first giving the US all kinds of options and time to order the access itself) but then they really called the US on our threats. B’s lawyers had only been asking for access for themselves, but the High Court indicated that the evidence that they were getting a look at was evidence of criminal acts. Early on, the High Court had ordered the proceedings to take place basically under seal. So when the court ruled on the lawyers access, the court on its OWN “invited” media to ask it to “reconsider” its previous rulings and release the information publically.
In what I think was an effort to still keep the info cloaked, the UK made a criminal referral to AG Scotland, and Milliband has re-iterated vis a vis the media his “omg, the US is willing to let Americans in Britain and British civilians die if we release evidence of their crimes” defense to letting the info out.
All this has been going on with NO ONE in the US press covering our threats against Britain and NO ONE in the Democratic Congress pulling anyone’s butt before Congress to ask who was the source of the US threat against Britain or to discuss how we are in a position to request British troops stay in Iraq and Afghanistan while we are threatening their country.
A lot of this was happening about the time Brennan removed his name. I’ve never bought the “fear of angry bloggers” explanation on that, but I do buy that his name, or just his position as Tenet’s second, might get some uncomfortable attention when Obama, as Saviour, finds that walking on water is different than paddle footing in sewage and foreign investigations start naming names of people he is picking. That’s all just spec, but I think foreign revelations puts more fear in them than a nasty comment by Greenwald.
So anyway – I think at this point in time, it is likely that the lawyers for B have already seen some of the info that the High Court ordered be made available to them, so their basis for now stepping in and calling Gates out as a liar may have not only some hard evidence support, but some hard evidence support that might just get released publically, depending on the High Court’s ruling.
And if the British High court rules that you can’t use “national security” and “states secrets” arguments to prevent the release of evidence about criminal acts – then we’ve got something real happening. And then Obama has something far more tangible than “angry bloggers” to deal with as well. At least, that’s MO, but it’s JMO.
Ok — I just caught up. That makes me feel better. I guess.
Reuel Marc Gerecht was on TOTN yesterday talking about how the Obama administration will more than likely face “awful choices” having to do with rendition
In an op-ed for The New York Times, former Central Intelligence Agency officer Reuel Marc Gerecht says: “Sounds uplifting. Don’t bet on it happening.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..d=98599250
I was able to get on at the end of the program (Anna is my middle name) and ask Reuel a question about torture (he certainly seems in favor). Reuel visited Ohio University’s campus during the Baker Peace Conference a few years ago. Reuel Marc Gerecht seems to thrive on the idea of war
Thanks for doing that.
Leen
I was missing to that. I had to stop before you got on, though.
He did come off as an arrogant terror-loving asshole, though.
Thanks so much for this background. The Congressional failures mean there is that much less U.S. media coverage of these developments, as well, so your pointers and background are invaluable.
Also excellent point wrt timing of Brennan’s withdrawal.
Leen – here is a link to the act
http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml
It requires that everything be briefed to the intel committees, except that it does spell out some particular instances, involving “covert” (as defined in the act) operations, where the President is required to issue special finding (that puts Bush right on the line – either he made those findings, which pins the tailon him, or Cheney was completely rogue and there were no findings, which pins it on Cheney) etc and then, if all the i-s are dotted and t-s are crossed, and
Once enough was in the public domain, though, IIRC Harman pushed that there was no way “teh program” fit the definition of covert activity under the act, since most of it took place domestically, not on foreigh soil, and so there was no excuse not to brief the full comittees – there might have been a CRS report issued on that too – no time to google for it now. In any event, I believe there were determinations made that teh program was not “covert” under the act and the intel committees should have been briefed in toto originally. fwiw – gotta go face the ice now
Thanks
the term “covert” seems to confuse Cheney and his traitor team. Knowingly outing Plame/Wilson’s “covert” status, not informing the full intelligence committee under the guise of the program being “covert”.
Sure as hell wish our Congress would demand that this shady cast of characters be required to testify under oath (including Cheney, Pelosi, Reid) all who were at those meetings
Mary:
Did you catch all the dirt on Cheney in this comment thread on Raw yesterday?
