COMEY'S EVIDENCE OF A CRIME

Bush, Gonzales, Card Clearly Implicated

Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0705/S00343.htm
Washington, DC

Tuesday was a remarkable day at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. The exchange between Sen. Charles Schumer, R, NY and former Deputy Attorney General James Comey provides clear evidence pointing to criminal activity by the president, U.S Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former presidential advisor, Andrew Card. If Comey’s testimony is supported by other reliable witnesses, the Bush, Gonzales, and Card crew have some serious questions to answer.

Schumer got right to the point when he asked that Comey confirm “media reports of a dramatic visit by Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card” to the hospital room of an ailing and stricken John Ashcroft in early March, 2004

Why were they visiting Ashcroft in the hospital? Ashcroft, then the U.S. Attorney General, was gravely ill and had designated his deputy James Comey as acting attorney general. Previously, they had reviewed and rejected modifications to an unspecified federal program requiring a Department of Justice (DOJ) signature “…attesting as to its legality” Comey testified.

SNIP

In what should be the most studied exchange, Comey indicates that the surveillance law was implemented without DOJ approval.


Schumer: Right. And you stated that the next day, Thursday, was the deadline for reauthorization of the program, is that right?

Comey: Yes, sir.

Schumer: OK. Can you tell us what happened the next day?

Comey: The program was reauthorized without us and without a signature from the Department of Justice attesting as to its legality. And I prepared a letter of resignation, intending to resign the next day, Friday, March the 12th.

Let’s focus on two critical issues that argue strongly that there were illegal acts committed in this affair. This requires confirmation of Comey’s testimony by the witnesses mentioned. In the meantime, it is a vital part of the process of deciding just how soon impeachment proceedings begin

(There's more in the article. This entire incident covered in a short period of time and the behavior of the White House andomebody wants the word out.)

Do you ever get the feeling that these guys throw you stuff just to prove ove and over that they can get away with anything. Sure, their act is wearing thin now, but even at 10% approval across the board (congress, Republican, bush, everybody) I don't think anything would change.

I really don't get it, this is the stuff the diehards live - juicy political intrigue, major players hanging in the wind, you'd think it'd be a circus by now. Of course I don't remember back as far as Reagan even but it seems like the same pattern played out there - slap on the wrist at best. I read someone term it "overzealous pursuit of lofty goals". As in "just don't get caught next time". But even that doesn't jive because these fuckers have been "caught" 100 times over.

Do you really think this thing is gonna go anywhere? I actually read about it in the paper today..normally it gets buried pronot

The Republicans were pulling all sorts of stuff - caging, purging voting roles, intimidation, shorting Dem precincts on machines, probably using the machines to switch thousands of votes, as well. All of that makes sense - they shaved millions of votes and were able to steal a number of elections.

But the US Attorney thing - they were trying to prosecute lone Dem voters here and there as cheaters and they fired attorneys – their own appointees - who wouldn't get on that program. Why go to so much trouble to bring the full weight of the federal government down on a handful of individual voters? It could only be for the purpose of advancing the "voter fraud" propaganda in the media. But why bother with that? They successfully moved millions of votes with the election theft crimes, yet staked the whole game on a few cases. I think it is obvious that the theft of elections, and the "voter fraud" bullshit are linked. The voter fraud idiocy was intended to be a smokescreen for the larger crimes. Now there is no way for the administration to throw the AG to the wolves without risking exposure of the entire scheme.

This is what is going down, I think. It has promise and could be useful. Meanwhile, Kucinich calling for impeachment over Iraq, or something, and Code Pink disrupting the hearings Conyers is holding are both very counter-productive and damaging.

Why would people who are "on our side" distract the public and divert attention from what is happening? We had an argument right here, with someone vehemently defending Code Pink and their interruptions of Congressional hearings. The pro-Code Pink argument was along these lines:

1. Code Pink is speaking truth to power, and gee I wish I had their guts.

2. The hearings are all a sham anyway, everything is all a sham, and we need to obstruct and tear down wherever we can, and any "blow" against the empire is good.

