Working Thread on Warrantless Wiretapping IG Report

Timed perfectly so al-Haramain can’t use it in its latest brief. Though I imagine Judge Walker will read it closely.

Here’s the report.

Consider this an working thread.

Update: The report admits how AGAG tried to avoid perjury: multiple programs were authorized with the same presidential finding, and he was just referring to one when he lied to Congress about any dissent on the program.

Update: The role of non-OLC, non-FBI parts of DOJ in the program:

DOJ’s Office of Intelligence Policy and Review … worked with the FBI and the NSA to address the impact PSP-derived information had on proceedings under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). DOJ’s National Security Division also handled potential discovery issues that may have involved potential PSP-related information in international terrorism prosecutions.

All vague and non-dated…

Update: OPR hasn’t completed its review of OLC’s role in approving the program. Damn that’s taking some time.

Update: This is a load of crap designed to cover up for the March 2004 hospital scene and the fact that OLC was given primacy over AG in approving the program.

The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel reviewed this information to assess whether there was "a sufficient factual basis demonstrating a threat of terrorist attacks in the United States for it to continue to be reasonable under the standards of the Fourth Amendment for the President to [continue] to authorize the warrantless searches involved" in the program. The Office of Legal Counsel then advised the Attorney General on whether the constitutional standard of reasonableness had been met and whether the Presidential Authorization could be certified "as to form and legality."

[snip]

Although there was no legal requirement that the Authorization be certified by the Attorney General or other Department of Justice official, current and former DOJ officials told us that this certification added value by giving the program a sense of legitimacy. Former Attorney General Gonzales stated that the NSA was being asked to do something it had not done before, and it was important to assure the NSA that the Attorney General had approved the legality of the program.

Note, Gonzales was interviewedd for this, but Ashcroft refused. Yoo also refused. And it doesn’t even say whether they tried to interview Jim Comey or Jack Goldsmith!! (Mueller did agree to be interviewed.) Scratch that–Comey was interviewed.

Update:

Initially the analysts who prepared the threat assessments were not read into the PSP and did not know how the threat assessments would be used. CIA’s terrorism analysts drew upon all sources of intelligence in preparing these threat assessments.

After the terrorism analysts completed their portion of the memoranda, the DCI Chief of Staff added a paragraph at the end of the memoranda stating that the individuals and organizations involved in global terrorism (and discussed in the memoranda) possessed the capability and intention to undertake further terrorist attacks within the United States. The DCI Chief of Staff recalled that the paragraph was provided to him initially by a senior White House official.

Nice way to compartment the actual thinking from the claims used to justify this…

This bit is in there for al-Haramain, which was included largely because of some crap citizen-posse intelligence reports some Neocons did.

Update: CIA did the threat assessments until May 2003, when the Terrorist Threat Integration Center took over. Then ODNI–and the National CoutnerTerrorism Center–picked it up in April 2005. There’s a lot of detail on how the ODNI did the threat assessments, including mention of DOJ review.

Throughout the ODNI preparation and approval process, the threat assessments were also subject to varying degrees of review and comment by DOJ and ODNI attorneys. 

When CIA was doing it, OGC reviewed the threat assessments, but there is no mention of DOJ review.

Update:

NCTC analysts involved in preparing the threat assessments told the ODNI OIG that only a portion of the PSP information was ever used in the ODNI threat assessments because other intelligence sources were available that provided more timely or detailed information about the al-Qa’ida threat to the United States. (9)

Shorter NCTC analysts: the info we got from this program was shit, and other collection methods were more useful.

Update: 

Yoo was the only OLC official "read into" the PSP from the program’s inception in October 2001 until Yoo left DOJ in May 2003.

[snip]

Bybee stated he was never read into the PSP and could shed no further light on how Yoo came to draft the OLC opinions on the program.  (10)

[snip]

As noted above, Yoo, Ashcroft, Card, and Addington declined or did not respond to the DOJ OIG’s request for interviews, and the DOJ OIG does not know how Yoo came to deal directly with the White House on legal issues related to the PSP. (11)

Who could have imagined?!?!