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/….._1222.html
He’s hating the Internets.
The starkness of the “President Bush directed him to memorialize” sentence and given that Bush ‘lets things be known’ as opposed to speaking to someone directly, makes me wonder how exactly Bush made the request of Gonzales and who advised Gonzales on Friday through Sunday.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004 – meeting of Gang of 8
Thursday, March 11 – meeting with Delay
Friday, March 12 – nothing
Saturday, March 13 – Gonzales started the letter
Sunday, March 14 – Gonzales added one sentence to the letter
I hark back to MadDog’s linked WaPo article two days since, with this, as the vP narrative to rebut Crew et al in the Nara tranafer of ovP records, according to WaPo RJeffreySmith byliner, has to do with who gets to parse ‘vp official duties’, the vP contending the only records he intends to surrender to Nara are documents produced in generation of vP acts specifically ordered by Potus.
In the instant topic, there is an instance of Potus making a specific cya order to whc, but vP is coordinating the briefings of g9. What I am thinking is rC would like to have AG’s spiral notes on the van with the shredder Jan21-09, not to have them be in an AG designation as the archivists at the soon to be constructed presidential library process hundred million documents for the next five years. I think the depiction seems fair that Bush and AG both knew those three days in March 2004 were key to the dispute with DoJ over illicitude of the vacuuming of comms, so the purpose of the notetaking was broader than Cheney’s wishful purposes in his dispute over what ‘records’ of ovp are going to be defined as comprising during these next few weeks before the current administration transitions to the next administration.
Waxman’s grid of missing emails appears to show unusual inactivity only in peripherally related elements of the executive archival system, the secret service, the foreign affairs advisory board, and the trade representative, solely, that Tuesday and Wedesday in early March 2004.
On the ‘tabling’ of the perennial Kucinich proposals despite Pelosi’s declaration to the contrary upon her election to the speakership, I continue to take a historical view, given the mired hype into which she walked emanating from the other side of the aisle at the time. I always looked at that statement as difficult but bold, as her methods would be more effective behind the scenes than by reaching for more a photogenic repetition of a weakened rendition of a Starr-like examination of the conduct of the Republican administration. The IC law had sunsetted by then. Of the essence was to conduct an orderly election. There still may be some Norwegian bFarmers in plazas in the TwinCities to assure the funnyVote count is affirmed by the court there, so, there have been anomalies in the elections processes in some quarters, MN and beyond, but the objective of keeping the principal circus from occupying the table succeeded. A difficult decision, but one which enabled other Democratic party exercises such as the pro forma sessions to prevent presidential desperation appointments every time there was a national holiday under the color of PAA.
ALERT:
Cerberus just announced that they are suspending their investors ability to pursue redemptions (withdrawal requests) from the fund.
Fugly.
Cerberus: “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave”
Gonzales’s spiral notebook seemed to me the strangest story when we first read about it, and the way he seems to have explained its journeys to the IG made me think right away that Gonzales was the liar who was going to be caught. I mean, they’re all lying, but he tells the weirdest lies and he tells them badly, so you just know he’s going to be caught.
But it is interesting to see that Cheney needs that particular tall tale within a tale for his defence.
The OIG Report linked to is so vague. Who is “the Original Classifying Authority for the NSA surveillance program” referenced in footnote 14? Which White House official would “become aware” if Bush told Gonzales to write the notes?
“14 In July 2007, after several Department and White House officials became aware of Gonzales’s notes, the notes were reviewed by two NSA officials, one of whom is an Original Classifying Authority for the NSA surveillance program, to determine whether the notes include any classified information.”
maryo2 – I believe the signifigance of the NSA guys was that Gonzo’s Notes contained a Very Highly Classified Code-Word, that the Original Classifying Authority described as something that was ‘guarded like the crown jewels of the Agency.’
