In today’s Washington Post, Don Eggen and Paul Kane detail an event from early 2004 that would have almost certainly cost George W. Bush any chance of re-election. Can you imagine what would have happened if FBI Director Robert Mueller, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Deputy Attorney General James Comey, and their chiefs of staff had all resigned in protest because of illegal warrantless wiretapping? It almost happened.
“I couldn’t stay if the administration was going to engage in conduct that the Department of Justice had said had no legal basis,” he said. “I just simply couldn’t stay.” Comey testified he was going to be joined in a mass resignation by some of the nation’s top law enforcement officers: Ashcroft, Mueller, Ayres and Comey’s own chief of staff.
Ayres persuaded Comey to delay his resignation, Comey testified. “Mr. Ashcroft’s chief of staff asked me something that meant a great deal to him, and that is that I not resign until Mr. Ashcroft was well enough to resign with me,” he said.
The threat became moot after an Oval Office meeting March 12 with Bush, Comey said. After meeting separately with Comey and Mueller, Bush gave his support to making changes in the program, Comey testified. The administration has never disclosed what those changes were.
This puts the decision to replace Ashcroft with Gonzales after the 2004 election in a whole new light. After all, it was Gonzales (along with Andrew Card) who tried to get Ashcroft to sign off on an illegal program from his hospital bed.
That afternoon, Ashcroft was rushed to George Washington University Hospital with a severe case of gallstone pancreatitis; on March 9, his gallbladder was removed. The standoff between Justice and White House officials came the next night, after Comey had refused to certify the surveillance program on the eve of its 45-day reauthorization deadline, he testified.
About 8 p.m. on March 10, Comey said that his security detail was driving him home when he received an urgent call from Ashcroft’s chief of staff, David Ayres, who had just received an anxious call from Ashcroft’s wife, Janet. The White House — possibly the president — had called, and Card and Gonzales were on their way.
Furious, Comey said he ordered his security detail to turn the car toward the hospital, careening down Constitution Avenue. Comey said he raced up the stairs of the hospital with his staff, beating Card and Gonzales to Ashcroft’s room.
“I was concerned that, given how ill I knew the attorney general was, that there might be an effort to ask him to overrule me when he was in no condition to do that,” Comey said, saying that Ashcroft “seemed pretty bad off.”
Mueller, who also was rushing to the hospital, spoke by phone to the security detail protecting Ashcroft, ordering them not to allow Card or Gonzales to eject Comey from the hospital room.
Card and Gonzales arrived a few minutes later, with Gonzales holding an envelope that contained the executive order for the program. Comey said that, after listening to their entreaties, Ashcroft rebuffed the White House aides.
“He lifted his head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me,” Comey said. Then, he said, Ashcroft added: “But that doesn’t matter, because I’m not the attorney general. There is the attorney general,” and pointed at Comey, who was appointed acting attorney general when Ashcroft fell ill.
Later, Card ordered an 11 p.m. meeting at the White House. But Comey said he told Card that he would not go on his own, pulling then-Solicitor General Theodore Olson from a dinner party to serve as witness to anything Card or Gonzales told him. “After the conduct I had just witnessed, I would not meet with him without a witness present,” Comey testified. “He replied, ‘What conduct? We were just there to wish him well.’ “
With Ashcroft and Comey out of the way, Gonzales could do whatever Bush wanted.
This is appalling. And, of course, we are just learning of it now.
Add Ashcroft, Comey and Mueller to the crowd (Powell, Tenant, et al) that kept silent when they should have spoken out publically.
I’m glad they stood up to Bush, but they had the duty to speak out.
To turn the original phrase, “Who’s more the fool, the fool himself or those who follow him?” I would opt for
“Who’s more the devil, the devil himself or those who enable him?”
Some days and for some people and their actions, forgiveness is just not an option.
My husband and I watched “Countdown” last night and just sat there, slack-jawed.
John Ashcroft turns out not only to have had a whiff of integrity, but to have displayed some actual spine. Who knew?!
And as per Kahli’s comment up thread, it’s a little indication that as much evil is apparent with this White House, it’s nothing compared to the, as yet, untold story.
Bush always meets with potential “troublemakers” separately — whether it’s Gold Star mothers, or recalcitrant subordinates, it appears… It’s applied psychology. People gain courage in numbers — by separating them, he can bring the full force of his status and authority to bear on them as individuals. He can resort to intimidation, condescension, joking around, cajoling, reasoned or calculated assurances, and if necessary, outright lies, and it’s far less likely that the individual will stand up to him if they’re alone, or contradict him publicly later. In a group, or even with one other witness, people are less easily intimidated, and take support from each other’s witness.
Had Comey and Mueller met with him together, or in a group with Ashcroft, Bush would have had to give far more concessions — possibly had to scrap the whole project, faced with a united opposition. But by meeting with them individually, he could give vague assurances, which have never been revealed, and get his way in the end.
This is probably also why those 11 Republican Congressmen went to see him as a group — individually, it would have been much harder for each of them to be so candid and blunt. Together, however, they could make their point in much stronger terms.
However, this revelation comes three years too late — the real measure of moral courage and ethical principles would have been to speak out, even resign as they had planned to do, at the time, not accept unsecured (and untrue) assurances, and only say “yeah, we knew it was wrong, but we TRIED to stop him…” long after the fact. As it is, their resistance meant nothing, and stopped nothing — that they knew it was wrong makes them willing accessories.
I’m tired of members of W administration stating “I had backbone, I threaten to resign.” And then three-years after the fact say the same to the rest of world. Just add those losers to the boat Tenet is floating in, trying salvage their reputation.
Something else struck me–hard. When Comey and Ashcroft actually got to the President, some level of accomodation was made (who knows what) that made them more willing to cooperate. Prior to that, the “administration” was stonewalling and plugging its ears to the objections of DOJ.
So on whose behalf were Card and Gonzales getting that signature? My bet is Cheney’s, not Bush’s. So for whom does the White House staff work? Even a close family friend like Gonzales, making an end run around Bush? Protecting him, knowing he didn’t care, or recognizing that there is a shadow government?
Time for Card to testify.
So, based on the pattern, if Gonzales finally goes, do we get Harriet Myers as his replacement?