PDA

View Full Version : Documents Contradict Gonzalez's Testimony


NortheastCynic
07-26-2007, 02:43 AM
So it looks to be official, our Atty. General has commited a crime.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/congress_gonzales;_ylt=AgGVDhPgMG.LPzkuLpOJHYms0NU E

WASHINGTON - Documents indicate eight congressional leaders were briefed about the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program on the eve of its expiration in 2004, contradicting sworn Senate testimony this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

ADVERTISEMENT

The documents underscore questions about Gonzales' credibility as senators consider whether a perjury investigation should be opened into conflicting accounts about the program and a dramatic March 2004 confrontation leading up to its potentially illegal reauthorization.

A Gonzales spokesman maintained Wednesday that the attorney general stands by his testimony.

At a heated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly testified that the issue at hand was not about the terrorist surveillance program, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on suspects in the United States without receiving court approval.

Instead, Gonzales said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe.

Gonzales, who was then serving as counsel to Bush, testified that the White House Situation Room briefing sought to inform congressional leaders about the pending expiration of the unidentified program and Justice Department objections to renew it. Those objections were led by then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey, who questioned the program's legality.

"The dissent related to other intelligence activities," Gonzales testified at Tuesday's hearing. "The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program."

"Not the TSP?" responded Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. "Come on. If you say it's about other, that implies not. Now say it or not."

"It was not," Gonzales answered. "It was about other intelligence activities."

A four-page memo from the national intelligence director's office says the White House briefing with the eight lawmakers on March 10, 2004, was about the terror surveillance program, or TSP.

The memo, dated May 17, 2006, and addressed to then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, details "the classification of the dates, locations, and names of members of Congress who attended briefings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program," wrote then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte.

It shows that the briefing in March 2004 was attended by the Republican and Democratic House and Senate leaders and leading members of both chambers' intelligence committees, as Gonzales testified.

Schumer called the memo evidence that Gonzales was not truthful in his testimony.

"It seemed clear to just about everyone on the committee that the attorney general was deceiving us when he said the dissent was about other intelligence activities and this memo is even more evidence that helps confirm our suspicions," Schumer said.

Bush acknowledged the existence of the classified surveillance program in December 2005 after it was revealed by The New York Times. In January, it was put under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for judicial review before any wiretaps were to be approved.

Asked for comment on the documents Wednesday evening, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Gonzales "stands by his testimony."

"The disagreement referenced by Jim Comey in March 2004 was not about the particular intelligence activity that has been publicly described by the president," Roehrkasse said. "It was about other highly classified intelligence activities that have been briefed to the intelligence committees."

The disagreement over whether to renew the program led to a dramatic, and highly controversial, confrontation between Gonzales and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on the night of March 10, 2004.

After briefing the congressional leaders, Gonzales testified that he and then-White House chief of staff Andy Card headed to a Washington hospital room, where a sedated Ashcroft was recovering from surgery. Ashcroft had already turned over his powers as attorney general to Comey.

Comey was in the hospital room as well, and recounted to senators in his own sworn testimony in May that he "thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."

Ultimately, Ashcroft sided with Comey, and Gonzales and Card left the hospital after a five- to six-minute conversation.

Gonzales denied that he and Card tried to pressure Ashcroft into approving the program over Comey's objections.

"We never had any intent to ask anything of him if we did not feel that he was competent," Gonzales told the Senate panel Tuesday. "At the end of his description of the legal issues, he said, 'I'm not making this decision. The deputy attorney general is.' And so Andy Card and I thanked him. We told him that we would continue working with the deputy attorney general and we left."

Democrats and Republicans alike expressed disbelief at Gonzales' version of events.

"There's a discrepancy here in sworn testimony," Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said after listening to Gonzales, raising the possibility of a perjury inquiry. "We're going to have to ask who's telling the truth, who's not."

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, top Republican on the panel, also disregarded Gonzales' description. "I do not find your testimony credible, candidly," he told the attorney general.

House and Senate lawmakers who attended the Situation Room briefing are divided on the accuracy of Gonzales' account of that meeting, which he said concluded by a "consensus in the room from the congressional leadership is that we should continue the activities, at least for now, despite the objections of Mr. Comey."

Three Democrats — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller and former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle — dispute Gonzales' testimony. Rockefeller called it "untruthful," and Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the speaker disagreed that it should be continued without Justice Department or FISA court oversight.

On the other hand, former GOP House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss, "does not recall anyone saying the project must be ended,' spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck said. And former Senate Republican leader Bill Frist stopped short of confirming or denying the meeting's outcome.

"I recall being briefed with the others about the program and it was stated that Gonzales would visit with Ashcroft in the hospital and that our meeting was part of the administration's responsibility to discuss with the leadership of Congress,' Frist said in a statement.

___

Associated Press writer Katherine Shrader contributed to this report.

-NC

bobbylien
07-26-2007, 02:51 AM
What an idiot.

BoogyMan
07-26-2007, 03:01 AM
If the guy committed a crime he should be punished. It is pretty simple.