Update: This is gonna get interesting.

Om September and early October 2001, Yoo prepared several preliminary opinions relating to hypothetical random domestic electronic surveillance activities, but the first OLC opinion explicitly addressing the legality of the PSP was not drafted until after the program had been formally authorized by President Bush in October 2001. Attorney General Ashcroft approved the first Presidential Authorization for the PSP as to "form and legality" on the same day that he was read into the program. (11)

We’ll be reading the same thing about the torture program shortly, mark my words. One of the reasons this is interesting is because they don’t want to admit the 4th Amendment eviscerating opinion was the basis for the program, so they have to say it came later. But when Bradbury did his FOIA exemptions he said the former WAS a basis for the program. 

And note–we don’t get the date when Ashcroft was read into the program, and whether it was before or after the program started. (This same vague reference is repeated on page 15.)

The analysis of John Yoo’s shitty ass November 2, 2001 opinion is on 11-12.

Update: Just because I love posting on this shit:

Yoo’s legal memoranda omitted any discussion of Youngstown Steel & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952), a leading case on the distribution of government powers between the Executive and Legislative Branches. (13)

What a surprise.

Update: Further load of crap watch. The report (on 14) describes AGAG stating that it was "inconvenient" not to have the DAG or AG COS read into the program. But, the report says, since Ashcroft declined to be interviewed, we have no idea whether or not Ashcroft tried to get others read in. Except, of course, Mueller’s sworn public testimony describes Ashcroft complaining about this. 

Page 15: No evidence of intentional misuse of PSP. Now word on "accidental" misuse of PSP, up to and including accessing Clinton’s emails.

Page 17: Says FBI protected sources and methods, but doesn’t address poison fruit. But of course not–if it did, then they’d have to settle the al-Haramain case.

Page 19:

No DOJ attorneys with terrorism prosecution responsibilities were read into the PSP until mid-2004, and as a result DOJ continued to lack the advice of attorneys who were best equipped to identify and examine the discovery issues in connection with the PSP.

Also note the implications for al-Haramain: when they got those PSP logs, they were being investigated by DOJ CTC lawyers. Which means the lawyers had no clue what the PSP logs were.

Page 20: Philbin had to convinced Addington to read Goldsmith, the frigging AAG for OLC, into the program.

Goldsmith and Philbin became concerned that this revised analysis would not be sufficient to support the legality of certain aspects of the Other Intelligence Activities that the President had authorized under the PSP. [That is, the data mining.]

Page 21:

Comey told the DOJ OIG that of particular concern to him and Goldsmith was the notion that Yoo’s legal analysis entailed ignoring an act of Congress, and doing so without full congressional notification.

I’ll remind you all that Congress defunded TIA the previous fall, which should have made the data mining illegal. 

Also, after Ashcroft went to ICU, AGAG wrote asking for confirmation that the previous opinions "covered" the program (this sounds like something OVP did before the 2003 SOTU). 

Goldsmith, Philbin, and Comey concluded that Yoo’s memoranda did not accurately describe some of the Other Intelligence Acitivities that were being conducted under the Presidential Authorizations implementing the PSP, and that the memoranda therefore did not provide a basis for finding that these activities were legal.

Funny! That’s the same thing that happened with Yoo’s torture memo–that it didn’t really describe the activities it purported to authorize. What a coinkydink.

Page 23: 

According to Gonzales’s notes of the [March 10, 2004] meeting, individual congressional leaders expressed thoughts and concerns related to the program. However, Gonzales told the DOJ OIG that the consensus of the congressional leaders was that the program should continue.

Jeebus!! AGAG’s notes apparently don’t even support the "consensus" view.

Page 24: Really important new detail.