3. Anyone criticizing Code Pink is insufficiently "radical" and has too much "faith in the system."

4. Code Pink is bringing attention to "the cause" and any attention "we" can get is good.

Kucinich's call for impeachment, and most of the lobbying for impeachment, is a joke in my opinion. (I don't agree with the argument that "we don't have the votes in the Senate" either.)

To tie all of this together - if the election theft scam is cracked, and I think that is now possible, impeachment would certainly follow, and the opportunity for much more than that would be there. That would be less likely to happen, not more likely in an impeachment atmosphere, especially with the articles of impeachment Kucinich drew up - "the war." If you try to argue against any of this, you get "what aren't you opposed to the war?" or "don't you think Bush is really bad and 'deserves' impeachment?" What is happening in Iraq isn't a "war" anyway - calling it a war is the way the administration has been able to drum up support for it - "we are at war. All people must support the country in time of war." The war isn't the crime anyway - what, are we to think that once the war is ended everything is just great? - the war is just one of many facets of a criminal administration, but it is more than that. - this administration isn't an anomaly. It is an excellent opportunity for people to see the truth about power and politics in the country. "Getting rid of Bush" and making it all about "the war" are ways to sweep the truth under the rug, not to get to the truth.

Thats an interesting analysis Mike. One of the few I've seen that puts all of the pieces together in a way that makes any sense.

One thing thats weird is the Dems seem hell-bent on doing things in such an ass-backwards way, that they manage to turn things that garner sure-fire public support into wedge issues.

They try to end the "War" by telling George Bush how to run the war. Thats like the ONE Constituional argument Bush might actually have - as CIC he gets to direct the war, not Congress.

As for the USAG thing, I think part of the reason it's not catching on is that Bush appointed these guys, then fired 'em. It looks like worse cronyism than normal sure, but most people I know are having trouble "getting it".

Over at DU they are going apeshit over this new immigration legislation..Ted Kennedy may have to join Jimmy Carter in the time-out corner if hes not careful..

Kid in the Black Hole, yes I do wonder sometimes if they're just flaunting their absolute power. I also think, at times, it's just total indifference. They got scared in 2004 because they faced the loss of power, thus protection from prosecution. So what did they do, invented 'voter fraud' to charge the Democrats as 1) a means of voter suppression and 2) a back fire to meet any real charges of election fraud. The stole the sucker and got lazy and arrogant again. It's just stranger than I can believe.

Mike, wow, that's very persuasive. I don't think there is any time for ego or heroism right now and, as a result, I agree with the Code Pink and Dennis K comments. However, Dennis did introduce impeachment of Cheney, which is the real logic here. Get rid of him in a hurry. There is no reason to delay on impeachment. Waxman, Conyers, and Leahy are 'old dogs' and they've done the hard work. The case is there and damn it, lets get moving fellas.

This illegal junta must be tried, convicted, and sent on it's way, on "The Road to Paraguay."

Kid in the Black Hole, yes I do wonder sometimes if they're just flaunting their absolute power. I also think, at times, it's just total indifference. They got scared in 2004 because they faced the loss of power, thus protection from prosecution. So what did they do, invented 'voter fraud' to charge the Democrats as 1) a means of voter suppression and 2) a back fire to meet any real charges of election fraud. The stole the sucker and got lazy and arrogant again. It's just stranger than I can believe.

Mike, wow, that's very persuasive. I don't think there is any time for ego or heroism right now and, as a result, I agree with the Code Pink and Dennis K comments. However, Dennis did introduce impeachment of Cheney, which is the real logic here. Get rid of him in a hurry. There is no reason to delay on impeachment. Waxman, Conyers, and Leahy are 'old dogs' and they've done the hard work. The case is there and damn it, lets get moving fellas.

