Balkinization  

Sunday, September 14, 2008

"An Apocalyptic Situation": Jim Comey's (Signed But Unsent) Resignation Letter

Marty Lederman

This letter to the President of the United States was written after the President had signed a surveillance order, having been told by the Justice Department that the authorized conduct was criminal:

Over the last two weeks I have encountered . . . an apocalyptic situation, where I and the Department of Justice have been asked to be part of something that is fundamentally wrong. As we have struggled over these last days to do the right thing, I have never been prouder of the Department of Justice or of the Attorney General. Sadly, although I believe this has been one of the institution's finest hours, we have been unable to right that wrong.

I would give much not to be in this position. But, as I told you during our private meeting last week [on March 11, 2004], here I stand; I can do not other. Therefore, with a heavy heart and undiminished love of my country and my Department, I resign as Deputy Attorney General of the United States, effective immediately.
Vice President Cheney's response: Go right ahead. So what if Comey -- and Ashcroft, and Mueller, and Goldsmith, and many other high-ranking DOJ officials, and the General Counsels of the CIA and FBI, would resign en masse?

Bart Gellman explains:
For Cheney, it didn't matter much whether one official or 10 or 20 took a walk. Maybe they were bluffing, maybe not. The principle was the same: Do what has to be done. "The president of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer -- that was the Cheney view," said [Dan] Bartlett, Bush's counselor, who was later briefed into the program and the events of the day. "You can't let resignations deter you if you're doing what's right." Cheney and Addington "were ready to go to the mat," he said, and the vice president's position boiled down to this: " 'That's why we're leaders, that's why we're here. Take the political hit. You've got to do it.'"
For my earlier observations on just how extraordinary these events were -- what they reveal about just how radically lawless the wiretapping program must have been prior to March 2004 -- see this post.

NOTE: Gellman reports Comey as having drafted the letter on March 11th, right after Bush signed the order. But the order is dated March 16th, and refers to Comey's meeting with Bush on the 12th. Gellman reports, as others have done, that after meeting with Bob Mueller on the 12th, the President told Mueller and Comey "to do what Justice thinks needs to be done." In other words, Bush backed down from what Gellman describes as the precipice. But Bush did not amend his directive until March 18th, and from the looks of the Comey letter, Cheney and Addington had continued to prevail as of the 16th. The big reversal must have occurred between the 16th and the 18th. [UPDATE: The Post has now appended endnotes to the story. In endnote 17, Gellman reports that the March 16th version of the Comey resignation letter was virtually the same as a version drafted on the 11th, with the addition of the reference to the Bush/Comey meeting on the 12th. What the existence of the signed letter on the 16th demonstrates, however, is that Comey must have had at least some trepidation as of that date that the President would not follow through on his indication that he would allow DOJ to amend the program to bring it into compliance with DOJ's legal theories. Recall that the March 11th certification had been submitted to the telecom companies, which continued to provide the NSA with access to communications even though that certification did not contain the Attorney General's attestation "that no warrant or court order is required by law, [and] that all statutory requirements have been met," which FISA requires. As of the 16th, Comey and other DOJ officials presumably were of the view that the President and his counsel had themselves authorized violations of the criminal law, and induced the telecoms to break the law, too. Hence the 03/16/04 (signed) version of the Comey resignation letter.]

[UPDATE: I'm told there will be more details clarifying the timeline in the book version, to be published tomorrow (Tuesday).]

Comments:

"An Apocalyptic Stituation" ?

Well in a sense it was but I'm afraid a far more apocalyptic situation is still ahead of us. The final gift from this administration so to speak. The toxic brew they allowed to grow to unbelievable proportions under their watch. Financial meltdown the likes of which we have never been seen before.

Lehman Brothers $0.6T investment bank (3rd US largest) is likely going under tomorrow. The avalanche hasn't started yet but hey they still have a few months left.
 

"An Apocalyptic Stituation" ?

Please.

Was the President preparing to nuke Iraq?

What a drama queen.
 

What is interesting about this bureaucratic showdown is that either the author's sources did not leak the means and methods of the disputed surveillance or the reporter actually had the maturity not to publish what he knows to the enemy.

It will be interesting to find out in 20 years what this kerfluffle was all about.
 

