Josh Marshal discusses the “secret program” that John Ashcroft and Robert Comey refused to sign off on in Ashcroft’s hospital room. Emphasis added throughout.

As you can see, we now have the first hint of what was at the center of the Ashcroft hospital room showdown. According to the New York Times, what the White House calls the 'terrorist surveillance [i.e., warrantless wiretap] program' originally included some sort of largescale data mining.

I don't doubt that this is true as far as it goes. But this must only scratch the surface because, frankly, at least as presented, this just doesn't account for the depth of the controversy [over the contradictions in testimony and perjury of Mr Gonzalez,] or the fact that so many law-and-order DOJ types were willing to resign over what was happening. Something's missing.

Of course, 'data mining' can mean virtually anything. What kind of data and whose you're looking at makes all the difference in the world. Suggestively, the Times article includes this cryptic passage: "Some of the officials said the 2004 dispute involved other issues in addition to the data mining, but would not provide details. They would not say whether the differences were over how the databases were searched or how the resulting information was used."

We’ll hear more about this topic over the next two or three months. The truth will be teased out, bit by bit, just like a sweater unraveling.

To put this into perspective, remember that the White House has been willing to go to the public and make a positive argument for certain surveillance procedures (notably evasion of the FISA Court strictures) which appear to be illegal on their face.

This must be much more serious and apparently something all but the most ravenous Bush authoritarians would never accept. It is supposedly no longer even happening and hasn't been for a few years. So disclosing it could not jeopardize a program. The only reason that suggests itself is that the political and legal consequences of disclosure are too grave to allow.

Late Update: The Post has a follow story on the data mining issue. It covers most of the same ground but hints a little more directly about possible interception of emails and phone calls. The article suggests that examination of "metadata" was the issue here. But, again, it doesn't fit. The intensity of the covering up doesn't match the alleged secret.

A truly cynical observer of Mr Bu$h and Karl Rove might conclude that the monitoring program not only covered landline and cellular telephone calls and electronic (email) contact from “terrorists” outside the country to contacts and sympathetic journalists inside the borders, as originally claimed, but also probably included mail cover and possibly even opening and reading those mails. This would be logical from a counter-espionage standpoint and certainly wouldn’t alarm Federal attorneys, even if it wasn’t covered by a FISA application in every instance. Even the next logical step of creating communication trees and keeping an ear open on people contacted by those domestic contacts. Again, difficult if there is no FISA cover, but still not necessarily something to make Federal attorneys go pale.

After all, FISA allows for doing the monitoring and applying afterwards within a 72 hour period.

And we know the FBI manufactured and presented thousands of phony National Security Letters to phone companies, ISPs, and financial institutions, promising to fax or deliver the FSA authorized subpoenas and never complying with the law. But that was an independent bit of skullduggery committed by agents in a couple of local offices (and in the SOG – national HQ of the FBI.

No, what’s hidden deep in the heart of this entire scandal is something much more terrible, and that singular cynical observer might remind himself that during G H W Bu$h’s Presidential campaigns of 1988 and 1992, his son George W Bu$h was a staff member, concerning himself with opposition research and “pranks.” He might also remind himself that Karl Rove has limited, if any interest in foreign policy or diplomacy, but is an acknowledged expert in the dirty political campaign. And truly enjoys “pranks.”

That singular cynical observer might remind himself that both were ideologically dedicated to the dream of reshaping the country into a corporate state, with only one political party as the intermediary delivering a democracy to the corporate abattoir, and as of January 21st, 2001, these men had the entire facilities of the NSA and other intelligence-gathering agencies at their command.

Some people still don’t understand why so many members of both houses of Congress were so reluctant to speak out during the early years. I’m not implying this is the scenario. But a truly cynical and frightened man might wonder…

UPDATE: In another post, Josh makes a very important point while discussing the history of Art II, Sec 4 of the Constitution [emph in the original]:

[I]n almost 220 years of history under the constitution, the impeachment power has never been used to remove a cabinet secretary from office. Not once. And that's really saying something. But the reason isn't that hard to figure given the structure of our government. The normal course when a cabinet secretary has been implicated in grave wrongdoing or has lost the confidence of the overwhelming number of senators (which I think he clearly has, though partisan loyalty has kept many Republicans from saying it) is for him or her to resign. And if they won't see fit to resign the president fires them since if nothing else the person can't fulfill the responsibilities of office under those debilitating circumstances.

But then there is the big 'unless'.

Unless the president is party to the wrongdoing that placed the cabinet secretary in jeopardy. And that is clearly the case we have here, which explains the historical anomaly that the possibility of Gonzales' impeachment is even a topic of serious conversation.