Originally Posted By jonvn Actually, this could be an impeachable offense, but hey, it is no scandal.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < nothing unethical appears to have happened.> Nothing unethical?! Let's review. We have an Attorney General in the hospital and so ill he has given up his powers to his #2, making him Acting Attorney General. This acting AG refuses to authorize this program, calling it illegal. The administration then dispatches flunkies to Ashcroft's hospital room (!), hoping a drugged up Ashcroft will sign what he has already indicated he would not sign in a sober state. Thus trying to take advantage of a severely ill man, and bypassing the man who was designated the acting authority in his stead. Nothing unethical? Now we have a clearer view of Doug's "ethics," at least. Plus, Gonzalez clearly lied under oath when he said there was no particular controversy in Justice about this program. Where are all the Republicans who claimed in 1998 that lying under oath should be enough to remove someone from office? Where are all the Republicans calling for Gonzalez to resign? To be fair, there ARE a few. Just not many.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I'm sure you all believe that. We'll see if anything actually comes from it. My prediction is that nothing will.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's quite possible nothing will come of it. Unethical behavior in Washington often goes unpunished. Other times, even when caught, the punishment amounts to a wrist slap. But that doesn't mean it wasn't unethical.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Unethical behavior in Washington often goes unpunished.> And often, people are charged to have acted unethically when they haven't.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Not in this case, however. I don't see how you can defend the Ashcroft ICU visit as ethicial. Can you? Actually, you haven't so far. You sidestepped that question by merely saying that it's possible nothing will come of it. So I'll ask you directly - was visiting a very sick, drugged-out man in an ICU unit to try to get him to overturn a decision made by the acting AG - that Ashcroft himself had indicated was illegal in his view when he was sober - unethical? As for nothing happening, key Senator Spector said on Face the Nation this morning that Comey's testimony was "very damaging" to Gonzalez, and while hedging on whether he'd call for Gonzalez's resignation himself, he noted "the six Republicans" (whether he meant six GOP senators was unclear) who already have and that he was at least considering joining them.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So I'll ask you directly - was visiting a very sick, drugged-out man in an ICU unit to try to get him to overturn a decision made by the acting AG - that Ashcroft himself had indicated was illegal in his view when he was sober - unethical?> It sure sounds like it, when you describe it that way. Take out the liberal spin, however, and it doesn't sound nearly as bad.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 What in there was untrue? And do you think this visit was ethical? After all, the acting AG is imbued with the powers of the AG as long as the AG is incapacitated, so they were clearly trying to go around him. And Ashcroft HAD previously indicated he wouldn't reauthorize the program. And he was in the ICU. So how, exactly, can you spin this as being ethical?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What in there was untrue? And do you think this visit was ethical? After all, the acting AG is imbued with the powers of the AG as long as the AG is incapacitated, so they were clearly trying to go around him. And Ashcroft HAD previously indicated he wouldn't reauthorize the program. And he was in the ICU. So how, exactly, can you spin this as being ethical?> Since I've only heard one side, I can't answer all your questions.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No, no you've heard all there is.> I doubt that. I'll try to look for the other side, if I get time.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The WSJ editorial you linked wasn't "the other side" enough for you? They certainly did their best to downplay the story, but even they were unable to. The facts are in evidence, and no one is suggesting that comey's testimony before congress is anything less than truthful. Too bad you can't say that about the gonzales - in fact, much of his testimony has been proven to be false - which means that no one can give credence to ANYTHING he says. Not exactly what you want in an attorney general - but truth, honor, and integrity have no value in this administration. Anybody who had any of those qualities packed up and left a long time ago. And what's left are the remainders.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<What in there was untrue? And do you think this visit was ethical? After all, the acting AG is imbued with the powers of the AG as long as the AG is incapacitated, so they were clearly trying to go around him. And Ashcroft HAD previously indicated he wouldn't reauthorize the program. And he was in the ICU. So how, exactly, can you spin this as being ethical?>> <Since I've only heard one side, I can't answer all your questions.> Neither Ashcroft, nor Mueller, nor even Gonzalez himself has disputed Comey's testimony. But nice attempt at a dodge.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Neither Ashcroft, nor Mueller, nor even Gonzalez himself has disputed Comey's testimony.> I doubt they've been asked. At least, not by anybody who would print it. And I'm sure most of Comey's testimony is dead on. From what I've read, he's a good, decent man. That said, I'm sure his memory of events is colored by his emotions - he probably resented the attempt to bypass his authority. You claimed that AG Ashcroft was "drugged-out", but Comey's testimony seems to indicate that the AG had plenty of awareness as to what was going on. Also, you're reading Mr Gonzales and Mr Cards minds when you say they went there hoping to slip something by a "drugged-out" Ashcroft. I admit I haven't been impressed with AG Gonzales of late, but it's quite possible he went there with the best of intentions, that he thought the program was necessary and legal, and that it would be better to get Justice onboard. Was it a smart move? No. But unless they tried to pressure Mr Ashcroft, I don't believe it was unethical.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Comey's testimony seems to indicate that the AG had plenty of awareness as to what was going on" He was in intensive care? Then it's not likely.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal Isn't Ashcroft's state of mind or level of awareness irrelevant since the powers of the AG had been transferred to his second in command? No one had any place conducting business with him when he officially had no powers anyway. It seems awfully shady to me.