This illegal junta must be tried, convicted, and sent on it's way, on "The Road to Paraguay."

Does it strike you how odd it is that there is more fervent devotion to 9/11 Truth than there is to election fraud. That despite the fact that the vote was blatantly rigged JUST LAST NOVEMBER whereas 9/11 was 6+ years ago. Thats got to be part of, the climate is rife for them to pull whatever shit they want and get away with it.

What's more even the best of Dems has bought the ol "Bush is mismanaging the war" - how in God's name are they going to nail his ass to the wall for waging an "illegal war" if they have to equivocate that much just to get any traction (or else they really think the two aren't contradictory).

I think alot of people who follow this very closefully should stick their finger in the wind a little more..they will be SHOCKED to find out how little people at large are aware of or care about this stuff..and thats discounting their usual elitist "people are sheep" attitudes. I don't think anybody knows DK introduced legislation to take down Cheney..even if you tell them about it Kucinich is such a stigma they'd just roll their eyes.

With the whole "voter fraud" backfire (good phrase there) I'm starting to buy Anax's "there is only one issue in America" theory..damn.

EDIT: fixed "voter fraud" to say "election fraud"

Great posts Kid.

One item - "voter fraud" means an individual voter cheating - voting twice or something I guess, or "trying" to vote when they don't "deserve" to for one bullshit reason or another. "Election theft" is an organized conspiracy to change or suppress millions of votes to alter the outcome.

This is but one example of right wing propaganda that follows the same pattern. One person registered incorrectly to vote is somehow to be seen as equal to tens of thousands of votes systematically stolen. One poor single Mom cheating on welfare is somehow equal to billions in public funds gone missing in Iraq. One poor person somewhere late making their credit card payment is somehow equal to millions being stolen by corporations. One person with a piece of unlicensed M$ software is equal to M$ having a monopoly and suppressing and controlling the i formation flow in the country.

All of this is so easily portrayed as the big guy pounding on the little guy, and can be translated into working class solidarity and effective political action, but no one is making these simple analyses and connections and communicating them to people.

Great posts Kid.

One item - "voter fraud" means an individual voter cheating - voting twice or something I guess, or "trying" to vote when they don't "deserve" to for one bullshit reason or another. "Election theft" is an organized conspiracy to change or suppress millions of votes to alter the outcome.

This is but one example of right wing propaganda that follows the same pattern. One person registered incorrectly to vote is somehow to be seen as equal to thens of thousands of votes systematically stolen. One poor single Mom cheating on welfare is somehow equal to billions in public funds gone missing in Iraq. One poor person somewhere late making their credit card payment is somehow equal to millions being stolen by corporations. One person with a piece of unlicensed M$ software is equal to M$ having a monopoly and suppressing and controlling the i formation flow in the country.

All of this is so easily portrayed as the big guy pounding on the little guy, and can be translated into working class solidarity and effective political action, but no one is making these simple analyses and connections and communicating them to people.

You know Microsoft is an interesting example. I visit a forum that discusses software protection programs for computers (anti-virus, anti-spyware, HIPS, that kinds stuff) and in general its a fairly savvy place. But, within days of its release the place was flooded with requests for help with which programs worked on Vista.

For the love of God - why??? These people should definitely know better.

However, Dennis did introduce impeachment of Cheney, which is the real logic here. Get rid of him in a hurry. There is no reason to delay on impeachment. Waxman, Conyers, and Leahy are 'old dogs' and they've done the hard work. The case is there and damn it, lets get moving fellas.

This illegal junta must be tried, convicted, and sent on it's way, on "The Road to Paraguay."

Sure, no question.

But Kucinich is like the quarterback sitting in the locker room announcing the perfect play. Yes, scoring a touchdown would be great, yes we want to win, yes a statue of liberty play would be just perfect. Yep. It would be great. Can't argue with it.