Now, the signifigance of this is, imvho, that at Gonzo’s level in the Government, these men and women all use serial numbered and controlled notebooks with very rigid rules for taking notes in official meetings, that serve as a ‘he-said/she-said’ contemporaneous record of important discussions. For instance, one cannot cross-out a word – rather a line through with initials is correct, etc, etc.
Because the notebooks can contain Classified discussion notes, they are reviewed and logged, particularly screening for any ’sources and methods’ information, certainly secret code-names.
Instead of working within the Security Protocols, what Gonzo appears to have done is – Over the weekend, he whipped out a Single-Subject Mead 100 Spiral Notebook from the desk drawer in his home office and began ‘memorializing’ the meetings with the Gang of 9, just like Bush told him to do.
In the course of the memorializing – if I have this correct – he wrote down the Super-Secret Code-Name for the President’s Program – and then started carting that cheesy notebook around in his briefcase, along with some 17 other S/TS documents that he ‘just didn’t feel comfortable’ leaving at the Secure Safe in DoJ – and, thereby, basically invalidated All of the Formal Security Measures We Take to Secure Information Deemed Vital to National Security.
I think that’s what was happening there…
Yes, indeed. Footnote 14 continues to day “These NSA officials told the OIG that the three paragraphs about the NSA surveillance program contain SCI information based on references to operational aspects of the program as well as the use of the codeword for the program in conjunction with these operational aspects.”
Hmm. And now I recall all of Gonzales’ dancing around “the program” in his testimony.
From the Cheney interview (copied from the Raw Story link):
Now, that’s not the oath they take, is it? The words ring a bell, but I’m an ignorant foreigner, so I’m not quite sure what Cheney was conflating there. Help?
The oath is:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The text is set forth in the Constitution – Article II, section 1. It is prescribed text. No variations allowed.
It says nothing – not a damned thing – about “…against all enemies, foreign and domestic,”. Dick’s just making that crap up.
Just like Shelby was carping – during the New FISA debate last summer – about how some people (opposing new FISA) were more concerned with the Constitution than about defending the Country.
Nope, the VP really does say that.
Ok, but let’s look at the text, proper:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
He’s hung on at least three points:
– that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
– that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
– and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter
A fair argument can be made also as to the enemies foreign and domestic, but let’s leave that for now.
Back later to talk more about this, but is this also a part of his “I’m a part of the legislative branch argument?”
The Presidential oath of office is in the Constitution:
However, the VP (and Senators and Reps) say this:
I don’t see the VP oath in the Constitution – where did you find it?
5 USC 3331
And we have a winner in the name that oath sweepstakes!
Note that is “defend the Constitution”, not people or citizens. Defending the Constitution being the goal, it is harder to imagine a bigger failure in the history of the nation that Richard Bruce Cheney. In fact, he has not only not defended it, he arguably has done as much to harm it as any man ever alive on the face of the earth.
Cool, what’s my prize?
Ok, back on topic. I’m puzzled about why Cheney’s telling the story the way he’s telling it now. Especially the part about the ‘big nine’. That seems so silly. Maybe Gonzales screwed up and listed DeLay as one of the attendees on March 10, 2004 and Cheney’s making his story consistent with that. The man never lies gratutiously.
“The man never lies gratuitously.”
I concur.
So, to paraphrase you: What gives?
[1] As POTUS Bush has said, multiple times: “I mean what I say.”
[2] Bush told the WH press that “folks” [a category which presumably includes the Unwashed, namely us] should not assume that he will issue pardons on any ‘vast’ or ’sweeping’ basis – implying that to include torture [”we don’ torture”] and programmatic breaches of the 4th amendment.
[3] Then AG Mukasey volunteered in at least one speech and also in response to a question from a reporter that he did not forsee presidential pardons issuing from the Bush admininistration on any ‘vast’ or ’sweeping’ basis, reflecting the implications in the earlier comments from the POTUS.