According to notes from Ashcroft’s FBI security detail, at 6:20 PM that evening Card called the hospital and spoke with an agent in Ashcroft’s security detail, advising him that President Bush would be calling shortly to speak with Ashcroft. Ashcroft’s wife told the agent that Ashcroft woudl nto accept the call. Ten minutes later, the agent called Ashcroft’s Chief of Staff David Ayres at DOJ to request that Ayres speak with Card about the President’s intention to call Ashcroft. The agent conveyed to Ayres Mrs. Ashcroft’s desire that no calls be made to Ashcroft for another day or two. However, at 6:5 PM, Card and the President called the hospital and, according to the agent’s notes, "insisted on speaking [with Attorney General Ashcroft]." According to the agent’s notes, Mrs. Ashcroft took the call from Card and the President and was informed that Gonzales and Card were coming to the hospital to see Ashcroft regarding a matter involing national security.

Our fucking dick of a former President made this call himself and he ordered Ashcroft’s wife around. Fucker.

Page 22: Remember how AGAG pretended it was no big deal to go to the hospital to try to get Ashcroft’s ok? Here’s what happened the day before.

Gonzales reasoned that Ashcroft, who was still hospitalized, was not in any condition to sign a renewal of the Authorization, and that a "30-day bridge" would move the situation to a point where Ashcroft would be well enough to approve the program.

And the next day he went to get that signature anyway.

Page 25:

Gonzales told the DOJ OIG that he carried with him in a manila envelope the March 11, 2004, Presidential Authorization for Ashcroft to sign. According to Philbin, Gonzales first asked Ashcroft how he was feeling and Ashcroft replied, "Not well." Gonzales thetn said words to the effect, "You know, there’s a reauthorization that has to be renewed…"

Page 26: Unique aspects of the March 11 authorization.

The March 11 Authorization also differed markedly from prior Authorizations in three other respects. It explicitly asserted that the President’s exercise of his Article II Commander-in-Chief authority displaced any contrary provisions of law, including FISA. It clarified the description of certain Other Intelligence Activities being conducted under the PSP to address questions regarding whether such activities had actually been authorized explicitly in prior Authorizations. It also stated that in approving the prior Presidential Authorizations as to form and legality, the Attorney General previously had authorized the same activities now being approved under the March 11 authorization. 

[snip]

At approximately noon, Gonzales called Goldsmith to inform him that the President, in issuing the Authorization, had made an interpretation of law concerning his authorities and that DOJ should not act in contradiction of the President’s determinations. 

Page 29: Comey writes a memo saying there were still probs with Congressional notification, "particularly where the legal basis for the program is the President’s decision to assert his authority to override an otherwise applicable Act of Congress."

To which AGAG replies, fuckoff. (that’s a paraphrase)

Page 33: 

DOJ OIG found it difficult to assess or quantify the overall effectiveness of the PSP program as it relates to the FBI’s counterterrorism activities. However, based on the interviews conducted and documents reviewed, the DOJ OIG concluded that although PSP-derived information had value in some coutnerterrorism investigations, it generally played a limited role in the FBI’s overall counterterrorism efforts. 

Page 37: Here’s a big steaming load of crap:

DOJ OIG concluded that Gonzales did not intend to mislead Congress, but it found that his testimony was confusing, inaccurate, and had the effect of misleading those who were not knowledgeable about the program.

If that was unintentional then my name is George fricking Washington. 

image_print
  1. zapkitty says:

    How lame of them… the pdf of this freshly-generated government report is just optical scans of a print copy.

    No other excuse for it than that they really wanted to slow down people going through the text as much as possible.

  2. perris says:

    Timed perfectly so al-Haramain can’t use it in its latest brief.

    aren’t litigants entitled to adendums when previously unavailable information makes itself available?

  3. freepatriot says:

    Did my Muse get a treat ???

    No other excuse for it than that they really wanted to slow down people going through the text as much as possible.

    I ain’t so sure that’s the best way to deal with this

    If ew is gonna be on my ass, I want her SKIMMING the fookin reports real fast, not reading them slowly and thoroughly

    but I could be a bit smarter that the average government stooge …

    sounds like a good reason to kick some money in TO the kitty though …

    edited badly tnen edited again: (I do not endorse kicking innocent money)

  4. JimWhite says:

    Timed perfectly so al-Haramain can’t use it in its latest brief.

