Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Comey's Answers to Written Questions
|
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Comey's Answers to Written Questions
Marty Lederman
Here are James Comey's written answers to questions from Senators Feingold, Leahy and Schumer. (Previously, Talking Points had posted Comey's answers to questions from Rep. Linda Sanchez of the House Judiciary Committee.)
Comments:
Professor Lederman: I should note that although Pat and I obviously disagree on, and have publicly debated, many substantive legal questions, I can vouch that Pat is an extremely skilled, hard-working, conscientious and careful attorney.
I don't know how to say this without gushing, but you are an absolute national treasure, what with your combination of first hand insider experience, willingness to share your views publicly (and with the rabble of the blogosphere, no less!), and rock-solid graciousness with respect to the many people of whom you speak. We could use a few million more like you, and it was a loss to the legal profession that you weren't born twins. And you deserve the praise to be public. Peace
The AG said there was no major disagreement about the program (he has confirmed that he meant the program Comey was concerned with) and that appears to be incorrect. I suppose it could be a matter of opinion but it seems that it's an unreasonable assertion? Perjury? Congress is weak so I doubt that will become an issue even if it should.
Comey states that "I believe the following individuals were prepared to resign: Jack Goldsmith, Patrick Philbin, Chuck Rosenberg, Daniel Levin, James Baker, David Ayres, David Israelite, Robert Mueller, [and, although they were] not involved with the matter, I believe a large portion of my staff would have resigned were I to depart."
By my count, there are eight names on this list. Presuming that Mr. Comey's belief is 100% correct, eight dissenters hardly makes up a "mass resignation." As a side note, it is interesting to note that Mr. Philbin from that list appears to have cowrote with John Yoo two of the memos laying out an expansive view of executive power concerning captured enemy combatants. If this is the same Philbin, I am having a hard time seeing him opposing the much clearer exercise of executive power in the terrorist surveillance program.
Justin: DOJ's explanation will probably be that when Alberto Gonzales said there was no major disagreement about the program, he meant the program as revised. That strikes me as fundamentally dishonest, but sufficient to avoid a perjury conviction.
Bart: Regarding Patrick Philbin, none of us know how bad the program was before it was revised.
Justin,
In what sense has Gonzales "confirmed that he meant the program Comey was concerned with" in the actual disagreement? If you are referring to Gonzales press conference statement two days ago, I don't think that is established at all. Gonzales was apparently just dissembling and blowing smoke without specifics. He used weasel phrases and ambiguities at the press conference: "Mr. Comey’s testimony related to a highly classified program which the president confirmed to the American people sometime ago." Well, part of Comey's testimony -- the end of his narrative, about how the "program" was modified -- may well have been "related to" the post-2004 program. But that does not necessarily conflict with Gonzales' 2006 testimony that the actual disagreement in 2004 involved other "other matters involving operations" and "operational capabilities that we're not talking about today." In your zeal to suggest that Gonzales committed "perjury," I fear you are being distracted from the substantive scandal -- that the 2004 disagreement was over violations of law even more egregious than those in the NSA "program" Bush eventually confirmed. (Gonzales was not under oath last year, BTW, but I don't think that is material to your basic argument. It is also unlawful to make false statements to Congress.)
Add my gush to Robert's.
And since I probably said this on the wrong thread: who sent Card and Gonzales to that hospital room, or "suggested" that they go? They need to answer that question under oath.
"In your zeal to suggest that Gonzales committed "perjury," I fear you are being distracted from the substantive scandal -- that the 2004 disagreement was over violations of law even more egregious than those in the NSA "program" Bush eventually confirmed.
