You are correct on Mueller - my mistake. However, the FBI under Clinton and Reno never rejected a FISA request. Under Bush and Ashcroft they did.
"The Hart-Rudman report was presented in the Clinton adminstration..."
Interestingly enough it was after Bush took office that the final portion of the Hart-Rudman report was issued. And, "Actually, Hart-Rudman did gain impressive backing in Congress from the top Republican members of the national security set, at a time when they controlled the Senate, and vigorous support from Donald Rumsfeld at Defense. Hearings were scheduled for the week of May 7. But the White House stymied the move. It did not want Congress out front on the issue, not least with a report originated by a Democratic president and an ousted Republican speaker." - from www.cjr.org.
What evidence was there that the binLaden family in the United States were terrorists, were cooperating with their brother
Their brother. Hmmmm...Well, the family connection itself. Are you saying that you trust the Saudis THAT much? But the bin Laden surveillance is secondary to the Al Queda surveillance that was removed, as well as the discussions Bush implemented with the Taliban (Clinton had no discussions).
[Ashcroft stepping down] "is ludicrous on its face..."
You're right - Ashcroft never did serve in the military, so it is ludicrous to expect him to step down.
What "discussions" did the Bush administration have with the Taliban? (Oh, and reference a reputable site, not the Alex Jones show.) And, what alQaeda surveillance was removed? (Again, not from the BBC or a Brit source that quotes "high-level sources).
Ashcroft never did serve in the military, so it is ludicrous to expect him to step down.
The fact that you have to resort to a gratuitous remark like this shows how vapid your arguments are.