Impeach Cheney - how clever. As though the only thing keeping Bush in office is that people back off when they suddenly realize that Cheney would become president. What nonsense. Imagine the political change that would be required for either of these two things to happen: 1. President Kucinich; 2. impeachment of the president. Kucinich plays into the "choice" view of the world. "Hey kids! I figured out the perfect thing! Let's all choose it now!"

Of course the cabal in power should all be out on trial for treason and war crimes. That is serious, it isn't fun and games. "Hey I know kids! First we'll impeach Cheney, then we will impeach Bush. Who's with me? You know, because Bush and Cheney started a war and bad stuff like that." It is not going to happen without a massive social upheaval. But are the people who are calling for impeachment really serious, or are they just making their little "choice" and cheering for it, like cheer leaders at a high scholol football game? "Come on team! You can do it! Think positive everybody!" You can't sit in your little bubble, visualizing beautiful things, and expect anything to happen without any of us getting our hands dirty - or more likely, our heads busted.

The work that you are doing autorank is worth a hundred times what Kucinich is doing. I completely reject the approach he is taking. I reject the personal choice approach to politics - that plays right into all of the right wing bullshit from "voter fraud" to "welfare cheats" and all of the rest of that personal responsibility junk.

Of course the case is there. But so what? Impeachment requires public support. Raising the questions is what is needed and important, not jumping to the conclusion and forcing answers on people. If the full truth about this administration could be known, impeachment would be a the least of their worries. On the other hand, starting with impeachment the full truth may never come out.

If there is a murderer running around, you don't skip over the indictment, the gathering of evidence, the due process, the trial and just start hollering “execute him!” and then accuse those who won't get in the bandwagon of being in favor of murder.

Raise the questions, and the answer will soon be obvious to everyone,. Start with the answer, and the questions may never get raised. This approach of having the right answer, then marketing it and promoting it and selling it like soap, belongs in the business world and has no place in politics.

I like the great play in the locker room that never gets run analogy. Dennis barely gets to take the field. He has a grand total of 3 co sponsors on it now, after three weeks. How pathetic. The lack of connection between representatives and the people is so obvious. Yet the people can't do much about it with news censorship and only two choices for candidates.

The Democratic Party is in serious trouble when Ron Paul is the only MC to discuss 911 in reasonable terms and when Charlie Crist is the only governor to clear away impediments to the majority ex felons voting in his state. That's amazing, truly. Not one Democrat came to Paul's defense and not one Democratic Governor has restored the votes of ex felons en masse. More pathos.

As for 911 vs. election fraud Kid, I think the public is at about the same place on both. I tagged on to a 1018 national Zogby Poll, bought a question so to speak in August 2006.

How confident are you that George W. Bush really won the 2004 presidential election?

Very confident that Bush won fair and square --- 45%
Somewhat confident that Bush won fair and square --- 20.0%
Not at all confident that he won fair and square --- 32.4%
Other/not sure………………………………………. 2.4%

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0609/S00346.htm

That nets out to 45% confident - 55% doubts ("somewhat" meaning "slightly" is in the doubts column)

The surveys on 911 are getting to this point, many disbelieve the official story.

I see Democrats ignoring both eissues in equal measure, at their peril...ours too!

I like the great play in the locker room that never gets run analogy. Dennis barely gets to take the field. He has a grand total of 3 co sponsors on it now, after three weeks. How pathetic. The lack of connection between representatives and the people is so obvious. Yet the people can't do much about it with news censorship and only two choices for candidates.

Kucinich gets ignored by the party and by the media, no doubt. However, to say he would be great if only the media didn't ignore him is not saying much.

Another analogy - there are people hungry in places around the world. We are growing all sorts of food here. We have what they need, and can prove that to be true. Here, food; there, hunger. Food will answer hunger. The only problem is, we need someone to get it from here to there. That doesn't mean that we are the "answer" to the problem, though. It wouldn't matter how much we chanted "food now! Food is the answer!" and then said "if only they weren't ignoring us." We aren't part of the solution to solving the problem of hunger in Africa and don't pretend to be.

