Gonzo is Gone-zo [Archive] - SpursTalk.com Forums

boutons_

07-26-2007, 11:23 AM

Documents Contradict Gonzales's Testimony

By Lara Jakes Jordan
The Associated Press

Thursday 26 July 2007

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.

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.

----------

The Judiciary Committee prepared an extensive document for Committee Members summarizing the basis for today's vote to recommend contempt proceedings against Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten. This memorandum is linked below.

http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFs/ConyersMemo070725.pdf.

=============================

Gonzo on the Hill: a Comedic Tragedy

By Andrew Cohen
The Washington Post

Tuesday 24 July 2007

Forget about the politicization of the Justice Department. Forget about the falling morale there. Forget about the rise in violent crime in some of our biggest cities. Forget about the events leading up to the U.S. Attorney scandal and the way he has handled the prosecutor purge since. Forget about the Department's role in allowing warrantless domestic surveillance. Forget about the contorted and contradictory accounts he's offered before in his own defense.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales deserves to be fired for his testimony Tuesday alone; for morphing into Jon Lovitz's famous "pathological liar" character (or maybe just one of the Marx Brothers) as he tried to dodge and duck responsibility before the Senate Judiciary Committee not just for his shameful leadership at Justice but also his shameless role in visiting an ailing John Ashcroft in the hospital to try to strong-arm him into renewing the warrantless surviellance program. Can anyone out there remember a worse, less-inspiring, less confidence-inducing performance on Capitol Hill? I cannot.

No reasonable person watching Gonzales' tragically comedic performance Tuesday's on Capitol Hill- especially his miserable exchange with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) in late morning- can any longer defend his appalling lack of competence, courage and credibility. And no one who hears him say that he is what's best for the Department right now should forget that on the eve of his testimony (and a few days after he urged his subordinates to work diligently to regain their morale) the nation's top law enforcement official reportedly left work early to go for a bike ride Monday afternoon- at about 3:50 p.m.

I am running out of words to describe how inept this public servant is and how awful is the message our government sends to the nation and to the world by allowing him to continue to represent us. So I'll just turn it over to Sen. Schumer. Here is part of the exchange between the two (they are discussing the contradictions between what Gonzales had previously said about L'Affair Aschroft and also about under-oath discrepancies between Gonzales' version of events and the version offered by former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, We pick up where Gonzales is trying to yet again weasel out of his prior statements on the topic):

Schumer: I'd like to just pick up where Senator Specter left off, about the TSP program. Just a few preliminaries.
First, I take it that there was just one program that the president confirmed in 2005. There was not more than one.

Gonzales: He confirmed one, yes, intelligence activity. Yes, one program.

Schumer: Thank you. OK. Now, you - and you've repeatedly referred to the, quote "program," that the president confirmed in December 2005. Let me just - I'm going to put up a chart here. Here's what you said before this committee on February 6th of 2006. You said, quote, "There has not been any serious disagreement about the program the president has confirmed. With respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you were identifying had concerns about this program." This was in reference to a question I asked you, "Was there any dissent here?"

This was before Comey came to testify. It was in February. But we had some thoughts that maybe that happened. And now, of course, we know from Jim Comey that virtually the entire leadership of the Justice Department was prepared to resign over concerns about a classified program. Disagreement doesn't get more serious than that. And what program was the ruckus all about? And this is the important point here. At your press conference on June the 5th, it was precisely the program that you testified had caused no serious dissent. You said, "Mr. Comey's testimony" - and he only testified once - "related to a highly classified program which the president confirmed to the American people some time ago."

Schumer: These are your words, right? You don't deny that these are your words. This was a public press conference.

Gonzales: I'm told that in fact here in the press conference I did misspeak, but I also went back and clarified it with the reporter.

Schumer: You did misspeak?

Gonzales: Yes. But I went back and clarified it with the reporter...

Schumer: When was that? And which - what was the reporter's name?

Gonzales: At The Washington Post two days later.

(CROSSTALK)

Gonzales: Dan Eggen was the reporter.

Schumer: OK. Well, we'll want to go follow up with him. But the bottom line is this: You just admitted there was just
one program that the president confirmed in December...

Gonzales: The president...

Schumer: ... just one. Is that correct, sir?

Gonzales: The president talked about a set of activities...

Schumer: No, I am just asking you a yes-or-no simple question, just as Senator Specter has. And just like Senator Specter and others here, I'd like to get an answer to that question. You just said there was one program. Are you backing off that now?

Gonzales: The president...

Schumer: Was there one program or was there not that the president confirmed?

Gonzales: The president confirmed the existence of one set of intelligence activities.

Schumer: Fine. Now let's go over it again, sir, because I think this shows clear as could be that you're not being straightforward with this committee; that you're deceiving us. You then - then you said in testimony to this committee in response to a question that I asked, "There has not been any disagreement about the program the president confirmed." Then Jim Comey comes and talks about not just mild dissent, but dissent that shook the Justice Department to the rafters. And here, on June 5th, you say that Comey was testifying about the program the president confirmed. You, sir...

Gonzales: And I've already said...

Schumer: Sir.

Gonzales: ... I have clarified my statement on June 5th. Mr. Comey was talking about a disagreement that existed with respect to other intelligence activities.

Schumer: How can we - this is constant, sir, in all due respect with you. You constantly make statements that are clear on their face that you're deceiving the committee. And then you go back and say, "Well, I corrected the record two days later." How can we trust your leadership when the basic facts about serious questions that have been in the spotlight, you just constantly change the story, seemingly to fit your needs to wiggle out of being caught, frankly, telling mistruths? It's clear here. It's clear. One program. That's what you just said to me. That's what locks this in. Because before that, you were, sort of, alluding - in your letter to me on May 17th, you said, "Well, there was one program," - you said there was the program, TSP, and then there were other intelligence activities.

Gonzales: That's correct.

Schumer: You wanted us to go away and say, "Well, maybe it was other" - wait a second, sir. Wait a second.

Gonzales: And the disagreements related to other intelligence activities.

Schumer: I'll let you speak in a minute, but this is serious, because you're getting right close to the edge right here.
You just said there was just one program - just one. So the letter, which was, sort of, intended to deceive, but doesn't directly do so, because there are other intelligence activities, gets you off the hook, but you just put yourself right back on here.

Gonzales: I clarified my statement two days later with the reporter.

Schumer: What did you say to the reporter?

Gonzales: I did not speak directly to the reporter.

Schumer: Oh, wait a second - you did not.

(LAUGHTER)

OK. What did your spokesperson say to the reporter?

Gonzales: I don't know. But I told the spokesperson to go back and clarify my statement...

Schumer: Well, wait a minute, sir. Sir, with all due respect - and if I could have some order here, Mr. Chairman - in all due respect, you're just saying, "Well, it was clarified with the reporter," and you don't even know what he said. You don't even know what the clarification is. Sir, how can you say that you should stay on as attorney general when we go through exercise like this, where you're bobbing and weaving and ducking to avoid admitting that you deceived the committee? And now you don't even know. I'll give you another chance: You're hanging your hat on the fact that you clarified the statement two days later. You're now telling us that is was a spokesperson who did it. What did that spokesperson say? Tell me now, how do you clarify this?

Gonzales: I don't know, but I'll find out and get back to you.

=========================

Democrats Urge Perjury Probe of Gonzales
By LAURIE KELLMAN
The Associated Press
Thursday, July 26, 2007; 12:01 PM

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats called Thursday for a special counsel to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales perjured himself regarding the firings of U.S. attorneys and administration dissent over President Bush's domestic surveillance program.