NOTE: Gellman reports Comey as having drafted the letter on March 11th, right after Bush signed the order. But the order is dated March 16th, and refers to Comey's meeting with Bush on the 12th. Gellman reports, as others have done, that after meeting with Bob Mueller on the 12th, the President told Mueller and Comey "to do what Justice thinks needs to be done." In other words, Bush backed down from what Gellman describes as the precipice. But Bush did not amend his directive until March 18th, and from the looks of the Comey letter, Cheney and Addington had continued to prevail as of the 16th. The big reversal must have occurred between the 16th and the 18th.

The President probably gave an oral order which was in effect until all the parties agreed to a draft written order a few days later.
 

For Cheney, it didn't matter much whether one official or 10 or 20 took a walk.

I'd say it's more telling that for Dick it didn't matter that the program was outside the law.
 

yes .. yes bart .. there are those of us who believe that abrogating the constitution of the united states ..when done by those sworn to defend and uphold it .. is Apocalyptic...
 

"Apocalypse": from the Greek "to uncover." Hence the common title in English Bibles, "Revelation."

Sounds about right.

As for the more conventional meaning, Bush could not have been re-elected with Ashcroft, Mueller, and their deputies all resigning over secret presidential lawbreaking. I'm sure that this seemed "apocalyptic" enough to Bush.
 

AS IF it isn't completely obvious what this is about: liars, criminals, and the demented hypocrites and fools who vote for them.
 

"Recall that the March 11th certification had been submitted to the telecom companies, which continued to provide the NSA with access to communications even though that certification did not contain the Attorney General's attestation "that no warrant or court order is required by law, [and] that all statutory requirements have been met," which FISA requires. As of the 16th, Comey and other DOJ officials presumably were of the view that the President and his counsel had themselves authorized violations of the criminal law, and induced the telecoms to break the law, too. Hence the 03/16/04 (signed) version of the Comey resignation letter."

Prof Lederman,

This is the issue I have wondered about since the debacle in the Congress in June-July. I read the FISA amendments, and the statutory way out of the lawsuit is Section 802(a)(4):

‘(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--

‘(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--
‘(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and
‘(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and
‘(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--
‘(i) authorized by the President; and
‘(ii) determined to be lawful; or



Was the March 11th certification "from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider"? IIRC, that directive was signed by Alberto Gonzalez as OLC. If this is the case, do you think the the lawsuits can continue on the limited ground of the timeframe from March 11-(whenever new certification was issued) since there was no proper certification to comply with this time period for the amnesty provision? Am I missing something? I am really interested in your analysis of a limited timeframe lawsuit being viable, based on insufficient certification during this time. After all, all anybody really wants is the judicial determination that the project was illegal, so even if it was for only one day, that seems good enough for me.
 

Nerpzillicus:

IIRC, that directive was signed by Alberto Gonzalez as OLC.

Seedy Gonzales was White House Counsel, not OLC. But your question is pertinent; as WHC, Gonzales had no legal authority to act so as to satisfy this amendment.

Cheers,
 

Arne -

Thanks for the correction. Still, we agree he was not one of the named people in 802(a)(4)(B), so can the telecoms assert amnesty based on the March 11 directive, or can the suits be maintained for an alleged limited time period of lawlessness?
 

Nerpzillicus:

Good question, and hopefully we may know in a while.

Cheers,
 

Then we have this:

It has been widely reported that Bush executed the March 11 order with a blank space over the attorney general’s signature line. That is not correct [15]. For reasons both symbolic and practical, the vice president’s lawyer could not tolerate an empty spot where a mutinous subordinate should have signed. Addington typed a substitute signature line: “Alberto R. Gonzales.”

Cheers,
 

I found it a little intriguing that Mr. Gellmann doesn't elaborate on what those "symbolic and practical reasons" were. Perhaps he has a chapter or three on Mr. Addington in the book.
 

we need to assure cell spaces are preserved for cheney and addington ..
 

And now that they have assured us that torturing prisoners is OK if the nation needs it, I assume they will insist on it for their own cases.
 

jpk:

And now that they have assured us that torturing prisoners is OK if the nation needs it, I assume they will insist on it for their own cases.

Oh, the nation doesn't really need it, but it might satisfy the visceral impulses of some out for blood and humiliation ... just like their tortures did.

Cheers,
 

Arne,

Well, there you go. Injecting annoying fact into the discourse.

So I claim that because of their torture lives were saved and you can't question my claim because you don't have clearance to see the magic information so trust me. There, that's immune to fact or appeals thereto.
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home