"Food is the right answer! We are the right choice. Choose us, we have food" What good is that? Choice is only a reality in the lives of those who are NOT hungry. "Too bad they starved. They didn't make the right choice."

We wouldn't draw people away from the serious work of hunger relief in Africa and have them come help grow the food here and lament with us "if only they would come take this food to Africa." It is the distribution that is the problem, and if you aren't attacking that you aren't part of the solution.

The problem in politics is getting the message to the people. It is of no value in "having" the right message and then saying as an excuse "if only someone would take it to the people we could succeed."


The Democratic Party is in serious trouble when Ron Paul is the only MC to discuss 911 in reasonable terms and when Charlie Crist is the only governor to clear away impediments to the majority ex felons voting in his state. That's amazing, truly. Not one Democrat came to Paul's defense and not one Democratic Governor has restored the votes of ex felons en masse. More pathos.

The Democrats received a powerful mandate here in Michigan, and then thud! Silence and inertia. Nothing. Granholm, Stabebow and to some extent Levin are back to triangulating and pandering to the right wing.

With the exception of one county - an area east of Grand Rapids, home of Amway and the Devos family, and very conservative Dutch Calvinists - every single county in the state was in play for the first time in decades. Blue collar white areas of Detroit went 90% Dem including Macomb County, the penultimate "Reagan Democrat" area. The Dems won almost every rural red county, the only exceptions being a few like mine where transplanted suburbanites have bought up the Lake Michigan shore and built mansions. But the redneck, fundy, hillbilly, Limbaugh listening areas all went strongly Dem. God only knows why, since the liberal activists and party volunteers spend most of their time ridiculing those people.

I like the great play in the locker room that never gets run analogy. Dennis barely gets to take the field. He has a grand total of 3 co sponsors on it now, after three weeks. How pathetic. The lack of connection between representatives and the people is so obvious. Yet the people can't do much about it with news censorship and only two choices for candidates.

The Democratic Party is in serious trouble when Ron Paul is the only MC to discuss 911 in reasonable terms and when Charlie Crist is the only governor to clear away impediments to the majority ex felons voting in his state. That's amazing, truly. Not one Democrat came to Paul's defense and not one Democratic Governor has restored the votes of ex felons en masse. More pathos.

As for 911 vs. election fraud Kid, I think the public is at about the same place on both. I tagged on to a 1018 national Zogby Poll, bought a question so to speak in August 2006.

How confident are you that George W. Bush really won the 2004 presidential election?

Very confident that Bush won fair and square --- 45%
Somewhat confident that Bush won fair and square --- 20.0%
Not at all confident that he won fair and square --- 32.4%
Other/not sure………………………………………. 2.4%

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0609/S00346.htm

That nets out to 45% confident - 55% doubts ("somewhat" meaning "slightly" is in the doubts column)

The surveys on 911 are getting to this point, many disbelieve the official story.

I see Democrats ignoring both eissues in equal measure, at their peril...ours too!

I saw a post on DU today, first time I've went there in probably a month, and it talked about the split in the Democratic Party between the "activist class" and the "government class". The activist class being grass-rootsers and the government class being the suits.

Anyway, whether you accept that premise or not, I think the "activist class" is really just a cottage industry engaged mainly by the internet. Its a bunch of people whose political knowledge and awareness are so shallow that their vapid musings can't even hack it over the low bar set in place for such "discussion". They have all the words and trite sayings and a seemingly impressive array of factual backing. But crack the oyster open and its totally fucking empty. Nothing they say represents anything but warmed over media sloganeering and relentless, unending spin-meisterdom.

With the internet they have the perfect forum for crapping out their effluent running commentary.

Grassroots my ass. More like goddamn wannabes who'd sell their own firstborn for a chance to "make it".

@Mike: Grand Rapids is one of the most conservative places I've ever been I think. I'm not surprised that they're staying the course til the bitter end.