"# posted by JaO : 10:45 AM" That's why I keep asking the same obvious questions again and again -- to which no one responds, and no one refutes -- In his February, 2006 testimony, Gonzales made a distinction. He said -- responding to Schumer's question -- there was no disagreement about the NSA prograqm. But that there was disagreement about "other" that he wouldn't identify. None of that necessarily conflicts with Comey's testimony. 1. Why would the FBI Director be in the thick of the issue over a program _OUTSIDE_ the FBI? 2. Why would the FBI Director threaten t resign over a program _OUTSIDE_ the FBI? 3. Would the FBI DIrector even know about a program in the NSA? 4. Why is there no mention of involvement in the issue of the NSA Director, let alone his threatening to resign? Come on: Show me how those questions have no relevance, no bearing.
I recall reading reports of something much more extensive than just wiretapping people with suspected terrorist ties, a general filtering of international calls for leads. As I also recall, the NSA produced so many false leads for the FBI to investigate that they started referring to the NSA tips as "more calls to Pizza Hut."
Could that be the FBI's involvement here, that they wanted to stop having to investigate "calls to Pizza Hut"?
JNagarya,
If you are replying to me, you are preaching to the choir. Ever since Comey's original testimony I have believed that such circumstantial factors as you mention, as well as others (such as the fact that it was Mueller to whom Bush finally gave the word to modify the program) suggest substantial FBI involvement in whatever the 2004 fight was all about. I can only speculate about what that might have been -- something beyond NSA wiretaps of transnational communications, as have been disclosed. Surveillance of purely domestic communications and physical black-bag jobs are an obvious thing to suspect. Such domestic techniques are traditionally the mission of the FBI in lawfully warranted criminal investigations and intelligence-gathering. Whatever was going on before March 2004, it was so serious that the whole top echelon of DOJ and the FBI were willing to resign. Discovering and prosecuting the underlying malfeasance -- not to mention pursuing the fact that even the post-2004 program itself was illegal -- should be the focus of investigation. That Gonzales deceives Congress and the public is, by now, as well established as it needs to be. He is a decoy, a sacrificial anode, in the ongoing cover-up.
Enlightened Layperson: Could that be the FBI's involvement here, that they wanted to stop having to investigate "calls to Pizza Hut"?
If that was the only involvement, it would amount to a resource and management issue, which hardly rises to the level that requires the FBI director to resign. All the factors that JNagarya lists above are not compelling to me. For example, I think it is plausible that the FBI director would be briefed into a program even if the surveillance was all conducted by the NSA, if only because the feebies would be expected to follow up on the fruits of such leads. But not only was Mueller threatening to resign, he was in the key one-on-one meeting with President Bush in which Bush reportedly directed that the "program" be modified to meet the objections of DOJ/FBI. Anonymous Liberal has advanced a reasonable doubt about my FBI-involvement speculation. AL cited a U.S. News article about Mueller's protective stewardship of the FBI. But I read that record differently. I think Mueller's history of pushing back is consistent with the common speculation that the earlier Yoo opinions from OLC, supported by Cheney and Addington, had been imposed on the FBI to justify whatever was going on from 2001 through March 2004. (Just as Yoo's memo on torture was force-fed to dissenting Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora and his colleagues.) But once that legal cover was withdrawn by Goldsmith's renewed legal review, accepted by Comey and Ashcroft, the broader umbrella of legal protection for FBI personnel would have been gone. Mueller then went to the mat to protect the integrity of the agency and its people.
As a side note, it is interesting to note that Mr. Philbin from that list appears to have cowrote with John Yoo two of the memos laying out an expansive view of executive power concerning captured enemy combatants. If this is the same Philbin, I am having a hard time seeing him opposing the much clearer exercise of executive power in the terrorist surveillance program.
Poor Bart, so unable to process new facts and revise his conclusions.
While I believe Director Mueller is an upstanding and dedicated person, he alone hardly qualifies as "the whole top echelon of ... the FBI" right?
just perused the documnet dump over at TPM and one thing stuck with me.