    Ah, but they may have hosed themselves by doing that. As I recall bmaz laying out the upcoming sequence, the gummint will now respond to the al-Haramain filing and then al-Haramain will get one more crack before Walker rules. That means al-Haramain can cite any info from the report that supports their previously made points and the gummint can’t respond until arguments are presented.

  5. TarheelDem says:

    I counted two “acting” IGs of the five who signed off on the report.

    When is Harry Reid going to get the rest of Obama’s appointments confirmed?

  6. alabama says:

    “Only three Justice Department officials — Ashcroft, former Office of Legal Counsel lawyer John C. Yoo, and intelligence policy lawyer James Baker — were read into the electronic surveillance initiative.”-WaPo.

    When you’re Yoo, you get to read about you in the WaPo. But this Baker guy–do I know about Baker?

      • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

        Almost certainly a different ‘James Baker’; the Bush consigliere is now in his 80s and probably hasn’t worked for a paycheck in decades.

        • fatster says:

          Not the same according to wiki. (This is the same wiki that led a couple of us off on a “paineful” experience not too long ago. Plus, this entry for Baker is one of those needing “disambiguation.” So, get yr salt shaker.)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Baker_(government_attorney)

          James Baker, consigliere to the BFFE, was born in 1930, so not quite as old as you thought. I think he’s still lawyer for the Carlyle Group, and I believe Poppy had him kick around in the WH for awhile to help Junior (who he helped get elected, anyway). His wiki entry looks pretty decent.

          I’m not sure these are the type of people who get paychecks anyway, but I”ll bet JAB III is hauling in lots of riches for all his loyal work for the Bushies.

  7. WTFOver says:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..eillance_2

    A new internal government report says President George W. Bush authorized secret intelligence activities shortly after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center that went beyond wiretapping without court orders.

    Details of those activities remain classified, but are referred to in the newly released report as the President’s Surveillance Program.

    Congress required the review of the warrantless wiretapping program by five inspectors general last year when it revised the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

    FISA is the 30-year-old law that created a secret court to oversee the government’s electronic surveillance.

    The Bush White House acknowledged in 2005 that it intercepted international communications that passed through US wires without court orders. The program is popularly known as “warrantless wiretapping.”

    • perris says:

      A new internal government report says President George W. Bush authorized secret intelligence activities shortly after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center that went beyond wiretapping without court orders.

      I believe everyone here will remember me saying, “the only reason they would want to wire tap without someone telling insuring the information was for national security would be if they were stealing

      they are stealing information they can use for their own personal use, they are stealing information that will force law makers to vote in their behalf, they are stealing information they might use to manipulate market pricing and business decisions”

      that is what they were doing

      all a warrant does is insure the person gathering the information has a legitimate claim to that information

      information concerning national security is always given the warrant and if an the administration thought they didn’t have time to file for the warrant they could file after they performed the search

      the only reason they wouldn’t want to apply for a warrant is if the information had nothing to do with national security, nothing to do with the law and the only thing left would be information for their own personal, depraved purpose

    • bobschacht says:

      Details of those activities remain classified, but are referred to in the newly released report as the President’s Surveillance Program.

      [emphasis added]

      EW, because the PSP is mentioned so many times in your zillion updates, I suggest that you add a preface explaining what PSP stands for. Thanks for this priceless skimming of this document!

      Also, while I appreciate the rush analysis, the format of your post is less organized and coherent than usual, making it difficult to grasp the meaning of the whole. There is a lot of significance here, that will take more time to digest. I look forward to reading the rest of the comments!

      Bob in HI

  8. bmaz says:

    And we have a winner!! That is correct. Quite frankly, and I have not read the report yet, it may not be altogether necessary if the government does as I expect and refuses to address the merits of Eisenberg’s motion.

  9. Aeon says:

    John Yoo’s handiwork on the OLC covering memos for the “PSP” is taking quite a hit here.

    Everybody who talked to the DOJ IG is throwing Yoo under the bus.

    LMAO.

