Balkinization: What Really Happened During the 2004 DOJ Revolt (just <span style="font-style:italic;">slightly</span> redacted)

Comments:

LOL @ "in a Franz Kline sort of way."
.
The title is interesting. "RSM Program Log" I wonder what "RSM" stands for.
.
If noting else, an interesting cronology of discussions, even though the contents of the discussions is [redacted]

# posted by

cboldt : 4:41 PM

It appears that the FISA court was part of this discussion.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 4:47 PM

Stray thoughts:

Enough redaction that they probably had to bring out a second marker.

The flow of the meetings (and the participants) reminds me very much of dysfunctional corporate situations where a C-level pet project gets blocked at the last moment because of irreconcilable problems (compliance, budget, other C-level interference). Lots of scurrying, lots of advising of positions, until someone makes the final decision.

Interesting that the final word Mueller had with anyone on the situation was Cheney.

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 5:30 PM

The most interesting item from the notes is Ashcroft's claim that key information was never disclosed to him. There was a long, cagey exchange between Gonzales and Sen. Whitehouse in July that suddenly makes a lot more sense now. Long story short, I suspect that part of the dispute in 2004 was that the DOJ discovered aspects of the program that it hadn't known about previously and did not feel it had authorized.

Here's my post on the subject, which includes the exchange between Gonzales and Whitehouse.

# posted by

A.L. : 6:07 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

JaO : 9:28 PM

A.L.,

I find your analysis fascinating, and left a comment on you blog. Basically, I am wondering whether Ashcroft thought he was being denied facts about the program, or denied unrestricted access to certain lawyers he wanted to consult.

Meanwhile, I see that Conyers says he will seek an unredacted copy of Mueller's notes.

# posted by

JaO : 9:43 PM

JaO,

I just updated my post to address that very point. Gonzales' clarification of his testimony seems to support your reading, i.e., that Ashcroft himself was fully read into the program, but that the White House wouldn't grant clearances to key members of his staff, thereby preventing him from getting informed advice from people he wanted advice from. If that's right, it's not as troubling as if key information was withheld from the DOJ altogether, but it's still troubling. And I still think the subtext of the exchange between Gonzales and Sen. Whitehouse is that Ashcroft might object to the claim that he "authorized" these activities for two years (presumably because he felt he was forced to act without fully informed advice).

# posted by

A.L. : 11:04 PM

One might compare the "public authorization," aka the "legal justification" given by AG Gonzales in December 2005, with the hitherto classified "authorizations" or certifications by then AG Ashcroft.

It may be that the Ashcroft and Gonzales analyses provide two substantially different answers to "how is this legal?"

But in a world where it's hard to pin down the scope of a program, it will also be hard to pin down the scope of authorization.

# posted by

cboldt : 7:33 AM

@cboldt: 'RSM' = Robert S. Mueller

# posted by

Nell : 9:22 AM