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

They asked Clement to immediately appoint an indepedent counsel from outside the Justice Department to determine whether Gonzales "may have misled Congress or perjured himself in testimony before Congress."

"We do not make this request lightly," wrote Sens. Charles E. Schumer (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/s000148/) of New York, Dianne Feinstein (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/f000062/) of California, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Sheldon Whitehouse (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/w000802/) of Rhode Island.

A draft copy of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press shortly before a news conference planned by the senators.

Neither Gonzales nor the Justice Department had immediate comment about the letter. A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/r000146/), D-Nev., said he supports the request.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/l000174/) of Vermont, in a separate letter Thursday to Gonzales, 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."

The four senators said that Gonzales' testimony last year that there had been no internal dissent over the president's warrantless wiretapping program conflicted with testimony by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey 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.

"The attorney general should be held to the highest ethical standards," the senators wrote.

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, Associate Attorney General William Mercer, is serving only in an acting capacity and therefore does not have the authority to do so.

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.

But Gonzales, at Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, 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 prior court approval.

Instead, Gonzales said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe. He said the meeting prompted him to go to the bedside of ailing Attorney General John Ashcroft to recertify the surveillance program, but he denied pressuring Ashcroft to do so. Ashcroft, recovering from gall bladder surgery, refused.

White House press secretary Tony Snow defended Gonzales on Thursday but would not talk about the subject of the 2004 briefing.

"Unfortunately we get into areas that you cannot discuss openly," Snow said. "It's a very complex issue. But the attorney general was speaking consistently. The president supports him. I think at some point this is going to be something where members are going to have to go behind closed doors and have a fuller discussion of the issues. But I can't go any further than that."

Two former Republican chairmen joined Democrats in recent days in suggesting that the questions surrounding Gonzales be resolved by those outside the process.

Sen. Arlen Specter (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/s000709/), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and former chairman, on Tuesday told Gonzales during his appearance before the panel that a special prosecutor might be needed.

"I do not find your testimony credible, candidly," Specter told Gonzales.

Specter's counterpart on the House side, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., suggested that the House file a civil suit against the administration's executive privilege claim.

And Specter brought his concerns directly to Bush aboard Air Force One Thursday morning.

The senator, accompanying Bush on a trip to Philadelphia, said the president was sticking by Gonzales out of personal loyalty despite the attorney general's deteriorating support on Capitol Hill.

"The hearing two days ago was devastating (for Gonzales). But so was the hearing before that and so was the hearing before that," Specter said.

===================

You really are forced to admire the quality of the people dubya and dickhead have brought into the Exec. The entire Exec since Jan 2001 has been, and is, a stinking pile of shit, of liars, of incompetence.

Yonivore

07-26-2007, 11:49 AM

Gonzales testified that he went to the hospital to see John Ashcroft, then the Attorney General, in part to communicate to him the consensus of Congressional leaders that a particular anti-terrorist program, whose legality was being questioned after two years of re-authorizations, should be continued. In the Washington Post story you link, they try to cast doubt on this testimony, but in fact the sources they cite make it pretty clear that Gonzales's testimony was accurate.

Then, the Associated Press tries another tack, in a story based on a leak from either Congress or the intelligence community. The AP's story is headlined "Documents Contradict Gonzales' 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.
This is incorrect. The terrorist surveillance program allowed interception of international communications involving a suspected terrorist, where time constraints did not permit obtaining an order.

Instead, Gonzales said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe.
This is wrong too. Gonzales offered to explain to the Senators in private, away from the television cameras, but they declined his invitation. I wonder why that is?

The AP reports that the leaked document, which comes from the national intelligence director's office, says that on March 10, 2004, the White House held a briefing with the Gang of Eight Congressional leaders on the terrorist surveillance program:

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.
This document was created after controversy developed over the international terrorist surveillance program. In response, I assume, to a request from Congress, the memo lists all dates on which Congressional leaders were briefed on the TSP. This, the AP says, "contradicts Gonzales's testimony," but of course it doesn't. The memo doesn't say that the only program discussed at the meeting was the TSP, nor does it say that the TSP was the one on which the Justice Department (Ashcroft and Comey) had suddenly changed its mind, leading to the famous hospital visit. The document, as described by the AP, confirms Gonzales's testimony that he met with Congressional leaders shortly before visiting the hospital; to the extent that the AP describes it, it does not contradict the Attorney General's testimony.

This is really something of a mystery. When Comey testified before the Judiciary Committee, he refused to name the surveillance program at issue. In a previous post, I assumed it was obviously the terrorist surveillance program. But that assumption may have been wrong.

It wouldn't be hard to figure out whether the program about which DOJ changed its mind was the international terrorist surveillance program, or something else. There is a paper trail of legal memos, etc., on the subject, and a considerable number of people know the answer to the question, including at least one unimpeachable source, John Ashcroft.

Given those facts, it is hard to see why Gonzales, or anyone else, would lie about the identity of the program, as the AP accuses Gonzales of doing. It's also inexplicable why the Senate Committee wouldn't allow Gonzales to explain the discrepancy off camera and in a secure setting -- unless, of course, the committee is more interested in painting him as a liar than getting the facts.

Given Comey's refusal to name the program and Ashcroft's public reticence on the subject, the only information we have is Gonzales's testimony that it was something else. But, as I say, this is a mystery that wouldn't be hard to solve.

Now, while we're on the subject of Attorney General Gonzales, let's talk about the Congress' penchant for oversight hearings ad naseum and their unprecedented attempt to pry apart executive privilege.

As Tony Snow pointed out yesterday; during this Congress there have been more than 300 executive branch investigations or inquiries; 400 requests for documents, interviews, or testimony; we've had more than 550 officials testify; we've had more than 600 oversight hearings; 87,000-plus hours spent responding to oversight requests; and 430,000 pages made available to Congress for oversight. None of which as resulted in a single piece of legislation or criminal detection. That's pretty significant.

And, now, it appears that Congress and the White House will come to a resonating conclusion to the lifelong tension over the use of executive privilege, and it will be fought on the White House's turf. Not a very smart move by the Congress. That's right, Worst. Congress. Ever!

The House Judiciary Committee took the extreme step of recommending contempt citations for two senior administration officials after they refused to testify under subpoena regarding political advice at the White House. In a Washington Post article yesterday:

The House Judiciary Committee voted today to issue contempt citations for two of President Bush's most trusted aides, taking its most dramatic step yet towards a constitutional showdown with the White House over the Justice Department's dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys.

The panel voted 22-17, along party lines, to issue citations to Joshua B. Bolten, White House chief of staff, and Harriet E. Miers, former White House counsel. Both refused to comply with committee subpoenas after Bush declared that documents and testimony related to the prosecutor firings were protected by executive privilege. ...

Republicans on the panel argued strongly today against issuing contempt citations, and Democrats shot down two proposed GOP amendments before voting for the contempt findings.

"I believe this is an unnecessary provocation of a constitutional crisis," said Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.). "Absent showing that a crime was committed in this process, I think the White House is going to win an argument in court."
Tony Snow rather forcefully responded to this development, calling it a singular event in American history, where the legislative branch will direct the executive branch -- in the form of the federal prosecutor -- to file contempt charges against itself. The Department of Justice reminded Congress that administrations of both parties have long held that Congress has no power to issue contempt citations for claims of executive privilege. Obviously, the current leadership in Congress doesn't care.