    • esseff44 says:

      When they refer to Yoo’s prior WH connections, who are they referring to? Yes, Yoo is looking really bad, whether more devious or incompetent, I can’t tell. AG Gonzo is looking even worse. When he can’t get DOJ approval, he just plows on and says they don’t really need legal cover from DOJ. That’s when FBI Mueller balks and says he will not go along with the program without DOJ cover. CIA didn’t seem to care that much. Again, a similar pattern to the torture memos.

      • Aeon says:

        When they refer to Yoo’s prior WH connections, who are they referring to?

        It’s gotta be Addington.

  10. scribe says:

    Page 10/43 (rather than cut, paste, copy, cut and paste again, I type quickly and paraphrase):

    “Every 45 days the CIA and then NCTC prepared a report on current terrist threats and a summary of intel gathered by the PSP during the preceding 45 day period. The DoJ OLC then reviewed it to determine whether there was a sufficient terrist threat (based on those facts) to meet the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness to continue the program. Then OLC would advise the AG as to whether the reasonableness standard had been met and the approval could be made as to form and legality.”

    To me, this means that by the time of the hospital incident, where Comey-Goldsmith and Ashcroft had determined the program was illegal (Yoo was no longer in the OLC, IIRC), the entire program was admittedly unconstitutional. Didn’t meet the Fourth Amendment standards.

    This, of course, sets aside the whole question of “how the fuck did they get the idea that creating their own little captive judiciary inside the DoJ would somehow meet any kind of legal muster, ever?” Like they were ever going to determine that the emergency had ended….

    But, as to al-Haramin (and any other case) it’s as clear an admission of liability as one will ever get from a government that the government had violated peoples’ constitutional rights.

    • Jesterfox says:

      Reasonableness is not the standard. It is part of the why predicating the standard. The standard is that warrants are required. There are exceptions, certainly, but the amendment is about protecting us from the government’s intrusive powers.

      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.

  11. scribe says:

    Page 10-11/43

    Although there was no legal requirement for the AG to certify the program, “This certification gave added value by giving the program a sense of legitimacy”

    In the words of the old National Lampoon album title: “That’s not funny. That’s sick.”

    In other words – they knew they were doing wrong and violating the law, and used the DoJ to enforce lawbreaking, i.e., “DoJ says it’s OK, so regardless of what the law says, you do it.”

    Get a load of what AGAG said: “purely political considerations” were at the core of the AG certification – in case Congress came calling.

  12. scribe says:

    At the bottom of 11/43

    The CIA would prepare analyses of terrist threats and the Chief of Staff to the DCI was in charge of bringing this all together.

    Then they would tack on a boilerplate paragraph at the end saying that AQ wanted to hit us in the US and that the program needed to go forward. This boilerplate was provided to the CIA (CofS to the DCI) by “A senior White House official”.

    At 12-13/43 the threat assessments were written “scary” and became known at CIA and elsewhere as the “scary memos”.

    Anyone want to bet whether this was either Addington, Card, or Cheney, writing the decision and sending it out to be incorporated into the report on why the threat was so big?

  13. scribe says:

    14/43 Yoo drafted the memos creating the authority.

    Then, if you go back, you’ll remember he was the guy deciding that the program met the Fourth Amendment….

  14. Peterr says:

    It would save a lot of time and money if Marcy were made an IG-at-large. She probably could have written this report long ago.

    • bmaz says:

      It would have been a different report Peter. and i say that not even having read it yet. too much for an iPhone review.

  15. Aeon says:

    The IGs end up concluding that the intel take was somewhat useful, but neither DOJ nor CIA was able to point to any operational successes against terrorists that can be claimed to have come from the PSP.

    That isn’t what Hayden, McConnell, and the other fucktards have been saying since Dec. 2005.

  16. scribe says:

    14/43 Bybee says (a) he was never read in on the program, (b) he has no idea how Yoo was the only person in OLC (and one of 3 in DoJ) read in.

    Any guesses? Like, maybe, Addington and Cheney wanted Yoo in place there so they could have the feedback loop completed?

    Yoo was the eager beaver who volunteered for the national security portfolio at OLC and Bybee said “ok”, apparently pretty blithely.