At least there is merit behind these accusations whereas the attorney firings garbage is just that, garbage.

ViolaLee
07-26-2007, 05:50 AM
The attorney firings is all part of the slimey wrong doings by the Bush administration and the Attorney General. This lie about the warrantless wiretapping is just one of the many lies and crimes by these guys.

ECW
07-26-2007, 06:59 AM
Turns out that civil service violations were committed by the administration in the firings and that there is a cover up over that issue as well. All hell is going to break loose when Congress returns in September.

ViolaLee
07-26-2007, 04:03 PM
Ugh, they shouldn't be taking August off at all.

NortheastCynic
07-26-2007, 04:15 PM
For whatever reason, I have this sickening feeling that Gonzalez will not be impeached...Despite the fact that Congress has the power to impeach him AND there is precedent for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Belknap

-NC

NortheastCynic
07-26-2007, 08:31 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_go_co/congress_gonzales

So now FBI Director Mueller is saying that Gonzalez DID in fact, speak about the federal wiretapping program while visiting then Atty. General Ashcroft's bedside.

WASHINGTON - FBI Director Robert S. Mueller said Thursday the government's terrorist surveillance program was the topic of a 2004 hospital room dispute between top Bush administration officials, contradicting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' sworn Senate testimony.

ADVERTISEMENT

Captivity
Hairspray
Sunshine
No Reservations
License to Wed Harry Potter
Search:



Mueller was not in the hospital room at the time of the dramatic March 10, 2004, confrontation between then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and presidential advisers Andy Card and Gonzales, who was then serving as White House counsel. Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee he arrived shortly after they left, and spoke with the ailing Ashcroft.

"Did you have an understanding that that the conversation was on TSP?" asked Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. TSP stands for terrorist surveillance program.

"I had an understanding the discussion was on a NSA program, yes," Mueller answered.

Jackson asked again: "We use 'TSP,' we use 'warrantless wiretapping,' so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?"

"The discussion was on a national NSA program that has been much discussed, yes," Mueller responded.

The NSA, or National Security Agency, runs the program that eavesdropped on terror suspects in the United States, without court approval, until last January, when the program was put under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

On Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly and emphatically denied that the dispute was about the terrorist surveillance program.

Mueller also affirmed, under lawmakers' pointed questioning, that Ashcroft sided against the two White House officials and with then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey, who believed the eavesdropping program was illegal.

Mueller's testimony cast fresh doubt on Gonzales' credibility. Hours earlier, Senate Democrats called for a perjury investigation against Gonzales and subpoenaed top presidential aide Karl Rove in a deepening political and legal clash with the Bush administration.

"It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements," four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement.

They dispatched the letter shortly before Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., announced the subpoena of Rove, the president's top political strategist, in remarks on the Senate floor. The White House has claimed executive privilege to block congressional demands for documents or testimony by some current and former presidential aides. President Bush, meanwhile, has continued to support Gonzales.

Democrats issued a list of examples of what one called Gonzales' "lying" before Congress.

"We have now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States attorneys last year," said Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In response, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, "Every day congressional Democrats prove that they're more interested in headlines than doing the business Americans want them to do."

The call for a perjury probe focuses on conflicts between testimony Gonzales gave the Judiciary Committee in two appearances, one last year and the other this week. That issue revolves around whether there was internal administration dissent over the president's warrantless wiretapping program.

Also at issue, Democrats say, is a conflict between Gonzales' testimony that he had not spoken with other witnesses about the firings and his former White House liaison's account of an "uncomfortable" conversation in which the attorney general reviewed his recollection of the events and asked her opinion.

"There's no wiggle room," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., one of the four lawmakers to sign the letter. "It's not misleading. Those are deceiving. Those are lying."

And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters, "I'm convinced that he's not telling the truth," based on conversations with Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

As for the firing of the prosecutors, e-mails released by the Justice Department show Gonzales' aides conferred with Rove on the matter.

Leahy also said he was issuing a subpoena for J. Scott Jennings, a White House political aide. The deadline for compliance by Rove and him was set for Aug. 2.

"For over four months, I have exhausted every avenue seeking the voluntary cooperation of Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings, but to no avail," the Vermont lawmaker said. "They and the White House have stonewalled every request. Indeed, the White House is choosing to withhold documents and is instructing witnesses who are former officials to refuse to answer questions and provide relevant information and documents."

The call for a perjury investigation marked yet another complication for Gonzales, whose fitness to serve has been criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike.

In a separate letter Thursday to Gonzales, Leahy said he would give the attorney general eight days to correct, clarify or otherwise change his testimony "so that, consistent with your oath, they are the whole truth."

In their letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement, the four senators wrote that Gonzales' testimony last year that there had been no internal dissent over the president's wiretapping program conflicted with Comey's testimony and with Gonzales' own statements this week before the Judiciary Committee.

They also said Gonzales falsely told the panel that he had not talked about the firings with other Justice Department officials. His former White House liaison, Monica Goodling, told the House Judiciary Committee under a grant of immunity that she had an "uncomfortable" conversation with Gonzales in which he outlined his recollection of what happened and asked her for her reaction.