It portends a showdown in the Supreme Court over the nature of executive privilege, and Sensenbrenner is correct. Absent any evidence of criminal conduct, the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to grant the legislative branch free rein to pursue contempt charges or to undo executive privilege. Nancy Pelosi will in all likelihood force a ruling that will firmly establish executive privilege and leave Congress with less power than it has had, after having finally called its own bluff. Way to go!

It's unfortunate that the Democrats chose to pursue this course. No one has established any criminal conduct at the Department of Justice, nor are they likely to do so by calling Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten for testimony. It's a fishing expedition in both chambers of Congress. They can conduct all of the fishing expeditions they want, but they have no right to abrogate executive privilege to do so. Absent clear evidence of criminality, the President has the right to confer with his aides without Congress demanding to know what was said -- which is the heart of executive privilege.

If the main body of Congress is foolish enough to endorse this course of action, then it will set the stage for its diminishment. Up to now, smarter leadership in the Legislature has carefully wielded the threat of contempt to compel greater cooperation on matters of national interest. In one action in a situation that amounts to little more than a sideshow for a nation at war, the Democrats will throw that leverage away on the inhospitable shores of the Supreme Court in a case where they cannot even demonstrate any criminality.

Idiots. No wonder their approval ratings are the lowest in History.

George Gervin's Afro

07-26-2007, 12:17 PM

Gonzales testified that he went to the hospital to see John Ashcroft, then the Attorney General, in part to communicate to him the consensus of Congressional leaders that a particular anti-terrorist program, whose legality was being questioned after two years of re-authorizations, should be continued. In the Washington Post story you link, they try to cast doubt on this testimony, but in fact the sources they cite make it pretty clear that Gonzales's testimony was accurate.

Then, the Associated Press tries another tack, in a story based on a leak from either Congress or the intelligence community. The AP's story is headlined "Documents Contradict Gonzales' Testimony":

This is incorrect. The terrorist surveillance program allowed interception of international communications involving a suspected terrorist, where time constraints did not permit obtaining an order.

This is wrong too. Gonzales offered to explain to the Senators in private, away from the television cameras, but they declined his invitation. I wonder why that is?

The AP reports that the leaked document, which comes from the national intelligence director's office, says that on March 10, 2004, the White House held a briefing with the Gang of Eight Congressional leaders on the terrorist surveillance program:

This document was created after controversy developed over the international terrorist surveillance program. In response, I assume, to a request from Congress, the memo lists all dates on which Congressional leaders were briefed on the TSP. This, the AP says, "contradicts Gonzales's testimony," but of course it doesn't. The memo doesn't say that the only program discussed at the meeting was the TSP, nor does it say that the TSP was the one on which the Justice Department (Ashcroft and Comey) had suddenly changed its mind, leading to the famous hospital visit. The document, as described by the AP, confirms Gonzales's testimony that he met with Congressional leaders shortly before visiting the hospital; to the extent that the AP describes it, it does not contradict the Attorney General's testimony.

This is really something of a mystery. When Comey testified before the Judiciary Committee, he refused to name the surveillance program at issue. In a previous post, I assumed it was obviously the terrorist surveillance program. But that assumption may have been wrong.

It wouldn't be hard to figure out whether the program about which DOJ changed its mind was the international terrorist surveillance program, or something else. There is a paper trail of legal memos, etc., on the subject, and a considerable number of people know the answer to the question, including at least one unimpeachable source, John Ashcroft.

Given those facts, it is hard to see why Gonzales, or anyone else, would lie about the identity of the program, as the AP accuses Gonzales of doing. It's also inexplicable why the Senate Committee wouldn't allow Gonzales to explain the discrepancy off camera and in a secure setting -- unless, of course, the committee is more interested in painting him as a liar than getting the facts.

Given Comey's refusal to name the program and Ashcroft's public reticence on the subject, the only information we have is Gonzales's testimony that it was something else. But, as I say, this is a mystery that wouldn't be hard to solve.

Now, while we're on the subject of Attorney General Gonzales, let's talk about the Congress' penchant for oversight hearings ad naseum and their unprecedented attempt to pry apart executive privilege.

As Tony Snow pointed out yesterday; during this Congress there have been more than 300 executive branch investigations or inquiries; 400 requests for documents, interviews, or testimony; we've had more than 550 officials testify; we've had more than 600 oversight hearings; 87,000-plus hours spent responding to oversight requests; and 430,000 pages made available to Congress for oversight. None of which as resulted in a single piece of legislation or criminal detection. That's pretty significant.

And, now, it appears that Congress and the White House will come to a resonating conclusion to the lifelong tension over the use of executive privilege, and it will be fought on the White House's turf. Not a very smart move by the Congress. That's right, Worst. Congress. Ever!

The House Judiciary Committee took the extreme step of recommending contempt citations for two senior administration officials after they refused to testify under subpoena regarding political advice at the White House. In a Washington Post article yesterday:

Tony Snow rather forcefully responded to this development, calling it a singular event in American history, where the legislative branch will direct the executive branch -- in the form of the federal prosecutor -- to file contempt charges against itself. The Department of Justice reminded Congress that administrations of both parties have long held that Congress has no power to issue contempt citations for claims of executive privilege. Obviously, the current leadership in Congress doesn't care.

It portends a showdown in the Supreme Court over the nature of executive privilege, and Sensenbrenner is correct. Absent any evidence of criminal conduct, the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to grant the legislative branch free rein to pursue contempt charges or to undo executive privilege. Nancy Pelosi will in all likelihood force a ruling that will firmly establish executive privilege and leave Congress with less power than it has had, after having finally called its own bluff. Way to go!

It's unfortunate that the Democrats chose to pursue this course. No one has established any criminal conduct at the Department of Justice, nor are they likely to do so by calling Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten for testimony. It's a fishing expedition in both chambers of Congress. They can conduct all of the fishing expeditions they want, but they have no right to abrogate executive privilege to do so. Absent clear evidence of criminality, the President has the right to confer with his aides without Congress demanding to know what was said -- which is the heart of executive privilege.

If the main body of Congress is foolish enough to endorse this course of action, then it will set the stage for its diminishment. Up to now, smarter leadership in the Legislature has carefully wielded the threat of contempt to compel greater cooperation on matters of national interest. In one action in a situation that amounts to little more than a sideshow for a nation at war, the Democrats will throw that leverage away on the inhospitable shores of the Supreme Court in a case where they cannot even demonstrate any criminality.

Idiots. No wonder their approval ratings are the lowest in History.

And yet all polls show Americans prefer to see dems in control... not to a good sign for the repubs...

Yonivore

07-26-2007, 12:29 PM

And yet all polls show Americans prefer to see dems in control... not to a good sign for the repubs...
What's that got to do with the thread?

George Gervin's Afro

07-26-2007, 12:42 PM

What's that got to do with the thread?

your taking shots at the dem congress being the lowest in history.. And America STILL wants them in control.. pretty patetic for your party don't you think?

Yonivore

07-26-2007, 12:48 PM

your taking shots at the dem congress being the lowest in history.. And America STILL wants them in control.. pretty patetic for your party don't you think?
Okay, resisting the GGA-like impulse to tell you to provide documentation that proves all polls show Americans prefer Dems in control, I'll wait until next November to see who America prefers.

But, thanks for picking on an insignificant point in the post and ignoring the more substantial content.

George Gervin's Afro

07-26-2007, 12:50 PM

Okay, resisting the GGA-like impulse to tell you to provide documentation that proves all polls show Americans prefer Dems in control, I'll wait until next November to see who America prefers.