[4] Then within the fabled gift-giving period preceding Christmas, following months of absence from public view [admittedly during most of which the public was inclined to focus more on those standing for election], Cheney:
[a] in the context of an ongoing lawsuit concerning White House records, caused to be filed a submission that asserts his sole, absolute and unreviewable authority to determine what in ‘his’ possession or in the possession of ‘his office’ qualifies as a “record” under the Presidential Records Act; and
[b] ‘joined’ the POTUS on the Farewell Tour circuit in some sinister concurrent dimension [or, dare it be said, evil parallel universe].
[5] To this point, Bush’s[and by connection to, extension from, and on his own, Cheney’s] record-breaking unpopularity has been sustained for so long and to such depths, that sometime during the election process it overflowed party lines, now streams determinedly on a bipartisan basis through the national mythology, providing a comfortable level of national consensus to the incoming Congress and the incoming administration to pursue at least a number of Bushie crimes as little political cost – and put in the converse at a far greater political cost in ignoring it.
Moreover, I can see how some might counsel that, in this climate, for the president to issue pardons on any vast and/or sweeping basis that overtly or impliedly covers torture and programmatic violation of the 4th amendment would have the effect of teasing a seething bull with a big red cape, and cause a material rise in the risk of post-administration impeachment.
Indeed…it’s “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
So by destroying the Constitution…habeas corpus, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, etc. Cheney and Bush made themselves the very enemies they swore to defend the nation and Constitution against. They became the domestic enemies that the Founders feared.
ot: from murray waas –
OT — CNN sez W has issued 19 pardons. Libby not among them. No details anywhere yet.
Pardoning Libby would be redundant.
You don’t have to convince me, but FWIW the WSJ doesn’t agree.
Thanks to Mary @32 for the info on the requirement for briefings. On the whole I agree with bmaz @ 7, but I suspect there is something subtle at work regarding that congressional support at the March 10th meeting. The way I see, it that meeting has been presented again and again as a briefing, but there were 2 other components that go beyond a mere briefing.
Arlen Specter made much in questioning Comey to get a clear comment on the record that “the program” was not illegal. Comey kept returning to his mantra that rather than calling it illegal, his (and Golsdmith’s) opinion was that it was not lawful. To be lawful it would have to be consistant with either constitutional or statutory provisions, and was neither. And the conservative AG, Ashcroft agreed, thus refusing to recertify the survielance program. Some means had to be obtained to get “authority”, not only to continue, but to help justify the origin of the program. My speculation is that in the absence of legislation, perhaps some leaning in the direction of “legislative intent” could seem to provide a figleaf of legal cover. How to get it?
The “briefing” of the congressional leadership plus Delay provided the possibility of a “rump parliament”, or more exactly, a “statement as to the will of congress”. A clue is provided by the fact that Gonzales was directed to record the responses of the briefees. All that is required of a briefee is to attend the briefing. It not required that they attend TO the briefing, only to be there. Likewise there is no response necessary of any kind. Yet this meeting not only called for a response, but that a record be made of the responses, a vote count.
Let me make 2 points about this record. It was (said to be) made 2 days after the event. I have found that if I wanted to have an effect on the shape of a discussion, I only had to begin writing down what everyone is saying. That can put a chill on unimpotant drivil and offtopic banter as well as undoctrinaire expression; people think before speaking, and are inclined to be more conservative in their conclusions. My guess though is that no notepad was in view, so the record was recapitulated (or composed outright) after the fact.
Secondly, To understand a response, one must regard it in its stimulating context. The focus in Cheney’s remarks is on the gasping “Oh no” of the legislators to the stimulating question of whether the administration has to go to congress for approval to continue. It is not clear what the discussion looked like that conbtributes to the claim that the legislators “wanted the program to continue”; this is a summary judgement offered by the admin. But what sort of sales talk preceeded these questions has been ommitted. If this briefing took on more of a sales talk and intimidation session, in which all sorts of dire consequenses are desribed and then a finger pointed at Senator X, and asked by name whether he thinks the matter should be brought before a leaky congress where the enemy might learn what the gov. knows, and how, the Senator may well just say what seems appropriate at the moment, not thinking that his response is in any way binding, and not realizing that Alberto is going to write it all down.