  17. fatster says:

    Was the ‘Om’ in the original?

    “Om September and early October 2001 . . .”

    We could all benefit from some Ommmmming now and again, but I doubt the gubmint is doing it. If only they would.

  18. scribe says:

    15/43 Yoo wrote a couple hypothetical memos in Sept-Oct 01 on a hypothetical program, but didn’t write a “real” memo until they got a go-ahead from the WH. So that sounds like they worked out the details in the draft hypothetical memoranda, then came to a “final” plan, put it in front of Bush for an OK, then put it into effect.

    Ashcroft was read into the program the same day he was called upon to certify its legality for the first time. Sounds like he was patsy-ed, that Addington-Cheney-Yoo had worked this out in advance and then (after scaring the crap out of him with the “scary memos” presented the certification to Ashcroft for a signature “yes, boss, it’s legal.”

  19. Aeon says:

    The offical rationale for the extra-legal warrantless NSA surveillance turns out to have been an “intelligence gap.”

    This gap was the believed existence of numerous hidden al Qaeda cells operating within the U.S. that rendered the cumbersome requirements of FISA too onerous.

    That’s the story, and they are sticking to it here.

  20. whitewidow says:

    Interesting diary at The Orange One

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..Break-ins-

    Taking a look back at some questions Schumer asked of Gonzales

    Now, here’s the next question I have: Has the government done this? Has the government searched someone’s home, an American citizen, or office, without a warrant since 9/11, let’s say?

    GONZALES: To my knowledge, that has not happened under the terrorist surveillance program, and I’m not going to go beyond that. (emphasis mine)

    SCHUMER: I don’t know what that — what does that mean, under the terrorist surveillance program? The terrorist surveillance program is about wiretaps. This is about searching someone’s home. It’s different.

    So it wouldn’t be done under the surveillance program. I’m asking you if it has been done, period.

    GONZALES: But now you’re asking me questions about operations or possible operations, and I’m not going to get into that, Senator.

    • perris says:

      bingo, you found what I was referring to in my post at 24

      GONZALES: To my knowledge, that has not happened under the terrorist surveillance program, and I’m not going to go beyond that. (emphasis mine)

      there it is, that is a disclaimer, “it didn’t happen under the terrorist surveillance program and I’m not going to go beyond that” meant with no doubt in my mind what so ever that it did happen and they created “the terrorist surveillance program” to say it didn’t happen under “that” program, they weren’t entitled to comment on “other” programs

      I remember calling that a child’s trick too

  21. scribe says:

    This bit about Ashcroft being read in on the same day as he certified it as legal for the first time is a big deal – later in the report the NSA and Hayden say they relied on that. Hayden is quoted as saying (to a group of 90 people implementing it) “we will do exactly what is authorized and not one electron or photon more”.

    19/43 “target folders” – a very interesting term of military art former sappers know all about.

  22. perris says:

    from the Washington independent;

    A year later, the report is complete, and I’ve just gotten a copy of it. What does it say? I’m still reading it, but one thing it says is that the CIA’s involvement in the program is deeper than has been reported. And one interesting bonus fact: the report calls the program the “President’s Surveillance Program,” rather than the manipulative “Terrorist Surveillance Program” handle the Bush administration gave the program when it became public in order to put critics in a tight spot. (”What? You oppose surveillance for dangerous terrorists who want to kill your grandchildren????”)

    I like that but check this out;

    More as I read the report.

    Update: Here’s the basis for switching up the nomenclature, and it comes with a point of pride. Two years ago, in July 2007, Paul Kiel and I tried to make sense of then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ congressional testimony about the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” and concluded that there must have been more than one secret surveillance programm authorized by President Bush beginning in 2001. Today the IGs’ report bears us out:

    I remember that testimony, I remember Gonzales going out of his way to testify, “this particular program..blah blah blah”

    I then went on to say, Gonzales is carving an exclusion because he knows his testimony is a lie, when that lie is found out he will simply say, “well what you discovered was not “that” surveillance program it was a different one”

  23. scribe says:

    22-23/43 Criminal prosecutions, Brady and F.R.Crim.P. 16 and how this crap affected international terrorism prosecutions.

