So I don’t see how she’s protecting state with those statements and I don’t see why she’s even offering them up (since none of the other Principals are – except maybe Ashcroft behind closed doors) unless it is to make sure Ashcroft is nailed as specifically reviewing and authorizing everything that was done and to cut off at the knees the claims that he didn’t really know what Addington and Yoo were up to. Maybe it involves protecting state, but I don’t see that and it does seem very personally motivated towards Ashcroft.

Sunday March 14

Time unknown: OLC provides a briefing titled “Presentation: Where DOJ is on [REDACTED CLASSIFIED CODENAME].” It consists of a two-page presentation, and (presumably) five-page handouts of bullet points related to the presentation. These materials “were prepared for purposes of providing legal assistance and advice to other Executive Branch officials concerning DOJ’s views about foreign intelligence activities.”3:00PM: Mueller meets at DOJ with Comey, et al.

EW, shouldn’t this be:

Sunday March 14

Time unknown: OLC provides a briefing titled “Presentation: Where DOJ is on [REDACTED CLASSIFIED CODENAME].” It consists of a two-page presentation, and (presumably) five-page handouts of bullet points related to the presentation. These materials “were prepared for purposes of providing legal assistance and advice to other Executive Branch officials concerning DOJ’s views about foreign intelligence activities.”

3:00PM: Mueller meets at DOJ with Comey, et al.

“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.”

What Addington wrote for Bush that day was more transcendent than that. He drew up new language in which the president relied on his own authority to certify the program as lawful. Bush expressly overrode the Justice Department and any act of Congress or judicial decision that purported to constrain his power as commander in chief.”

1. I wonder how things went from this program so closely held that supposedly Townsend knew nothing about it and supposedly Goldsmith didn’t even get an ok to discuss the program with Comey OR Ashcroft at first, to one where Mueller and Ayres and Philbin and Olson and McCallum etc. were all in the loop. It would be nice if more info on the ok for the review and those in the loop was available. It seems Baker had to have been in the loop too bc of his interactions with the FISCt judges.

2. Another interesting date to have would be the dates of the contact from Kollar-Kotelly to Ashcroft drawing lines in the sand over the DOJ breaches of FISct firewalls.

3. One of the things that has popped up in the last few days, but was buried by a lot, is that for some reason Rice decided to respond to questions from Senate Armed Services investigators.

Obviously, the only reason she would bother is to promote some kind of a self-serving or Bush-serving agenda, since, as the story reveals:

The committee submitted similar questionnaires to other Bush administration officials. But Levin said that they declined or refused to respond.

and nothing is going to happen to any of them for staying hush. So on a first blush, it seems the only reason Rice responded is that she wanted to counter the Ashcroft theme that he was just an unaware, unadvised, innocent guy who knew nuthin bout no torture, with all the torture cooked up solely by Addington and Yoo and sans participation of the AG

Rice did not disclose who at the meetings, but said that she had “asked Atty. Gen. [John] Ashcroft personally to review and confirm the legal advice” being prepared by the Department of Justice on the CIA’s interrogation plans.

That seems to be the whole thrust of why she answered, to say that yes, the “not-torture depravity” was tea and scones conversation at the meetings and that Ashcroft directly ok’d it all. I’m guessing no one bothered to get specifics on el-Masri and Arar from her. Or a young detainee frozen to death. Or even missing children – or for that matter, what State is doing now about the 11 yo US child disappeared by the Afghan govt. Dem investigations have all the interest and suspense of watching One Question [no]Jeopardy.

4. Interesting that when Ashcroft was in the hospital, for once his David wasn’t tied up in an Abramoff skybox or chit-chatting with Kevin Ring.

5. I’d also still like to have someone find out if McNulty ever took back the delegation on the Plame investigation after Comey left.

6. Meanwhile at GITMO, it’s still only JAG officers who seem to be interested in the law, non-destruction of evidence, rules of conduct, ethics, and even just your basic morality and evidence. Showing just how stupid I am, bc 7 1/2 years ago, I would never have guessed that all of the thousands of civilian lawyers at DOJ would be worse than useless, while guys in a direct chain of command and subject to military strictures and all kinds of unprotected retaliation would have been the ones to dig in. I have to admit that it’s just almost too hard to not be able to have any heroes, so thank God for them.

7. Yes, I did have a Mr. Bubbles t-shirt myself, once upon a time. Wish I could find it.

Gonzo Sings! Justice In The Department At Last?

The joint Inspector General/Office of Professional Responsibility report looking into the December 6, 2006 decision to fire a group of U.S. Attorneys is set to be released on Monday morning, according to sources inside and close to the Justice Department.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi…..y_firi.php