The point of all this coniving is not to brief congress, but to extract the best figleaf the admin has for what it did. It is now being waved about, as a reminder to those in those meetings, as the curtain (and control of access to the records) comes down.
I remember that interesting exchange between Specter and Comey. After they’d gone back and forth several times, Comey explained his reserve by saying that he wasn’t a presidential scholar, so he wasn’t prepared to draw conclusions about illegality, which I thought was an interesting remark.
My guess is that, whatever Comey thought of Addington, he had heard enough of Addington’s theories about executive power to stay well back of waters that deep. He decided to make his stand and to go on working on much more limited territory. (Please excuse the mixed metaphor.)
I think you’re on the right track, especially with
This is the key. Cheney has arranged his comment to imply that Congressional approval appears to approve what he needs to have been approved. That’s why we need real details– what exactly was presented, what were they allowed to see, what questions, if any, they were allowed to ask, etc.
The usual practice of this administration, if it provides any information at all, has been to present a carefully doctored version of what it was doing, along with the scare tactics (Approve this or die!!!)
We’ve got to have the details of this. Of course, access to the truth of it will be guarded under the guise of the need for security. Unfortunately, a lot will boil down to he said/she said. Yet, everyone involved needs to be made to spell out their testimony, in public and under oath, of what happened in those meetings.
Bob in HI / IL
List of pardonees here.
Thanks very much to all the oathers above. I can follow that logic better than I can Cheney’s.
The preoccupation with enemies thing, though. I see that Cheney has misused and abused it, but I can also see how easily he gets away with that. Many people don’t work through the logic of the sentences — they just catch the sound-bites.
The thing that drives me crazy is that the oath is to defend the Constitution while Cheney tries to make it sound like he swore an oath to protect the country.
I think a lot of people overlook the fact that Cheney came to Washington as intern in 1968. His first impression was of a government that had to protected from its citizens by machine guns. That must have made quite an impression on the young man from Wyoming. He lives in a world where chaos is just around the corner, held back only by the iron will of clear-eyed tough guys who will do whatever it takes to defend decent people from the rabble.
61/67 – IIRC, Comey specifically mentioned the Nixon theory, that if the President authorizes it, it is not illegal, and pretty much hinted that was the rationale supporting the program. Then one of the later reports about the program seemed to indicated that the 45 day authorizations that the AG was signing off on were actually military orders – so I would say the argument pretty much was that the President was acting as CIC and issuing military orders and in that role he was plenary and not bound by domestic law.
Specifically, in wartime (the theory goes).
Not a lawyer; looked up the word plenary. Are you saying that as CinC Potus can issue military orders contravening statutes, and not bound by constitutional limitations of powers. Am I naive here; can this be? If so, what were Goldsmith and Comey so exercised about? And to the point I was raising in my comment @61, what possible need was there for briefees to provide a vote of approval for the briefing content. If no legal need, then what benefit accrued?
Cheney has just said (this was in the Fox interview), that generally speaking, if the president does it, it’s legal. Paraphrasing, but his statement was pretty close to that.
And Mr.T @ 87. I understand. My consternation @76 was due to a misreading of Mary @70. I thought she was concurring with the Unitary exec view. She was only reminding me of what the view was/is. Still, as I noted @ 61, Cheney, on his way to the airport has reminded everyone about the approval obtained from congressional delegates, and I’m raising questions about the context of those approvals, and their value. Emptywheel’s posting is about the “record” of the approval conveyed in Gonzales “notes”.
I believe that this is exactly the rationale that Mr. Cheney had Mr. Addington and his pet legalists devise. The problem (for Comey) is that it not only seems directly contrary to the explicit text of the Constitution, but also to the entire history of the United States up to Nixon.
This, the militarization of DOJ, is the characterization that Tamm makes if he is in fact Anonymous in July 2007 comments at TPM. And this is not merely a convenient describer, it is in fact how the actors conceived their authority. The danger of this kind of totalitarianism are clear enough as a matter of political philosophy but the audacity of this effort in the constitutional context is mind numbing. It is wrong on so many fundamental levels I don’t know where to start but I guess that is the point.
