By now I'm sure everyone is familiar with the basic melodrama that unfolded in former Deputy Attorney General James Comey's testimony on Tuesday, regarding then-counsel Alberto Gonzales trying to bully a signature out of a hospitalized John Ashcroft in a late-night surprise visit. If not, you really need to watch the whole thing: it's like the climax of a political thriller, including a mad dash to arrive at the scene, an armed FBI detail, and possibly the lamest cover-up I've ever heard (they were just visiting in the middle of the night to wish the AG a speedy recovery! and those weren't documents in their hands - they were flowers, duh.)

Likely as not you've read it (because we have a high level of wonkery here), but most of America has not. For the moment, the media are testing the waters with these fun spy-vs-spy details for two reasons: they're busy with dueling Falwell obits, and they make better print than the giant can of legal-issue worms that have just burst open. Which is a pity, because the devil - the really grotesque, jaw-dropping devil - is in the details; so it's fortunate that we have a few legal-interest bloggers to devote the time necessary to putting this all together.

And boy, is it ugly.

- Apparently the Department of Justice under Ashcroft - hardly a liberal Democrat - determined that the NSA program was illegal, but Bush ordered it anyway. As Greenwald puts it :

Amazingly, the President's own political appointees -- the two top Justice Department officials, including one (Ashcroft) who was known for his "aggressive" use of law enforcement powers in the name of fighting terrorism and at the expense of civil liberties -- were so convinced of its illegality that they refused to certify it and were preparing, along with numerous other top DOJ officials, to resign en masse once they learned that the program would continue notwithstanding the President's knowledge that it was illegal.

- It gets worse, although this next part involves a few missing variables. It was the failure to obtain Ashcroft's signature that may have led to the inclusion of the AUMF in Iraq as part of the Administration's legal justification for the NSA program, since until that time AUMF had never been mentioned in that light (the President argued under Article II alone). Here's Greenwald again, speculating:

But if that's the case -- if it was only in 2004 that a requirement was created that the eavesdropping be tied closely to terrorists encompassed by the AUMF -- then that would mean that prior to that time, there was no nexus between the eavesdropping and those terrorist groups. It would mean that prior to this 2004 DOJ rebellion, the scope of the NSA eavesdropping -- the list of those who were subject to warrantless eavesdropping -- was far broader than the Islamic terrorist groups against whom the President was authorized by the AUMF to use military force.

(Read the whole piece - it's pretty intense)

Even if we drop that second point, Comey's testimony still gives us a lot to be concerned about. The Washington Post editorial points out the obvious when it notes why Gonzales' position as Attorney General is now no longer an issue of incompetence and nepotism, but outright disregard and disdain for the role of the Department of Justice:

Justice's conclusions are supposed to be the final word in the executive branch about what is lawful or not, and the administration has emphasized since the warrantless wiretapping story broke that it was being done under the department's supervision.

Now, it emerges, they were willing to override Justice if need be. That Mr. Gonzales is now in charge of the department he tried to steamroll may be most disturbing of all.

Basically the man assigned to strongarm the Attorney General is now the Attorney General, so that pesky issue of independent legal counsel flies out the window. Two more points to consider, if you're not outraged enough:

- All of this happened before Gonzales was confirmed as the new Attorney General. So why didn't Comey testify then? Because Gonzales himself blocked the testimony , arguing that Comey didn't have anything of value to contribute.

- Even more damning, the 2006 investigation that should have dealt with this was personally squashed by the President .

I just don't know what to say to this anymore. I understand there are those on the right who will still brush this off, saying that the defense of America is worth any amount of legal maneuvering. But doesn't this run directly contrary to the whole founding philosophy of our government? Weren't the founders savvy enough to recognize that NO amount of security is worth the consolidation of power in any one branch of government? When the President ignores Congress, effectively dismantles the Department of Justice by appointing someone who fought against it, and thumbs his nose at the suggestion that he's done anything wrong, why should we bother with a Constitution at all?

Though a lot of America isn't on board yet, don't be surprised to hear the word "impeachment" brought out with increasing frequency, and from increasingly moderate sources. Why? (besides the obvious, that is) Because unless Gonzales resigns of his own volition, Bush is not going to let him go. If there's one thing the President is consistent about, it's staying the course, come hell or high water. The longer Bush stands by his man, the more likely he'll fall with him, too. Plus, he already has a certain level of complicity: from ordering the program the DoJ told him was illegal to preventing Congressional investigation of that program.

The wicked irony here that none of this would have come to light had they not overstepped themselves to the point of ludicrousness by going after the USAGs. This is Capone getting busted for tax evasion.