Bush's Optimists Club

"Jennings offered a stripped-down explanation: He wanted a White House-supplied BlackBerry and was told no, and so he got one from the RNC, as many other political affairs aides had done."

Richard B. Schmitt writes in the Los Angeles Times: "'Senator, I'm doing the best I can,' said Jennings. He said he was on orders from President Bush to invoke executive privilege and answer no questions about the dismissals. 'Believe me, this is likely as frustrating for me as it is for you.'

"'No, trust me, it is not,' said Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.)."

Here's how Jennings explained how his RNC e-mail address became his default address for both official and political business -- in stark contrast to explicit White House policy that doing so is a violation of the Presidential Records Act.

"I came to the White House, as you said, in 2005. And when I came I was given two e-mail accounts, as you know, and devices such as a BlackBerry and a laptop that were connected to my RNC e-mail account and only one device -- a computer desktop -- connected to my official account.

"So over the course of time, it became efficient and crucial for me to be able to respond to communications in a 24/7 manner.

"LEAHY: But here we're talking about official business that's regarding Tim Griffin, later installed by the attorney general as interim U.S. attorney, replacing another U.S. attorney.

"Why would you use a Republican National Committee account rather than your official account? Wouldn't this be official business?

"JENNINGS: Senator, I understand your question.

"I would also like to say that it's my understanding that out of an abundance of caution and to avoid possible Hatch Act violations, that's why we were issued these accounts. And over the course of time...

"LEAHY: Do you feel this was a Hatch Act violation, setting up this kind of a meeting?

"JENNINGS: No, sir.

"LEAHY: Then why'd you use it?

"JENNINGS: As I said, Senator . . . [o]ver the course of time, the use of the Republican National Committee e-mail account became a matter of convenience and efficiency because I had access to it 24 hours a day, seven days a week, unlike my other e-mail account. . . . People knew they could reach me at any time, not just when I happened to be sitting at my desk, which some days is infrequent."

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) had this to say to Jennings: "What I struggle with every time Karl Rove feeds another one of these young staffers into the Judiciary Committee is the obvious question: Where is Karl Rove? Why is he hiding? Why does he throw a young staffer like you into the line of fire while he hides behind the White House curtains?"

And Leahy, fed up with Jennings's constant assertion of "executive privilege" even when being asked to acknowledge facts already in the public domain, retorted: "It's interesting. Even if we do get documents, we're told you can't talk about the documents. This is -- did you ever read 'Catch-22' when you were younger?

"(LAUGHTER)

"JENNINGS: I'm familiar with the phrase.

"LEAHY: Did you read the book?

"JENNINGS: I did not. I have not.

"LEAHY: You might want to go back and read it. It's very interesting.

"(LAUGHTER)

"It seems to be part of your training manual."

FISA Watch

Charlie Savage writes in the Boston Globe: "Congress is rushing to expand the military's authority to wiretap phone calls and e-mails on US soil. The Bush administration, warning that terrorists may soon attack again, is pressuring lawmakers to approve the legislation before they leave town this weekend for their annual August vacations.

"The proposal, the details of which remain murky, had received little public discussion before this week and has not undergone the normal committee review process. It would apparently give the National Security Agency legal approval to resume one type of the warrantless wiretapping that President Bush authorized after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. . . .

"One proposed change would make clear that the NSA does not need a warrant to intercept foreign soil-to-foreign soil communications, even if it does so by tapping into a device on US soil." But that change is nevertheless controversial because there is a debate over "whether the agency needs a warrant to spy on an overseas target who communicates with people whose location is unknown -- and sometimes turn out to be Americans. . . .

"Analysts said the Bush administration apparently wants Congress to change the law to allow the NSA to eavesdrop on such communications without warrants, as long as its primary target is overseas. One part of the negotiations between the White House and Congress concerns who should audit the NSA to make sure it does not abuse that authority. The Bush administration has proposed that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales oversee the program, but Democrats want to give such authority to the national security court."

Director of national intelligence Mike McConnell released a statement late yesterday, saying: "The bill must not require court approval before urgently needed intelligence collection can begin against a foreign target located overseas. The delays of a court process that requires judicial determinations in advance to gather vital intelligence from foreign targets overseas can in some cases prevent the rapid gathering of intelligence necessary to provide warning of threats to the country. . . .

"However, to acknowledge the interests of all, I could agree to a procedure that provides for court review -- after needed collection has begun -- of our procedures for gathering foreign intelligence through classified methods directed at foreigners located overseas. While I would strongly prefer not to engage in such a process, I am prepared to take these additional steps to keep the confidence of Members of Congress and the American people that our processes have been subject to court review and approval."

FISA Editorial Watch

The government should not have to get individualized warrants for purely foreign communications that move through American data networks, the New York Times writes.

But: "Instead of asking Congress to address this anachronism, as it should, the White House sought to use it to destroy the 1978 spying law. It proposed giving the attorney general carte blanche to order eavesdropping on any international telephone calls or e-mail messages if he decided on his own that there was a 'reasonable belief' that the target of the surveillance was outside the United States. The attorney general's decision would not be subject to court approval or any supervision.