Here’s what Comey said and while it is prettied up more, it is basically what Nixon said and what Cheney has been saying (Comey disagreeing, but indicating that this was the rationale)
I’m going to go the next step and say that Addington et al argued that, when the FISC Chief Judge was about to blow up, bc of the President’s CIC and “war” status, he could “lawfully” direct his DOJ to disregard the court’s orders. I can see Addington and Cheney relishing an opportunity to paraphrase about the court making their ruling, now let’s see them enforce it. The problem is (or should have been – not so much a problem with this DOJ though) that lawyers, acting in their capacity as lawyers, can never be soley Exec Branch underlings – they only exist as lawyers by grace and licensing of the courts.
Now how do we test that so as to make it out of bounds in the future? Paging Judge Walker!
How the hell did we as a country ever wander away from formal declarations of war? Pandora, meet box.
Mary, when I first watched that testimony, it puzzled me, because you could see that Comey was truly unsure. I didn’t know then as much as I know now about Addington backing people into corners. But I don’t see in Comey’s words any assertion of Addington’s notions — I just see the awareness of a guy who doesn’t accept them but isn’t sure he has any backing.
Not “licensing” per se, which is bar based, but in the nature of “admission” by all courts and oversight on licensing by most state courts.
Pelosi, Reid, Rockefeller and Harmon comprise the loose threads. Now we know how impeachment came off the table. There is one Republican that seems to desire to come clean. He would love to make lemonade from lemons – take down any of these high level Democrats – make himself look good and save his own ass. We marvel at the way Tom Delay makes guest tv appearances instead of cooling his heels in prison. Delay is protected by his relationship with Cheney.
The way to Cheney and Bush is through Pelosi and the participating duped Democrats. Probably isn’t enough time. Pardons will come too soon.
Impeachment off the table, Obama’s FISA flip, and all the bipartisan happy talk makes sense now.
The problem with the Cheney interviews is no one ever asks him about the specifics that are in the public domain.
When he is arguing about protecting the country with torture, no one asks him specifically about al-Libi and the tortured false admissions of Iraqi training camps for al-Qaee
With a name like
—Delano Abraham Nixon of Neosho Rapids, Kan. Forging the endorsement on a U.S. Treasury check.
Bush oughta pardon him… a Dem Prez, a Repub Prez, and a Crook
OT: Pat Robertson just on CNN begging for pardon for Libby … ”he’s an accomplished lawyer … his career has been ruined.” Gah. Just caught the end of it. No rebuttal offered ~ promo for imminent report release on SECRET Obama – Blago contacts. Cue commercial.
OT… the Yankees really suck
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12…..es.html?hp
This is not utterly Nixonian. It still holds out the prospect that the Courts or the Legislature could disagree.
The principle is civilian command over military activities, not vice-versa.
78 – cut off and cont al-QaeDa
Cheney doesn’t get asked about the false confession tortured from Arar, or how that made us safer, or why Canada should cooperate with America if we arbitrarily and without apology kidnap and organize the torture to the point of false confessions, of their citizens.
Cheney doesn’t get asked about the false confessions of the Tipton Three (that includes Rasul, whose case alleging maltreatment has been sent back to the Dist ct to proceed with) and how it would make the country or the nation safer to have three britons tortured into confessing that they were in a picture with Bin Laden, when it only took MI5 a nano-stant to determine that was false.
Cheney didn’t get ask about the torture interrogation of Afghan cab driver Dilawar and how each blow landed on his already pulverized legs made us safer. Or why, when it was discovered that he had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism and had been turned in by the man who likely WAS behind the attacks, his two fares were nonetheless shipped to GITMO for abuse and to help cover up the torture death.
Cheney didn’t get asked about the “young” detainee described by both Priest and Mayer who was tortured to death by hypothermia and dumped in an unmarked grave and how that made us safer.
Cheney didn’t get asked about the disappeared children of KSM and Aafia Siddiqui – in the later’s case, American children and how their torture would help keep America safe.