But, thanks for picking on an insignificant point in the post and ignoring the more substantial content.

No problem. I'll remind you everytime you mention the Congresses low approval rating..

Yonivore

07-26-2007, 12:51 PM

No problem. I'll remind you everytime you mention the Congresses low approval rating..
D'okie dokie; whatever blows your skirt.

xrayzebra

07-26-2007, 02:29 PM

I would like to see anyone on this forum sit before any group of
folks for days on end and attempt to answer all their questions
without contradicting themselves somewhere along the line.

Of course he could have done as many dimm-o-craps and just
say: I cant recall or I have no recollection of that conversation.
He has tried to be honest in his answers.

Or maybe he should have just went to the National Archives
and stolen all the paperwork, changed it like he wanted or
destroyed it and lost his law license for a couple of years.

George Gervin's Afro

07-26-2007, 02:43 PM

xrayzebra

07-26-2007, 02:46 PM

And what are you doing, dummy?

George Gervin's Afro

07-26-2007, 02:52 PM

And what are you doing, dummy?

ray go back to sleep with your president bush pillow resting nicely under your head..

xrayzebra

07-26-2007, 03:00 PM

And you keep your little dream that Bush is the cause of all
evils. And the dimm-0-craps are the saviors of all mankind.

One thing I can always depend on. If you had a brain you
would take it out and play with it like you do with your other
play things. That would be the only use you get from it.

George Gervin's Afro

07-26-2007, 03:01 PM

xrayzebra

07-26-2007, 03:04 PM

Bush hasn't caused all evils but that idiot sure made things worse..

I got to file this statement where I can get to it later. You
really mean it? He isn't the cause of all evils?

See, even you make mis-statements. And you pick on
Gonzo..........

Wild Cobra

07-26-2007, 03:07 PM

And yet all polls show Americans prefer to see dems in control... not to a good sign for the repubs...
I didn't know that's what the polls say. How do you interpret that from approve/dissaprove? Maybe the republican voters dissaprove of how nice the republican congress is being to their opposition?

In the habbit of jumping to comclusions?

Take those colored glasses off please and keep an open ming.

boutons_

07-26-2007, 03:16 PM

Polls show that the polled trust the Congressional Dems on Iraq more than dubya.

The Exec or Congressional Repugs have lost all credibility on Iraq and on the direction of the country.

xrayzebra

07-26-2007, 03:35 PM

Polls show that the polled trust the Congressional Dems on Iraq more than dubya.

The Exec or Congressional Repugs have lost all credibility on Iraq and on the direction of the country.

Where is the link......where is the link.......where is the
link.........

Polls are taken and used as news. I really don't need a
link, don't want one.

I know who I trust and it damn well isn't a bunch of
whore's in Congress who want us to lose a war, our
freedom and and bunch of dumbass whimps like you
boutons who have already given up on us winning
anything. And never even consider what the alternatives
to us not winning. What a dumb, short memory you
have. Not even considering 9/11 two, just consider
the other attacks on us. BEFORE BUSH! You stupid,
stupid, silly people.

boutons_

07-26-2007, 04:59 PM

FBI Director Contradicts Gonzales

By LAURIE KELLMAN and LARA JAKES JORDAN
The Associated Press
Thursday, July 26, 2007; 5:18 PM

WASHINGTON -- The head of the FBI contradicted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' sworn testimony and Senate Democrats requested a perjury investigation Thursday in a fresh barrage against President Bush's embattled longtime friend and aide.

In a third blow to the Bush administration, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to compel the testimony of Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, in connection with its investigation.

"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 calling for a special counsel to investigate.

"I'm convinced that he's not telling the truth," added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

The developments marked a troubling turn for Gonzales as well as the administration, which has been on the political defensive since congressional Democrats launched an investigation seven months ago into the firings of U.S. attorneys.

That probe revealed information that Democrats have sought to weave into a pattern of improper political influence over prosecutions, of stonewalling and of deceit in sworn testimony before Congress.

The White House defiantly stuck by Gonzales and denied that FBI Director Robert S. Mueller had contradicted him.

Democrats insisted that Gonzales had been untruthful and that the White House had encouraged top aides to flout congressional subpoenas in the U.S. attorney probe.

But Gonzales took the toughest hits Thursday, when four Senate Democrats issued a list of examples of what they said was the attorney general lying to Congress under oath _ the basis for their request to Clement to appoint a special counsel to investigate.

Among the Democrats' examples of Gonzales' untruthfulness was his emphatic and repeated statement to the Judiciary Committee Tuesday that his dramatic nighttime visit to the bedside of Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004 was not related to an internal administration dispute about the president's secret warrantless eavesdropping program.

In his own sworn testimony Thursday, Mueller contradicted his boss, saying under questioning that the terrorist surveillance program (TSP) was the topic of the hospital room dispute between top Bush administration officials.

Mueller was not in the hospital room at the time of the dramatic March 10, 2004, confrontation between 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 then spoke with the ailing Ashcroft.

"Did you have an understanding that the conversation was on TSP?" asked Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas in a round of questioning that may have sounded to listeners like bureaucratic alphabet soup.

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

Jackson sought to clarify: "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.

© 2007 The Associated Press

Yonivore

07-26-2007, 05:04 PM

Mueller was not in the hospital room at the time of the dramatic March 10, 2004, confrontation between 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 then spoke with the ailing Ashcroft.

"Did you have an understanding that the conversation was on TSP?" asked Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas in a round of questioning that may have sounded to listeners like bureaucratic alphabet soup.

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

Jackson sought to clarify: "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.
Again, both Comey and Gonzales have already said it wasn't the same program.

Besides, Mueller wasn't in the room and his testimony is based on his understanding after a conversation with Ashcroft.

George Gervin's Afro

07-26-2007, 05:44 PM

George Gervin's Afro

07-26-2007, 05:47 PM

I didn't know that's what the polls say. How do you interpret that from approve/dissaprove? Maybe the republican voters dissaprove of how nice the republican congress is being to their opposition?

In the habbit of jumping to comclusions?

Take those colored glasses off please and keep an open ming.

I'm taking the same liberty yoni does..I am simply going to interpret these polls in a way that proves my point.. see the beauty in that is that I don't have to back my point up because my opinion is proof enough

Yonivore

07-26-2007, 05:56 PM

Come on Boutons The FBI director must have an agenda.. sheesh.he's john kerry all over again..
I didn't accuse the FBI Director of anything. In fact, I don't see where the FBI Director accuses AG Gonzales of anything either.

The newspaper is the one that came to the conclusion Mueller contradicted Gonzales.

Yonivore

07-26-2007, 05:57 PM

I'm taking the same liberty yoni does..I am simply going to interpret these polls in a way that proves my point.. see the beauty in that is that I don't have to back my point up because my opinion is proof enough
You'd have a point if you also showed "all the polls" that supported your interpretation.

Just how many polls are we talking about?

Wild Cobra

07-26-2007, 06:01 PM

see the beauty in that is that I don't have to back my point up because my opinion is proof enough
Continue such things and you will be deemed unreliable and put on my INGNORE list.

Shouldn't a person debate with factual intent? It's one thing to be wrong, but what you are doing constitutes a lie!

George Gervin's Afro

07-26-2007, 06:04 PM

Continue such things and you will be deemed unreliable and put on my INGNORE list.

Shouldn't a person debate with factual intent? It's one thing to be wrong, but what you are doing constitutes a lie!

f*ck you...

