by emptywheel
It has been kind of wrath of god-y over here for the last hour. Just as I heard that OVP, NSC, DOJ, and WH have been subpoenaed, a big (much needed) thunderstorm took out my Toobz. Let's hope the wrath of god thing continues for the bad guys, as this is the move that will either give Anthony Kennedy the opportunity to roll up our Constitution ... or begin (four months down the line, at the earliest) to shed some light on the Administration.
Here's what SJC is looking for:
QUOTE
The subpoenas seek documents related to authorization and reauthorization of the program or programs; the legal analysis or opinions about the surveillance; orders, decisions, or opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) concerning the surveillance; agreements between the Executive Branch and telecommunications or other companies regarding liability for assisting with or participating in the surveillance; and documents concerning the shutting down of an investigation of the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) relating to the surveillance.
And if you care, the stated timeline (which is practically meaningless, since BushCO is sure to refuse this) is three weeks:QUOTE
The deadline for providing the Committee the information is July 18.
Update: Indie Voter made an important point. Either this is a bipartisan action, or Orrin Hatch has snuck away and joined the Democratic Party, along with Chuck Grassley and Arlen Specter. Because those three Republicans voted along with all the Democrats on the Committee in favor of the subpoenas.
Update II: From TPMM, the subpoena requires the testimony of four people:
- White House chief of staff Josh Bolton
- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
- Cheney chief of staff David Addington
- National Security Counsel executive director V. Philip Lago
Plus, as I repeat all too often, David Addington was my favorite witness from the Libby trial. You think they'd be willing to invite Fitzgerald in to do the questioning? Because then you'd all get to see on CSPAN what I keep babbling about.
Though my best guess is they'll come and repeat over and over and over and over "deliberations in the executive" and "classified program." Besides Bolten, of course, who will have the convenient excuse that most of the fun precedes his tenure at the position.
Update III: Kickass!! I just remembered something, as I looked at the subpoena. I was bemoaning the fact that David Addington could just invoke Attorney-Client privilege and say exactly nothing.
Except that he's no longer Cheney's Counsel (thanks to PatFitz for the indirect assist). As Cheney's Chief of Staff, I'd imagine he'd have things to say about what he's been up to for the last year and a half...
Update IV: Oh, there's some nice stuff in the letter Leahy sent to OVP.
QUOTE
The Administration has asked Congress to make sweeping changes to FISA - a crucial national security authority over which the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction. It is impossible to make informed legislative decisions without understanding fully the Administration's interpretation of FISA and the perceived flaws in that legislation that led the Administration to operate a program outside of its provisions for more than five years. It is not enough to know the Administration's current legal justification for the surveillance.
Shorter Leahy: You get no new FISA changes until you hand over the documents.QUOTE
All indications are that the legal analysis supporting this program of warrantless surveillance, and perhaps the program itself, has changed more than once since its inception; it could very well change again. For the Congress to legislate effectively in this area it must have full information about the Executive Branch's interpretations of FISA and how those interpretations have affected its enforcement of the Act. The Administration's FISA proposal also contains provisions that would bring to an end lawsuits concerning participation of telecommunications carriers and other companies in this program of warrantless surveillance. This Committee cannot responsibly consider those provisions without knowing what government officials and the companies understood to be the legal basis for that participation at the time it occurred.
Shorter Leahy: even though those legal decisions might be subject to privilege, you're going to have hand them over if you want a new law.
And the phone companies? No immunity until you hand over the documents.
QUOTE
This Committee would be abdicating its responsibility if it failed to examine Executive Branch actions simply because we are told they have stopped. We have been given no assurance that these activities, or similar ones, will not resume based on the same or similar legal arguments. This Committee must conduct oversight to consider whether it wishes to act, through legislation or otherwise, to prevent such recurrence.
Oversight is also necessary to determine whether the Administration has conducted itself
appropriately in carrying out and defending this warrantless surveillance. The testimony
of former Deputy Attorney General James Corney before this Committee raises serious
questions about the Administration's commitment to the rule of law. He testified that
only the prospect of a mass resignation of virtually every senior officer in the Department
of Justice caused the President to address serious Justice Department concerns about
legality of the program. This came after the program had already been operating for
more than two years.
Shorter Leahy: We think you broke the law and it's time we found out how.Oversight is also necessary to determine whether the Administration has conducted itself
appropriately in carrying out and defending this warrantless surveillance. The testimony
of former Deputy Attorney General James Corney before this Committee raises serious
questions about the Administration's commitment to the rule of law. He testified that
only the prospect of a mass resignation of virtually every senior officer in the Department
of Justice caused the President to address serious Justice Department concerns about
legality of the program. This came after the program had already been operating for
more than two years.
QUOTE
Later, when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was asked during testimony before this Committee whether senior Justice Department officials expressed reservations about the warrantless surveillance program, the Attorney General responded "I do not believe that these DOJ officials ... had concerns about this program." That response, at the very least, calls into question the Attorney General's candor with this Committee.
Shorter Leahy: At the very least, we intend to get a perjury indictment out of this.
QUOTE
Finally, when the Department of Justice's own Office of Professional Responsibility
(OPR) began an internal investigation into the role of Department of Justice attorneys in
the authorization and oversight of the warrantless surveillance program, the Department
of Justice and the White House denied the investigators the clearances they needed,
thereby shutting the investigation down. The head of OPR has noted that in its 3 I-year
history OPR has never before been prevented from pursuing an investigation.
Shorter Leahy: And you can't say you're conducting effective oversight yourself, since you're hiding your legal opinions even from the executive branch.(OPR) began an internal investigation into the role of Department of Justice attorneys in
the authorization and oversight of the warrantless surveillance program, the Department
of Justice and the White House denied the investigators the clearances they needed,
thereby shutting the investigation down. The head of OPR has noted that in its 3 I-year
history OPR has never before been prevented from pursuing an investigation.
Update V: And for good measure, they're asking for proof that WH knew Comey was in charge when they tried their end-run around him in Ashcroft's hospital room.
QUOTE
All documents from January 1,2004 to the present related to the transfer of the powers of the Attorney General from then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to then-Deputy Attorney General James Corney in or around March, 2004 that reflect, discuss, or describe 1) the date, time, or manner of that transfer of power; 2) communication with or notice to White House personnel, including the President or the Vice President, about that transfer of power; 3) knowledge of White House personnel about that transfer of power.
Update VI: Gosh. You think maybe Comey told them what specific documents to look for?
QUOTE
Any memoranda authored or co-authored by former Deputy Attorney General James Corney on or around March 10,2004 concerning legal issues related to the warrantless electronic surveillance program or the classified intelligence program described in section E, above;
All memoranda or opinions authored or co-authored by former Department of Justice officials Jack Goldsmith, Patrick Philbin, or John Yoo concerning legal issues related to the warrantless electronic surveillance program or the classified intelligence program described in section E, above;
[snip]Any memoranda or opinions from then-Counsel to the President Alberto Gonzales and provided to Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey on or about March 10, 2004 concerning legal issues related to the warrantless electronic surveillance program or the classified intelligence program described in section E, above;
All memoranda or opinions authored or co-authored by former Department of Justice officials Jack Goldsmith, Patrick Philbin, or John Yoo concerning legal issues related to the warrantless electronic surveillance program or the classified intelligence program described in section E, above;
[snip]Any memoranda or opinions from then-Counsel to the President Alberto Gonzales and provided to Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey on or about March 10, 2004 concerning legal issues related to the warrantless electronic surveillance program or the classified intelligence program described in section E, above;
Those memos back and forth between Comey and Gonzales are sure to be very interesting.
