Yesterday, as reported widely in the mainstream press and extensively diaried by gchaucer2, James Comey revealed an incredible, late-night, clandestine attempt by Alberto Gonzales and Andrew card to get a signature from critically ill John Ashcroft. The point of this secretive mission was to get the disoriented Ashcroft to sign-off on the warrantless wiretapping program of US citizens, circumventing the Acting Attorney General, James Comey, who had refused to sign off on the plan as "without legal basis". SJC Transcript
Mainstream Media has largely ignored the ethical, legal and constitutional irregularities of this manoever. Below the fold, I discuss today’s front page NY Times article by David Johnston, dissembling the president’s role in this unbelievable episode.
Per mayans suggestion, here is the incredible Link to video
The title of the NY Times piece is “President Intervened in Dispute Over Eavesdropping”. The article focuses on the pacifier role of President Bush in forestalling the resignations of James Comey, Robert Mueller, and potentially John Ashcroft in response to the event.
Mr. Bush quelled the revolt over the program’s legality by allowing it to continue without Justice Department approval, also directing department officials to take the necessary steps to bring it into compliance with the law, according to Congressional testimony by the former deputy attorney general, James B. Comey.
The article significantly fails to mention that the resignation crisis was provoked by the White House, likely the President himself:
COMEY: …And I was headed home at about 8 o'clock that evening, my security detail was driving me. And I remember exactly where I was -- on Constitution Avenue -- and got a call from Attorney General Ashcroft's chief of staff telling me that he had gotten a call...
SCHUMER: What's his name?
COMEY: David Ayers.
That he had gotten a call from Mrs. Ashcroft from the hospital. She had banned all visitors and all phone calls. So I hadn't seen him or talked to him because he was very ill.
And Mrs. Ashcroft reported that a call had come through, and that as a result of that call Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales were on their way to the hospital to see Mr. Ashcroft.
SCHUMER: Do you have any idea who that call was from?
COMEY: I have some recollection that the call was from the president himself, but I don't know that for sure. It came from the White House. And it came through and the call was taken in the hospital.
The Times article emphasizes that the president’s intervention “quelled the revolt over the program’s legality by allowing it to continue without Justice Department approval”. As oxon notes below, a more apt headline and analysis might have been "DOJ revolt quells President's intentions to authorize illegal program."
This may have quelled the revolt (because Comey and the delirious Ashcroft were not forced to sign off on a potentially illegal plan), but it raises important issues not addressed by the article. 1. The President authorized the program to continue in light of Comey’s and the Justice Department’s insistence that the program, as written, had no legal basis. 2. What are the legalities of trying to obtain a signature on an official document from an ill man that is no longer in the chain of command, circumventing the official, acting Attorney General?
Finally, it is unfathomable that NY Times provides no editorial comment about this incredible event and the corrupted ethics that caused it.
Notwithstanding the questions of legality of the program itself, or that of allowing the program to continue without Justice Department approval, the events of March 10, 2004 offer a monumental view of the ethics of the Bush Administration.
This was a highly unethical, if not illegal, attempt by Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card, at the direction of the President to get the disoriented, delirious, Ashcroft to sign off on a plan the DOJ had told the White House was “without legal basis”.
It is unethical to try to get a signature from an incompetent patient for consent for procedures in the hospital, and it is certainly unethical to knowingly try to get an incompetent person to sign a legal or otherwise official document.
Comey was the acting AG, so the attempt of the president to circumvent his authority and get a delirious man to sign-off on a possibly illegal plan, is the most egregious violation of ethics since the Watergate break-ins.
The New York Times Article has completely ignored the role of the White House and the President in initiating this resignation crisis, and by omission, has failed to call attention to the highly unethical and potentially illegal actions of the White House in this scandalous incident.
Update:
Below is is a web article by David Stout that was the first report on NY Times website yesterday, May 15, 2007, It does report the White House sending Card and Gonzales.
First NY Times Article
Although Mrs. Ashcroft had banned visitors and telephone calls to her husband’s hospital room, she had just gotten a call from the White House telling her that Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales were on their way to see her husband, Mr. Comey testified. “I have some recollection that the call was from the president himself, but I don’t know that for sure,” Mr. Comey said.
This article did appear in print version.
Funny thing is that the search engine at NY times doesn't easily pull this article up. I had to search my browser history to find it. I couldn't hit the article searching "comey" "gonzales", "ashcroft", "stout" or any other search terms, but could get today's Johntson article and an AP storythat also waxes over Bush's role in sending the henchmen.
This article, although difficult to find by search engine, can be linked from the "Most emailed" section.
As pointed out by danK is back below, WaPo editorializes the seriousness of the issue.