Now that I have calmed down... I could easily spend my time finding websites/blogs/news sources..etc.. it's common sense... So which tsp pogram is it? we have multiple ones and it seems as though congress didn't know anything about it.. so did he lie? misspeak? foget?..which is it?

Yonivore

07-26-2007, 06:05 PM

f*ck you...
You can't spell either. There's no asterisk in Fuck.

exstatic

07-26-2007, 06:48 PM

perjury -> trial -> conviction -> pardon

Doesn't any of this look familiar? If it doesn't, it will soon.

Cant_Be_Faded

07-26-2007, 07:20 PM

This guy's a bigger disgrace to the race than Clandestino.

Nbadan

07-26-2007, 11:22 PM

Tom Daschle, one of the gang of 8, must be lying too...

Daschle: Gonzales Trying to "Rewrite History" by Blaming Congress for Ashcroft Spying Crisis
By Spencer Ackerman - July 24, 2007, 6:05 PM

Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader who received briefings on the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance programs, says Alberto Gonzales isn't telling the truth about what Senate and House leaders were told in March 2004 about the program's utility and legality.

In testimony today to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales attempted to give "context" for his infamous hospital trip to a convalescent John Ashcroft on March 10, 2004, after acting attorney general James Comey refused to authorize the surveillance program. It was only after a briefing for the so-called "Gang of Eight" bipartisan congressional leaders demanded that the program continue, Gonzales said, that he and then-White House chief of staff went to "inform" Ashcroft of the Gang's wishes.

Daschle was one of that Gang of Eight. In a statement e-mailed to TPMmuckraker, he all but calls Gonzales a liar.

"I have no recollection of such a meeting and believe that it didn't occur. I am quite certain that at no time did we encourage the AG or anyone else to take such actions. This appears to be another attempt to rewrite history just as they have attempted to do with the war resolution."

Daschle's statement bolsters one that his former Gang of Eight colleague, Senate intelligence committee chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), gave to Dan Eggen of the Washington Post: Gonzales is "once again is making something up to protect himself," Rockefeller

TMC (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003768.php)

Yonivore

07-26-2007, 11:32 PM

Tom Daschle, one of the gang of 8, must be lying too...
Was his mouth moving?

Yonivore

07-27-2007, 11:38 AM

Since the NSA Surveillance program is back in the news, this makes it a good time to review the sad history of how Democratic partisanship has damaged this program, and thereby impaired our national security.

The NSA program was set up shortly after September 11, 2001. The Justice Department issued an opinion that the program was legal, and authorized it to begin. Those authorizations continued for a period of years. The Republican and Democratic leaders of both the House and the Senate, and the senior members of the intelligence committees of both chambers, were aware of the program and approved of it.

Then, in late 2005, the New York Times, acting on information leaked from intelligence sources, exposed the program to al Qaeda and our other terrorist enemies. This changed the political calculus for the Democrats. They now saw an opportunity to use the program to attack the Bush administration, and did so. They took no responsibility for their former approval of the program, nor did they acknowledge that the program was consistent with multiple Federal Court decisions and had been certified as legal by the Department of Justice.

As a concession to the Democrats, the administration agreed, at the beginning of this year, to put the program under the jurisdiction of the FISA court. (Previously, the policy had been to obtain FISA orders when possible, but to rely on the President's constitutional authority to carry out warrantless surveillance for national security purposes where time constraints or other factors made it impractical to obtain such an order.) Today, the Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010389) brings us up to date on what has been happening as a result:

This [agreeing to use FISA for foreign intelligence matters] has turned out to be an enormous mistake that has unilaterally disarmed one of our best intelligence weapons in the war on terror. To understand why, keep in mind that we live in a world of fiber optics and packet-switching. A wiretap today doesn't mean the FBI must install a bug on Abdul Terrorist's phone in Peshawar. Information now follows the path of least resistance, wherever that may lead. And because the U.S. has among the world's most efficient networks, hundreds of millions of foreign calls are routed through the U.S.

That's right: If an al Qaeda operative in Quetta calls a fellow jihadi in Peshawar, that call may well travel through a U.S. network. This ought to be a big U.S. advantage in our "asymmetrical" conflict with terrorists. But it also means that, for the purposes of FISA, a foreign call that is routed through U.S. networks becomes a domestic call. So thanks to the obligation to abide by an outdated FISA statute, U.S. intelligence is now struggling even to tap the communications of foreign-based terrorists. If this makes you furious, it gets worse.

Our understanding is that some FISA judges have been open to expediting warrants, as well as granting retroactive approval. But there are 11 judges in the FISA rotation, and some of them have been demanding that intelligence officials get permission in advance for wiretaps. This means missed opportunities and less effective intelligence. And it shows once again why the decisions of unaccountable judges shouldn't be allowed to supplant those of an elected Commander in Chief.

When the program began, certain U.S. telecom companies also cooperated with the National Security Agency. But they were sued once the program was exposed, and so some have ceased cooperating for fear of damaging liability claims. We found all of this hard to believe when we first heard it, but we've since confirmed the details with other high-level sources.

Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell more or less admitted the problem last week, albeit obliquely, when he told the Senate that "we're actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting." That's understating things. Our sources say the surveillance program is now at most one-third as effective as it once was.
The administration has introduced legislation to modernize FISA and to give immunity to telecom companies who cooperate in terrorist surveillance, but the Democrats have blocked the legislation.

This is an infuriating story, and one that highlights the situation we currently face in Washington, where one party consistently puts its own political interests ahead of the national security of the United States.

boutons_

07-27-2007, 06:22 PM

http://www.uclick.com/feature/07/07/27/tt070727.gif

George Gervin's Afro

07-27-2007, 07:07 PM

Yonivore

07-27-2007, 07:36 PM

you can still tap the lines at the time of the calls.. you can get a warrant after the fact... sheesh
Your poor reading skills caused you to, again, overlook an important bit of information.

But there are 11 judges in the FISA rotation, and some of them have been demanding that intelligence officials get permission in advance for wiretaps.

Yonivore

07-27-2007, 09:48 PM

Today Tony Snow told the White House press corps (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070727-8.html) that what Attorney General Roberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee was correct: there was no disagreement in the Justice Department about the "terrorist surveillance program" which President Bush described to the American people in 2005. There was controversy, but that was over a different set of intelligence activities:

The terrorist surveillance program, as it has been labeled -- it was not so labeled at the time -- was a program of doing surveillance on communications of al Qaeda or suspected al Qaeda members internationally -- internationally into the United States. The legal basis of that was accepted by the Department of Justice, and it was not a matter of controversy. To the extent that there were controversies on -- there are many different things that involve the gathering or use of intelligence; some of those may, in fact, themselves have been subjects of controversy, there were controversies about those. It is also the case that whatever controversy had been raised by the then acting Attorney General had been resolved. And that is something that he has said publicly.
That seems pretty simple, but what is striking about the transcript of the press gaggle is the dim-wittedness of the reporters. It is hard to understand how well-paid professionals (I assume) can fail to follow such a simple point. One reporter went so far as to say that Snow was "contradicting himself" by drawing a distinction between the "terrorist surveillance program" and other intelligence activities. It's an interesting window into the thinking, or lack thereof, of the White House press corps.

In fairness to the journalists, however, they didn't go as wild as the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee when they interrogated Gonzales earlier this week. That transcript is here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/goodling_testimony_052307.html). It's hard sometimes to tell the Democratic Senators from the protesters. If the Senators went any wilder, they'd be raising their shirts in exchange for beads.