  24. Civlibertarian says:

    …hypothetical random domestic electronic surveillance activities…

    I recall reading quite some time ago about someone who was led to believe by their credit card issuer that credit card transactions were routinely forwarded to the government to monitor for terrorist activity. I don’t have a citation for this, and as I recall it was an anecdotal report, so it’s not the best sourcing. But I think that data mining credit card activity was something that the “Total Information Awareness” program was intended to do, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out to have been implemented in some form here.

  25. emptywheel says:

    Ding ding ding ding:

    According to notes from Ashcroft’s FBI security detail, at 6:20 PM that evening Card called the hospital and spoke with an agent in Ashcroft’s security detail, advising him that President Bush would be calling shortly to speak with Ashcroft. Ashcroft’s wife told the agent that Ashcroft woudl nto accept the call. Ten minutes later, the agent called Ashcroft’s Chief of Staff David Ayres at DOJ to request that Ayres speak with Card about the President’s intention to call Ashcroft. The agent conveyed to Ayres Mrs. Ashcroft’s desire that no calls be made to Ashcroft for another day or two. However, at 6:5 PM, Card and the President called the hospital and, according to teh agent’s notes, “insisted on speaking [with Attorney General Ashcroft].” According to the agent’s notes, Mrs. Ashcroft took the call from Card and the President and was informed that Gonzales and Card were coming to the hospital to see Ashcroft regarding a matter involing national security.

  26. scribe says:

    24-25/43 Philbin persuaded Addington to read in Goldsmith despite Bybee never having been read in.

    This tells me Addington was in charge of knowing and deciding who was in and who was out.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      And just to note that Libby was at that time Cheney’s right hand man. Surprise, surprise.

      And Feith was over at DoD, along with Cambone and the rest of the neocon ideologues.

      Abramoff was raising money like a bandit, and Delay was ‘the Hammer’ cowing the House of Reps, while Frist and Lott were running the Senate. IIRC, Phil Gramm was still running the Senate Banking Committee.

  27. scribe says:

    30/43 March 11, 2004: Bush sign authorization, declares himself absolute ruler whose word is law.

  28. TheraP says:

    For anyone reading this thread who may be unaware, EW can be your very own investigative reporter – just by clicking this link and making a contribution. You’ll never regret it! She’s working, in my view, for the good of America!

    • Jesterfox says:

      Done. I’ve been holding back because I didn’t want to add to a balance on a card I’m trying to pay off, but I have added my bit to the cause.

  29. Civlibertarian says:

    An article sourcing data mining of credit card data: Terrorist Profiling, Version 2.0 by Shane Harris, National Journal, Friday, Oct. 20, 2006.

    A few selected excerpts:

    …a system that’s as broad as Tangram purports to be would require access to many databases that contain private information about Americans, the experts said, including credit card transactions, communications records, and even Internet purchases.

    In an interview, Tim Edgar, the deputy civil-liberties protection officer for the national intelligence director, said that Tangram “is a research-and-development program. We have been assured that it’s not deployed for operational use.”

    Tangram drew skeptical reviews from technology and privacy experts because of its links to Total Information Awareness, a controversial research program started by the Pentagon in 2002. TIA also aimed to detect patterns of terrorist behavior. Congress ended all public funding for the program in 2003, but allowed research to continue through the classified intelligence budget.

    TIA was similarly envisioned as a vast combination of detection methods. In Tangram, “I see the system of systems that is essentially TIA about to be born,” said Tim Sparapani, the legislative counsel on privacy issues for the American Civil Liberties Union. “TIA was designed to be one unified system,” he said. “This is the vision, I think, made practical.”

    Total funding for the program is approximately $49 million. Two of the firms receiving awards — Booz Allen Hamilton and 21st Century Technologies — were principal contractors on the TIA program. The third company, SRI International, worked on one of TIA’s predecessors, the Genoa program.

    Current detection techniques have raised the specter of what the Tangram document calls “runaway false detections.”