"The White House, of course, insisted that Congress must do this right away, before the August recess that begins on Monday -- the same false urgency it used to manipulate Congress into passing the Patriot Act without reading it and approving the appalling Military Commissions Act of 2006. . . .

"The administration and its Republican supporters in Congress argue that American intelligence is blinded by FISA and have seized on neatly timed warnings of heightened terrorist activity to scare everyone. It is vital for Americans, especially lawmakers, to resist that argument. It is pure propaganda.

"This is not, and has never been, a debate over whether the United States should conduct effective surveillance of terrorists and their supporters. It is over whether we are a nation ruled by law, or the whims of men in power. Mr. Bush faced that choice and made the wrong one. Congress must not follow him off the cliff."

USA Today writes that "at a time when even skeptical Democrats acknowledge that the eavesdropping law needs to be updated to reflect changing technology, the administration has all the credibility of a teenager who has squandered his allowance and is demanding more money.

"Further weakening its case, the White House had the poor judgment to propose that broad authority for surveillance and gathering communication records be given to, yes, the attorney general. . . .

"Congressional Democrats have countered the latest White House demands with more modest changes that would expire in six months. They should not let fear of being demonized as soft on terrorism scare them into granting an unwise expansion of executive power."

The Wall Street Journal writes: "Democrats so loathe the Bush Administration that they are willing to throw away one of our best weapons in the war against al Qaeda. It's long past time the President stopped pleading with Congress, and started explaining this outrage to the American people."

Torture Watch

Spencer Ackerman of TPM Muckraker has the text of a letter from Sen. Richard Durbin to Gonzales, in which Durbin asks he attorney general to clear up whether he thinks certain interrogation techniques used by U.S. officials in the past would be tolerated if used by foreign governments on American prisoners.

During a July 24 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Durbin writes: "I identified five interrogation techniques: 1) painful stress positions, 2) threatening detainees with dogs, 3) forced nudity, 4) waterboarding (i.e., simulated drowning) and 5) mock execution. I explained that the Judge Advocates General, the highest-ranking attorneys in each of the four military services, have stated that each of these techniques is illegal and violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. I then asked you, 'Would it be legal for a foreign government to subject a United States citizen to these so-called enhanced interrogation techniques which I just read?' You responded, 'Senator, you're asking me to answer a question which, I think, may provide insight into activities that the CIA may be involved with in the future. . . . [I]t would depend on circumstances, quite frankly' (emphasis added).

"It is deeply troubling that you refuse to state unequivocally that it would be illegal for enemy forces to subject American citizens to these inhumane techniques. Your failure to make this clear may embolden our enemies to abuse American prisoners. I want to give you an opportunity to clarify your views on this vitally important question."

Tillman Watch

Erica Werner writes for the Associated Press: "The White House has agreed to let congressional investigators interview three former officials in an inquiry into what the administration knew about the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman.

"The aides are Dan Bartlett, former White House counselor; Scott McClellan, former press secretary, and Michael Gerson, former speechwriter. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee agreed to White House demands that initial interviews be conducted without a transcript and with White House attorneys present.

"If investigators determine the aides have relevant information, they will be asked to return for transcribed interviews. The White House has reserved the right to oppose that by claiming executive privilege, according to a letter Thursday from the committee's chairman and top Republican to White House counsel Fred Fielding."

Mike Allen's View

Via Greenwald, I see Politico's Mike Allen visited with conservative talk-show Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday:

"HH: Now the Tony Snow question, and it's really the future of how they do this. Tony Snow's very good at what he does, and better than Ari, better than anyone I've seen doing it, maybe McCurry.

"MA: And he came in at a time when the President so desperately needed. And it was somebody in addition to what he does on camera, people in the West Wing say that his presence there has really helped. He's someone who knows the family, knows the issues, knows the press, is not afraid to push back --

"HH: Yeah.

"MA: He doesn't take it from reporters. He treats reporters like they're a crazy caller to his talk show.

"HH: Yup, and he pushes back with friendlies as well as hostiles. Let me ask you, though, can you follow that act up again? Is that now the model, that they have to bring a superstar communicator and put him behind the podium?

"MA: I think different presidents have different needs at different times, and I think that Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan did a great job at the time that they were there. Obviously, this is a time of testing for the President. You were with him today. You know that he is as resilient as you can imagine. You wouldn't -- he does read the papers, as you well know. But you might think that he didn't, because it's amazing that he's able to keep up his spirits the way he is. We were out at Camp David the other day, you maybe saw the video of when he picked up Prime Minister Gordon Brown in his golf cart, which had a Golf Cart One and presidential seal on the front. He drove by the press, waived, sped up a little bit, and then did a 360. It wasn't quite a donut, because he didn't spin out, but he did a little circle right in front of us, just because he could, gave us a little mischievous smile, and a wave, just to remind us that he's there. So that's his mood, and I think Tony Snow reflects that. He is a happy warrior."

Froomkin Watch

I'm taking a long weekend. The column will resume on Tuesday.

Cartoon Watch

Mike Luckovich on Bush's optimism; Tom Toles on surveillance; Ann Telnaes on the Bush legacy.