Worst of all was Chuck Schumer, who made a show of pretending to misunderstand the basic facts that Gonzales told him. Given the anti-Gonzales tone of the press coverage, it is interesting to read what the Attorney General actually had to say. Here, he describes the hospital interview with then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, and what led up to it:

The 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.

There was also consensus that it would be very, very difficult to obtain legislation without compromising this program, but that we should look for a way ahead.

It is for this reason that within a matter of hours Andy Card and I went to the hospital. We felt it important that the attorney general knew about the views and the recommendations of the congressional leadership, that as a former member of Congress and as someone who had authorized these activities for over two years that it might be important for him to hear this information.

That was the reason that Mr. Card and I went to the hospital.

Obviously, we were concerned about the condition of General Ashcroft. We obviously knew he had been ill and had surgery. And we never had any intent to ask anything of him if we did not feel that he was competent.

When we got there, I will just say that Mr. Ashcroft did most of the talking. We were there maybe five minutes -- five to six minutes.

Mr. Ashcroft talked about the legal issues in a lucid form, as I've heard him talk about legal issues in the White House. But 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.

And so I just wanted to put in context for this committee and the American people why Mr. Card and I went. It's because we had an emergency meeting in the White House Situation Room, where the congressional leadership had told us, "Continue going forward with this very important intelligence activity."
Gonzales could see that some of the Senators were confused, and he offered to explain to them where the controversy resided, and why it was different from the "terrorist surveillance program" that President Bush had publicly disclosed. Of course, this would have to be done in closed session, since it involved disclosure of classified information:

Going back to the question about your credibility on whether there was dissent within the administration as to the terrorist surveillance program, was there any distinction between the terrorist surveillance program in existence on March 10th, when you and the chief of staff went to see Attorney General Ashcroft, contrasted with the terrorist surveillance program which President Bush made public in December of 2005?

Senator, this is a question that I should answer in a classified setting, quite frankly, because now you're asking me to hint or talk -- to hint about our operational activities. And I'd be happy to answer that question, but in a classified setting.
The Senators declined Gonzales's invitation. That tells you everything you need to know: they are not interested in learning the truth, but only in seeking political advantage. Finally, we have this colloquy between Schumer and Pat Leahy, who are sputtering over Gonzales's testimony that the controversial program was something other than the TSP:

But, Mr. Chairman, if I might, now what the attorney general is saying the way this is clarified is that Jim Comey was not talking about the program the president...

I'm going to ask for a review of the transcript, both of what Mr. Comey said...

Everyone knows that's not true.

... and what Mr. Gonzales said. There's a discrepancy here in sworn testimony. We're going to have to ask who's telling the truth, who's not.
Actually, Schumer and Leahy were wrong. There is no discrepancy between what Gonzales said and what Comey testified (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/washington/15cnd-attorneys.html?ei=5070&en=c446b837c0bf42d3&ex=1185681600&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1185590538-Mo4+cGH1xYHtq+rywJ8vRg) to.

Although Mr. Comey declined to say specifically what the business was that sent Mr. Gonzales to the bedside of Mr. Ashcroft in George Washington University Hospital, where he lay critically ill with pancreatitis, it was clear that the subject was the National Security Agency’s secret domestic surveillance program.
If, in fact, the NSA Surveillance program had already been copped to by the President -- after the New York Times published it's existence, based on leaks -- why would Comey decline to say that's what they were talking about?

At the time, both the Times and I just assumed it was the NSA Program we've all come to know and love but, it now appears that may not be the case at all.

Maybe a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate Schumer and Leahy.

Wild Cobra

07-28-2007, 05:57 AM

You know what I see as absolutely un-American about this ordeal...

Gonzales’s testimony is purposely being taken to disagree with an FBI agents testimony. You know it's a clear witch-hunt and the basis for a drum-head trial when they are bow investigating Gonzales for perjury, and not the FBI agent. Isn't it possible that a discrepancy is on his part?

You liberal idiots should note this... Isn't it clear that the demonrats aren't concerned about the truth? They just want to use legal tools for destruction. They are Lawful-Evil!

You liberals want the evil types running our country?

boutons_

07-28-2007, 09:46 AM

xrayzebra

07-28-2007, 10:06 AM

"investigating Gonzales for perjury"

Gonzalez has created a climate of distrust around himself (contributing to the long-established, total absence of credibility around this Exec) with his obscure, misleading, self-contradicting, don't-remember, etc, etc testimonies that has really pissed off both the Dems and Repug lawmakers. And is the fault of "evil" Congress?

Have you noted the condemning silence of Congressional Repugs?
NONE of them are defending Gonzalez.

No boutons you are wrong as two left feet. It is the
dimm-o-craps who are creating a climate of distrust in
this country in every way they can. Their only agenda is
to gain power by destroying every vestige of any
resistance to their agenda. You folks who support their
efforts will rue the day. You most assuredly will. Mark
my word. When the very fabric of this country has been
ripped and torn to shreds by the extremist of the
dimm-o-craptic party and they have regained absolute
power then they may, just may, I am not sure that will
even satisfy their appetite, because the dimm-o-craps
are made up of so many factions of extremist that they
in fighting may destroy in toto the country as a nation.

Yonivore

07-28-2007, 10:39 AM

What I find completely laughable in all this is that Congress isn't even conducting their constitutional duties. They've failed to legislate, they've insinuated themselves into the Executive through hearing and investigations that have no legislative or oversight purpose -- other than to discover if they can find something, they don't know what, over which they can impeach someone (hopefully the president)

Now, in another extraconstitutional move, you've got Chuckie Schumer talking about abrogating yet another responsibility -- one they hope to institute without the customary ratification process normally required to amend our guiding document.

Senator Charles Shumer announced today that democrats will oppose the Constitution.

The Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5146.html) reported:

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.
Here we have Schumer announcing that democrats will change Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2) and take over the responsibility of appointing justices to the Supreme Court.

And, Congressional democrats wonder why they have the lowest approval ratings on record (http://www.dailymail.com/story/Opinion/2007072075/Don-Surber-Democrats-achieve-14-percent-approval/)?

With all the rhetoric from the left about how Bush is trashing the constitution, without so much as one shred of evidence, it would seem they would be equally outraged by an overt attempt to do the same by Democrats. Oh wait, what the fuck am I saying!?! :lmao

boutons_

07-28-2007, 12:39 PM

Gonzo's bullshitting before Congress is more than just the TSA stuff:

With Gonzales Under Fire, FBI Violation Gains Notice
Senator Says '04 Case Adds to Concerns About Candor

By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A03

Two weeks before President Bush won reelection in 2004, the FBI sent a rare report to its overseers: One of its agents had engaged in a willful and intentional violation of a law by improperly collecting financial records during a national security investigation.

The FBI concluded that the actions of the rookie agent amounted to "intelligence activities that . . . may be unlawful or contrary to executive order or presidential directive," according to a declassified memo from Oct. 21, 2004.

The incident was deemed serious enough for the bureau to notify both the President's Intelligence Oversight Board and the Justice Department, and to consider punishing the agent.

The violation was the only one after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the FBI has specifically flagged as intentional. But it has attracted fresh attention because Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified six months later that no "verified case of civil liberties abuse" had occurred since the USA Patriot Act was enacted.