    It’s a pretty long article with an intersting sidebar discussing TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System).

    • emptywheel says:

      Because part of the report was to assess whether AGAG had deliberately lied to Congress–and he managed to convince the IG that he only unintentionally misled them. (See my last stinking pile of shit update).

      • bmaz says:

        Irrelevant! Bush should have never sent that cipher up the Hill to testify in the first place. However, once that disaster had been realized, I just cannot see letting him voluntarily testify or be debriefed by a federal officer or official again. It is malpractice to let him open his mouth.

        • scribe says:

          It’s only malpractice if your client has exposure and gets charged.

          From what we’ve seen so far, neither the client nor the lawyer has anything to fear.

        • bmaz says:

          I meant figuratively; that said, this isn’t over yet. And just because you slide through by the hair on your chin doesn’t make it a wise move. No way I would have done that. Cf. all the others that had the fucking common sense to decline.

  30. MrWhy says:

    Where do they discuss

    communications with, and participation of, individuals and entities in the private sector related to the Program

    ? (p.7)/11

    [Gonzo] also stated that it was important that the cooperating private sector personnel know that the Attorney General had approved the program.

    Note that Gonzo didn’t become AGAG until 3 Feb 2005. How was the private sector informed of DoJ or other approval for the program?

  31. bmaz says:

    Update: Just because I love posting on this shit:

    Yoo’s legal memoranda omitted any discussion of Youngstown Steel & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952), a leading case on the distribution of government powers between the Executive and Legislative Branches. (13)

    What a surprise.

    Funny that little ‘ole Jon Eisenberg out there on that left coast was able to manage to find Youngstown and get it in his motion for summary judgment, but the crack US Department of Justice just couldn’t muster the wherewithall to get it done. Go figure.

  32. earlofhuntingdon says:

    I underestimated what a fool Ashcroft was, how incompetent a manager and lawyer. How could Yoo responsibly have been the only OLC member read into a program?

    Yoo was not in charge of the OLC. Being the only member read into a program meant that no one within the DoJ could review, approve or revise his work or evaluate his performance for management purposes. We now know his work was inadequate to the point that it was intentionally flawed in order to say “Yes” to whatever Addington, Cheney and formally Bush demanded.

    Fredo, of course, was even more accommodating in allowing the OVP to run the DoJ.

  33. Kirk says:

    The first thing that caught my eye was on page 7. “The DCI Chief of Staff recalled that the paragraph was provided to him initially by a senior White House official.” That’s the critical paragraph of the assessment that the targets “possessed the capability and intention to udnertake further terrorist attacks within the United States.”

  34. Civlibertarian says:

    P. 37, AGAG misled congress:

    The DOJ OIG concluded that Gonzales did not intend to mislead Congress, but it found that his testimony was confusing, inaccurate, and had the effect of misleading those who were not knowledgeable about the program.

    A lot of care went into writing the above.

  35. MaryCh says:

    Thank you yet again EW! Given what you’ve written earlier about Judge Walker, I think he’ll take judicial notice of this report.

    BTW, where in the timeline does GWB refer to the US Constitution as “just a f’g piece of paper”? That man has a serious case of kidding on the square (see also “dictator”)

  36. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Our fucking dick of a former President made this call himself and he ordered Ashcroft’s wife around. Fucker.

    I think we just found those “few bad apples” the White House blamed for all our problems.

  37. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Gonzales reasoned that Ashcroft, who was still hospitalized, was not in any condition to sign a renewal of the Authorization, and that a “30-day bridge” would move the situation to a point where Ashcroft would be well enough to approve the program.

    Just a reminder that Ashcroft had been hospitalized for pancreatitis.

    I’ve turned into quite the Peggy Ashcroft admirer.
    Life is strange that way.

  38. bobschacht says:

    BTW, folks, “Presidential Surveillance Program” is not yet in the Wikipedia, and under that precise name did not come up in my Google search an hour or two ago. You can achieve fame and acclamation by writing up the first Wiki article on this! But if you’ve never written a Wikipedia article before, be prepared to jump through the hoops.

    Bob in HI