Clement would decide whether to appoint a special prosecutor because Gonzales and outgoing Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty have recused themselves from the investigation that involves them. The Justice Department's No. 3 official, Associate Attorney General William Mercer, is serving only in an acting capacity and therefore does not have the authority.

At issue is what was discussed at a March 10, 2004, congressional briefing. A letter from then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte said the briefing concerned the administration's terrorist surveillance program on the eve of its expiration.

Gonzales, at Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, testified that the issue at hand was not about the terrorist surveillance program. Instead, he said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, had focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe. He said the meeting prompted him to go to Ashcroft's bedside to recertify the surveillance program, but he denied pressuring Ashcroft to do so. Ashcroft, recovering from gall bladder surgery, refused.

___

Associated Press Writer Jennifer Loven contributed to this story.

-NC

bobbylien
07-26-2007, 09:28 PM
Wow! He is gone for sure now.

NortheastCynic
07-26-2007, 09:28 PM
I'd like to think so too, Bobby. I'm just not that confident that Congress will do the right thing and I'm positive that the Administration will do what they can to obstruct justice.

-NC

bobbylien
07-26-2007, 11:09 PM
I don't think congress will have to impeach him. He will resign after this mess. How could he be so foolish?

NortheastCynic
07-27-2007, 12:32 AM
Bobby, if you look at it his way, he has nothing to lose by not resigning. He cannot be respected any less. He has no incentive to resign and the President has no incentive to force him to resign.

-NC

bobbylien
07-27-2007, 12:43 AM
He has no incentive to resign and the President has no incentive to force him to resign.
I think you are wrong there. The republicans in Bush's party will be looking for reasons to distance themselves from him and if Bush doesn't remove him, I can seriously see the republicans revolting over it.

lily
07-27-2007, 02:13 AM
For whatever reason, I have this sickening feeling that Gonzalez will not be impeached...Despite the fact that Congress has the power to impeach him AND there is precedent for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Belknap

-NC


NC......the impeachment process would take longer than he has left if office.[hr]bobbylien wrote:

I think you are wrong there. The republicans in Bush's party will be looking for reasons to distance themselves from him and if Bush doesn't remove him, I can seriously see the republicans revolting over it.

Most of the Republicans that called for him to step down the first time he testified, changed their minds after things cooled down. I too doubt that that they will stick by him now, their credibility is at stake. Keep in mind, that Bush said Rumsfailed would not be replaced and the day after the Democrats took office he was.

I also can't believe with all the time that Gonzales had to prepare for this testimony he thought he was going to get away with this out and out lie, with all the other witnesses that not only said differently, but a memo to boot.

NortheastCynic
07-27-2007, 02:24 AM
NC......the impeachment process would take longer than he has left if office.Right...That's a contributing factor to my not thinking he will be impeached.

I think you are wrong there. The republicans in Bush's party will be looking for reasons to distance themselves from him and if Bush doesn't remove him, I can seriously see the republicans revolting over it. That has nothing to do with the President forcing him out or him resigning.

-NC

ViolaLee
07-27-2007, 02:57 AM
Maybe he thinks the Republicans will pressure Bush to remove him. But I think Bush and Cheney and Rove are just going to keep being bullheaded and find themselves in jail. Or pardoned LOL!

NortheastCynic
07-27-2007, 03:43 AM
That was exactly what I was going to say, ECW, nicely said. Impeachment needn't take another two years, if Congress has the nerve, that is.

-NC

ECW
07-27-2007, 03:43 AM
The whole Clinton impeachment only took four months. There is more than enough time to impeach anyone the Democrats feel like. Whether they have the balls to do is a whole 'nother story.

lily
07-27-2007, 03:53 AM
ECW.......by the time they got all the testimony together, played with all the legal ranglings, stall tactics, demands for papers........ he'd be out of office. Hell, how long have they been stalling on the "lost emails"?

bobbylien
07-27-2007, 03:56 AM
That has nothing to do with the President forcing him out or him resigning.
My point being that key republican senators would tell Bush that he has to remove him or face losing their loyalty in regards to his Iraq plan. Bush doesn't have to worry about reelection but he only needs to lose a few republican votes to give the democrats control over the Iraq war.

ViolaLee
07-27-2007, 04:01 AM
Lily's right. And the Dems have given up on impeachment. They're trying to tack a high road stand or something. Clinton's impeachment wreaked havoc on our country. They are uneasy about doing that again. If they find a blatant crime where impeachment is the only answer, if they get those emails and Rove, Miers, Bolten tell the truth under oath, maybe that will be enough.

Most Dems say impeachment is off the table.

Churchel
07-27-2007, 06:05 AM
ECW.......by the time they got all the testimony together, played with all the legal ranglings, stall tactics, demands for papers........ he'd be out of office. Hell, how long have they been stalling on the "lost emails"?


they aren't "lost" but they are certainly gone:

http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/2007/20070430_congressional_firewall.html