Gonzales told senators this week that his use of the word "abuse" was meant to narrowly refer only to intentional violations. "My view and the views of other leadership in the department is, in fact, when we're talking about abuses of the Patriot Act, we're talking about intentional, deliberate misuse of the Patriot Act," he testified Tuesday in explaining his 2005 remarks.

Gonzales was not the attorney general in October 2004, when Justice Department officials were informed about the FBI agent's intentional violation. But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said yesterday that the existence of the notification has added to concerns that Gonzales has not been fully candid in his testimony.

"Oversight by Congress to minimize abuse of government's power relies on full and honest answers from government officials," particularly with regard to Patriot Act matters, Leahy said in a statement. "Time and again this Attorney General has not met that obligation."

The issue of what Gonzales knew of FBI violations and when arose this month, when The Washington Post reported that the FBI had sent him at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations before he gave his 2005 testimony.

In total, the FBI has told the White House and the Justice Department about a few hundred instances since 2001 in which its agents violated procedures or laws designed to protect the civil liberties and privacy of Americans. Most of the problems involved paperwork mistakes, the inadvertent collection of phone data for the wrong person or the collection of data past a legal deadline, officials have said.

Officials said the 2004 violation stands out because it is the sole occasion on which the FBI itself concluded that an agent intentionally violated safeguards on the use of national security letters, investigative tools that allow agents to gather phone, computer or bank records without court approval or a grand jury subpoena.

When the use of the letters was expanded by the Patriot Act, Congress decided that the tools could be used to gather the full credit reports of Americans in investigations related only to terrorism. In addition, agents seeking financial records are required to obtain the written approval of a senior supervisor with special authority for national security letters.

In the October 2004 case, the bureau concluded that a young agent acted on her own in gathering financial records without the approval of a high-ranking official, violating both bureau policy and the Right to Financial Privacy Act. The act blocks bank records from being accessed by government agencies without proper legal authority.

"In this instance the conduct . . . was wilful and intentional even though she did not realize that she had acted in contravention of the RFPA and Bureau policy," the October 2004 report said. "It should also be noted that SA [name redacted] was at the time a probationary agent."

"This matter has been referred to the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility for such actions as may be appropriate," FBI Deputy Counsel Julie Thomas wrote to the presidential board charged with civilian oversight of the legality of U.S. intelligence activities. The bureau said yesterday that the agent was subsequently disciplined.

Details of what the investigation involved and which documents were gathered were redacted from the copy of the memo that the bureau released publicly.

"The fact that the FBI considers this intentional and willful behavior speaks volumes," said Marcia Hofmann, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which helped win the release this summer of FBI documents related to national security letters. "This is not a situation where a civil liberty group is putting that label on the conduct. It is the FBI itself, and I think the attorney general should have taken that very seriously."

The Justice Department said it stands by what Gonzales said in his initial testimony. "The Justice Department has routinely provided Congress with reports of intelligence collection mistakes and errors, and thus the Attorney General's testimony could not fairly be understood as a representation that such mistakes had not occurred since the passage of the Patriot Act," spokesman Dean Boyd said in a statement.

White House press secretary Tony Snow, responding to calls from some lawmakers for Gonzales to step down, reaffirmed yesterday that Bush still supports him. Although some lawmakers have said Gonzales misled them in testimony about another matter -- the administration's warrantless surveillance program -- Snow said Gonzales testified truthfully about that and "tried to be very accurate.

A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, accused Democrats of being on a "crusade" to destroy the attorney general.

( just as the Repugs did to the Clinton's in the 1990's)

Meanwhile, an internal Justice Department inquiry is looking into whether anyone involved in past abuses of national security letters or related tools called "exigent circumstances" letters should be held criminally or administratively liable.

Its Office of Professional Responsibility is reviewing whether lawyers in the FBI's national security law office -- who are responsible for ensuring that agents comply with the law -- failed to perform their job.

================

You dubya suckers carry on with your blind trust in this Exec. Nobody has any grounds not believe every syllable these assholes utter.

xrayzebra

07-29-2007, 10:27 AM

You are right boutons, and we don't believe every syllable the
administration utter. Nor do we believe every syllable the
dimm-o-craps utter. But taken on a whole, the Republicans are
much more truthful than the dimm-o-craps. And the Republicans
are doing something to protect the country rather than declaring
our surrender to our enemy and wanting a terrorist bill of rights.
You know like the wonderful world of the New York Times
intelligence apparatus that gives our secrets to our enemies
via leaks from the dimm-o-craptic party

Yonivore

07-29-2007, 11:17 AM

Yesterday's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/washington/29nsa.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1185656685-Vi8PyexwFG6iLSijup8Thw) filled in the blanks on Alberto Gonzales's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. As has already been discussed, Gonzales testified that he had visited John Ashcroft in the hospital to try to resolve a legal dispute that had developed over an intelligence program, but -- as he testified -- that the program in question was not the "terrorist surveillance program" that had been confirmed by President Bush, i.e., the interception of international communications where one participant is associated with al Qaeda. About that program, Gonzales said there had been no serious legal question.

This testimony was met with incredulity by the Senators. "Do you expect us to believe that?" Arlen Spector asked. Committee members Schumer and Leahy flatly accused Gonzales of lying, and called for a special prosecutor to carry out a perjury investigation. One thing I could never understand was why anyone cares: what difference would it make if Gonzales's hospital visit related to the "terrorist surveillance program," or to some other intelligence activity? And what reason would Gonzales have to lie about that fact?

Well, yesterday, the Times confirms that Gonzales told the truth. The legal dispute that broke out in 2004 was about the NSA's "data mining" project, in which databases of telephone records were reviewed for patterns suggestive of terrorist cells:

A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program.
It is not known precisely why searching the databases, or data mining, raised such a furious legal debate. But such databases contain records of the phone calls and e-mail messages of millions of Americans, and their examination by the government would raise privacy issues.
What's comical about the Times' reporting is that the paper can't bring itself to acknowledge that this means Gonzales has been vindicated:

If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct.
First, this paragraph of "analysis" is contradicted by the reporting contained in the same article, which doesn't say that the dispute was "chiefly" about data mining. It says it was about data mining, period. Further, there is nothing "narrowly crafted," "legalistic" or "technically correct" about Gonzales's testimony. It was truthful and fully accurate. He said that the legal controversy did not involve the program that was confirmed by President Bush, in which international communications where one party was associated with al Qaeda were intercepted. That is exactly what the Times reported today. The controversy involved a completely different program, which has been rumored but which the administration has never publicly confirmed. Yet the Times cannot bring itself to admit that Gonzales has been vindicated, and the Senators who called for a perjury investigation have been made to look foolish.

The Times adds to the anti-Gonzales tone of its article by mixing in a little false reporting. The paper says:

Mr. Gonzales defended the surveillance in an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006, saying there had been no internal dispute about its legality. He told the senators: “There has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into.”

Mr. Gonzales’s 2006 testimony went unchallenged publicly until May of this year, when James B. Comey, the former deputy attorney general, described the March 2004 confrontation to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Comey had refused to sign a reauthorization for the N.S.A. program when he was standing in for Mr. Ashcroft, who was hospitalized for gall bladder surgery.
In fact, James Comey's testimony did not contradict Gonzales's. As I have pointed out repeatedly, Comey refused to identify the program over which there was a legal disagreement that led to the hospital visit. He did not, contrary to the Times's assertion, challenge or contradict Gonzales's testimony that "[t]here has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into.”