The MSM harping on the waterboarding of KSM is very reminescent of the MSM harping on the reference in Gonzales’ memo to the Geneva conventions being “quaint” and completely ignoring and not asking about the admission in the memo that the administration needed to invent a theory to protect them from prosecution under the War Crimes Act.
Yes, waterboarding is torture – but to keep asking about waterboarding of KSM only gets you so far down the line.
Then there was the torture of Errachidi, the bipolar British chef, who we purchased, kidnapped and abused, including YEARS of cumulative isolation, all on accusations that he was an al-Qaeda training camp “general” when, at the times he was accused of running the camp, he was making souffles in Mayfair – how did that keep us safe?
Then there was Kurnaz, who we kidnapped and abused for years based on a couple of hundred pages of – – – EXCULPATORY information, all of which was “classified” so it couldn’t be used to get our “mistake” released. That made us safer how, again?
Then there was Donald Vance, who they attempted to disappear into Iraqi detention facilities and held in abuse there — that made us safer, how?
Cheney needs to be asked to explain how deaths during torture and caused by the torture stil, somehow, don’t qualify as “torture” And how those deaths made us safer. He needs to be asked why interviews that had information necessary to make us safer weren’t videotaped or why, when they were, the tapes were destroyed. He needs to be asked why a CIA agent received a reprimand in their file, chastising them that the torture sessions were not for their “entertainment” Or why kidnapping and abusing Khalid el-Masri made us safer.
Then – you can go on to the Matthew Alexander questions about GITMO and Abu Ghraib killing Americans.
Instead we get wastrels and dilettantes piping the equivalent of journalist muzak into the room with him.
80 – I think Comey makes it clear that he disagrees with the notion that if the head of the Executive branch says it is legal, it is legal, but he felt that the law required that he abide by the determination of that head (I disagree, but on this particular one I sympathize and empathize with him) So he went with “lawful” (as in, is the action supported by law, independent of Executive fiat) and said there was no basis in law, but he, as an inferior to the head of the Exec branch, couldn’t overrule the “legal” determination.
WHich pretty much brings the circle of Bush saying he was relying on legal advice around and back – if the lawyers were saying it had no basis in law other than his fiat, then that’s not exactly the same thing as saying that he was relying on them, more that they had to do what he said.
76 – Are you saying that as CinC Potus can issue military orders contravening statutes, and not bound by constitutional limitations of powers.
Am *I* saying that? ABSOLUTELY NOT – and Ex Parte Milligan, from the civil war, stands for the direct contrary position (it says not the Executive, not the Legislative and not the Judicial branch, separately or in combination, can disenfranchise the Constitutional limits and protections). But has that argument been made before? Yep, and I think it is what Addington et al were making now. That’s why it caught my eye that the renewals were termed by some report as being military orders. It is what Philibin gets at sideways in his memo that has been released, where he talks about Ex Parte Quirin overrulling Milligan. A conclusion that not on the Republican appointed “liberals” like Souter and Steven rejected, but one that Scalia rejected as well – as a matter of fact, Scalia indicated that he would consider overturning Quirin at least in part.
I didn’t really think you were saying that. I keep having this footinmouth problem whenever I join in the fun here. What I was trying to elicit was an explanation as to why Comey et al were so alarmed, if legal cover had been provided by the CinC argument. Thanks for patiently reminding me that it was the CinC argument they weren’t buying. But again, doesn’t it seem that Cheney is reaching for the congressional leader’s approval as the new cover, as weak as it is.
i wonder if it’s Delay’s “attendance” at fake meetings that is keeping his slimy ass out of jail.
Why ISN’T he in jail yet?????
I think the oath morphed in the 1950s, that paranoid stuff about enemies foreign and domestic, I would imagine being part of the McCarran hearings and their ilk. Maybe Santa Barbara presidency project has record of that, it is a lonng time ago.
I think I remember, oath is the enlistment into military qv, maybe on the wall at the USN Observatory.