Why was Mary Beth Buchanan sending out, to all USAs, before Ms. Goodlings arrival and after AG Gonzalez's secret delegation of power, instructions on how to handle their resignations? In her cover letter she says she was prompted to disseminate this information due to a "few" requests about the resignation procedure. Is this correct? Is it unusual. Is this information not already available to USAs or was it a warning shot from the WH? As an aside, it is also interesting that the policies refer to the old policy of Senate approval. I wonder when or if they sent notice to the USAs of this change in policy. Something is smelly here when these facts can be construed as Rove's opening gambit in Operation Noble Purge. # posted by Garth : 5:37 PM Glad you posted this here, Garth. I'd like to see Marty Lederman's review of the document dump contents in a way which would give us who are unfamiliar with or in the dark about DOJ operation -- proper and otherwise -- an informed picture that fills in the gaps from which our understandings suffer. Though I've worked admin. law, and enjoy the complexities, I've never looked at the DOJ.
But I read that record differently. I think Mueller's history of pushing back is consistent with the common speculation that the earlier Yoo opinions from OLC, supported by Cheney and Addington, had been imposed on the FBI to justify whatever was going on from 2001 through March 2004. (Just as Yoo's memo on torture was force-fed to dissenting Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora and his colleagues.)
But once that legal cover was withdrawn by Goldsmith's renewed legal review, accepted by Comey and Ashcroft, the broader umbrella of legal protection for FBI personnel would have been gone. Mueller then went to the mat to protect the integrity of the agency and its people. # posted by JaO : 4:29 PM And it is, of course, the "whatever was going on" that I (and apparently everyone else) want to know. It just seems obvious that the fact of Mueller being in the thick of it, and threatening to resign, had to have had something to do with the FBI -- which means the "frozen" assumption that the program in question was NSA and only NSA, and probably two versions of the same, is failing to look at those facts as if they aren't there.
If revealing "whatever was going on" will endanger the lives of Americans, then I DON'T want to know.
If revealing "whatever was going on" will endanger the lives of Americans, then I DON'T want to know.
# posted by Charles : 5:29 PM According to the experts, the illegal invasion and occupation of non-threatening Iraq has increased the number of terrorists. That consequence doesn't only undermine the "abstract" that is national security. It endangers the lives of Americans. As has and does the war crime of torture. I'm for knowing so that endangerment ceases. I'm for knowing if it results in a consequence which endangers mine and me. In short: ours is to be a system of laws, and not of men. I am opposed to covering up crimes based upon your hypothetical, in view of the fact that doing so endangers Americans -- and their right not to be so endangerd.
We don't know that alleged torture or illegal invasion / occupation of Iraq has endangered the lives of Americans.
Also, JNagarya, you haven't answered this question from the other thread: "How do we know Card was the first to call Mrs. Ashcroft and that she was adamant in refusal?"
We don't know that alleged torture or illegal invasion / occupation of Iraq has endangered the lives of Americans.
# posted by Charles : 11:52 PM Our troops are no longer Americans once they land in Iraq? If so, then of what nationality are those troops who were killed in Iraq after ceasing to be Americans? There were no reports of Americans being tortured in Iraq until after Abu Ghraib was revealed (which was inevitable). Also, JNagarya, you haven't answered this question from the other thread: "How do we know Card was the first to call Mrs. Ashcroft and that she was adamant in refusal?" # posted by Charles : 11:55 PM We know that from Comey's testimony. And if it requires deduction, we know it wasn't likely to be Gonzales, as he would conceivably have legitimate reason to want to speak to Asscrafty at the hospital. Though Comey wasn't certain, he also said he (seemed to) recall(ed) that the second person to call was Bushit.
Charles,
Just as you know that torturing innocent people will lead you to guilty parties. Glad you cleared that up.
I "know" that John McCain admitted his torture forced him to revealed classified info. But I'm not saying that I "know" all future torture will as well -- that's why I'm fine leaving that up to the experts / judge under the grand Dershowitz Compromise (see thread above)
Charles,
Post a Comment
The Dershowitz Compromise you support is not a compromise in the sense of a middle ground. It is a compromise of the rule of law, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the Geneva Conventions. Come back from your "24" fantasies; that ticking time bomb you hear is only your alarm clock, and you will hopefully wake up soon.
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |