We’ll have video of James Comey’s testimony yesterday soon over at TPM (Update: Here it is.), but until then, a TPM Reader writes in to provide some context:
Trust the Washington press corps to lunge for the process story, and ignore the substance.
When the warrantless wiretap surveillance program came up for review in March of 2004, it had been running for two and a half years. We still don’t know precisely what form the program took in that period, although some details have been leaked. But we now know, courtesy of Comey, that the program was so odious, so thoroughly at odds with any conception of constitutional liberties, that not a single senior official in the Bush administration’s own Department of Justice was willing to sign off on it. In fact, Comey reveals, the entire top echelon of the Justice Department was prepared to resign rather than see the program reauthorized, even if its approval wasn’t required. They just didn’t want to be part of an administration that was running such a program.
This wasn’t an emergency program; more than two years had elapsed, ample time to correct any initial deficiencies. It wasnât a last minute crisis; Ashcroft and Comey had both been saying, for weeks, that they would withhold
approval. But at the eleventh hour, the President made one final push, dispatching his most senior aides to try to secure approval for a continuation of the program, unaltered.
Continued:
I think itâs safe to assume that whatever they were fighting over, it was a matter of substance. When John Ashcroft is prepared to resign, and risk bringing down a Republican administration in the process, heâs not doing it
for kicks. Similarly, when the President sends his aides to coerce a signature out of a desperately ill man, and only backs down when the senior leadership of a cabinet department threatens to depart en masse, heâs not just being stubborn.Itâs time that the Democrats in Congress blew the lid off of the NSAâs surveillance program. Whatever form it took for those years was blatantly illegal; so egregious that by 2004, not even the administrationâs most partisan members could stomach it any longer. We have a right to know what went on then. We publicize the rules under which the government can obtain physical search warrants, and donât consider revealing those rules to endanger security; thereâs no reason we canât do the same for electronic searches. The late-night drama makes for an interesting news story, but itâs really beside the point. The punchline here is that the President of the United States engaged in a prolonged and willful effort to violate the law, until senior members of his own administration forced him to stop. Thatâs the Congressional investigation that we ought to be having.