The fact is that the Senators who ridiculed Gonzales, questioned his credibility and called for a perjury investigation were wrong -- particularly in light of the fact he offered to go into closed session and explain the difference to them. They owe the Attorney General an apology.

boutons_

07-29-2007, 04:19 PM

http://www.uclick.com/feature/07/07/28/jd070728.gif

http://www.uclick.com/feature/07/07/28/bs070728.gif

peewee's lovechild

07-29-2007, 07:14 PM

You liberals want the evil types running our country?

Is that the same as having people with corrupt ties to the oil industry lead our country to a war with a country that has large amounts of oil deposits??

I think the evil types are already running our country.
Most of us want to change that.

peewee's lovechild

07-29-2007, 07:17 PM

No boutons you are wrong as two left feet. It is the
dimm-o-craps who are creating a climate of distrust in
this country in every way they can. Their only agenda is
to gain power by destroying every vestige of any
resistance to their agenda. You folks who support their
efforts will rue the day. You most assuredly will. Mark
my word. When the very fabric of this country has been
ripped and torn to shreds by the extremist of the
dimm-o-craptic party and they have regained absolute
power then they may, just may, I am not sure that will
even satisfy their appetite, because the dimm-o-craps
are made up of so many factions of extremist that they
in fighting may destroy in toto the country as a nation.

This comment makes so much sense because our country went through 8 years of Democratic leadership under Bill Clinton and our society was ripped to shreds and the country had to start all over again and the extremists took over and all was lost and . . . . . . . .

peewee's lovechild

07-29-2007, 07:26 PM

You are right boutons, and we don't believe every syllable the administration utter. Nor do we believe every syllable the
dimm-o-craps utter. But taken on a whole, the Republicans are
much more truthful than the dimm-o-craps.

That implies that they do lie, and that you accept that they lie.
So, basically you're defending liars.
What's the point in that?

And the Republicans are doing something to protect the country rather than declaring our surrender to our enemy and wanting a terrorist bill of rights.
You know like the wonderful world of the New York Times
intelligence apparatus that gives our secrets to our enemies
via leaks from the dimm-o-craptic party

You are an absolute, paranoid idiot if you think the Dems, or any other party for that matter, are actually trying to get any type of enemy to come over here and wipe us out.

If you truly believe that, then maybe you should think about moving to a "safe" country where everyone gets along and political parties are always cordial with each other.

George Gervin's Afro

07-29-2007, 07:32 PM

That implies that they do lie, and that you accept that they lie.
So, basically you're defending liars.
What's the point in that?

You are an absolute, paranoid idiot if you think the Dems, or any other party for that matter, are actually trying to get any type of enemy to come over here and wipe us out.

If you truly believe that, then maybe you should think about moving to a "safe" country where everyone gets along and political parties are always cordial with each other.

He believes everyword he writes...he fears the 'dimmo-crap-tic' party more than the terrorists..

peewee's lovechild

07-29-2007, 07:37 PM

I know who I trust and it damn well isn't a bunch of
whore's in Congress who want us to lose a war, our
freedom and and bunch of dumbass whimps like you
boutons who have already given up on us winning
anything. And never even consider what the alternatives
to us not winning. What a dumb, short memory you
have. Not even considering 9/11 two, just consider
the other attacks on us. BEFORE BUSH! You stupid,
stupid, silly people.

Paranoia will destroy 'ya!!!

There's a little war we fought that you should read up on. It was known as "Vietnam". We went, fought, killed, got killed, spent money, spent lives, aaaaaaaaaaaand then we came home. We didn't win, we didn't lose (we could never call it that) . . . it was a bit of a stalemate.

But, our country didn't die. Our society didn't implode. We did look like asses, but that didn't kill our country.

What we did lose was credibility. We regained some, especially when the Iron Curtain fell, but it seems that we have lost it all over again. But now, with the Gonzalez allegations and other recent occurances that are traced to the current administration, it's a loss of credibility within our own country.

That will all soon be resolved with the new elections.

The American society has already spoken by making a change in Congress, now we have to see what our society says about the direction of our country.

peewee's lovechild

07-29-2007, 07:38 PM

He believes everyword he writes...he fears the 'dimmo-crap-tic' party more than the terrorists..

That is pretty damn sad.

boutons_

07-29-2007, 07:48 PM

The number of justices is NOT fixed. It has been as low as 6, as high a 10. A capsule history:

July 26, 2007

Op-Ed Contributor

Stacking the Court

By JEAN EDWARD SMITH

Huntington, W.Va.

WHEN a majority of Supreme Court justices adopt a manifestly ideological agenda, it plunges the court into the vortex of American politics. If the Roberts court has entered voluntarily what Justice Felix Frankfurter once called the “political thicket,” it may require a political solution to set it straight.

The framers of the Constitution did not envisage the Supreme Court as arbiter of all national issues. As Chief Justice John Marshall made clear in Marbury v. Madison, the court’s authority extends only to legal issues.

When the court overreaches, the Constitution provides checks and balances. In 1805, after persistent political activity by Justice Samuel Chase, Congress responded with its power of impeachment. Chase was acquitted, but never again did he step across the line to mingle law and politics. After the Civil War, when a Republican Congress feared the court might tamper with Reconstruction in the South, it removed those questions from the court’s appellate jurisdiction.

But the method most frequently employed to bring the court to heel has been increasing or decreasing its membership. The size of the Supreme Court is not fixed by the Constitution. It is determined by Congress.

The original Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number of justices at six. When the Federalists were defeated in 1800, the lame-duck Congress reduced the size of the court to five hoping to deprive President Jefferson of an appointment. The incoming Democratic Congress repealed the Federalist measure (leaving the number at six), and then in 1807 increased the size of the court to seven, giving Jefferson an additional appointment.

In 1837, the number was increased to nine, affording the Democrat Andrew Jackson two additional appointments. During the Civil War, to insure an anti-slavery, pro-Union majority on the bench, the court was increased to 10. When a Democrat, Andrew Johnson, became president upon Lincoln’s death, a Republican Congress voted to reduce the size to seven (achieved by attrition) to guarantee Johnson would have no appointments.

After Ulysses S. Grant was elected in 1868, Congress restored the court to nine. That gave Grant two new appointments. The court had just declared unconstitutional the government’s authority to issue paper currency (greenbacks). Grant took the opportunity to appoint two justices sympathetic to the administration. When the reconstituted court convened, it reheard the legal tender cases and reversed its decision (5-4).

The most recent attempt to alter the size of the court was by Franklin Roosevelt in 1937. But instead of simply requesting that Congress add an additional justice or two, Roosevelt’s convoluted scheme fooled no one and ultimately sank under its own weight.

Roosevelt claimed the justices were too old to keep up with the workload, and urged that for every justice who reached the age of 70 and did not retire within six months, the president should be able to appoint a younger justice to help out. Six of the Supreme Court justices in 1937 were older than 70. But the court was not behind in its docket, and Roosevelt’s subterfuge was exposed. In the Senate, the president could muster only 20 supporters.

Still, there is nothing sacrosanct about having nine justices on the Supreme Court. Roosevelt’s 1937 chicanery has given court-packing a bad name, but it is a hallowed American political tradition participated in by Republicans and Democrats alike.

If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant.

Jean Edward Smith is the author, most recently, of “F.D.R.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/opinion/26smith.html

Wild Cobra

07-30-2007, 04:05 AM

Is that the same as having people with corrupt ties to the oil industry lead our country to a war with a country that has large amounts of oil deposits??
You have absolutely no evidence of that. Just circumstantial ties that have assumed results.

I think the evil types are already running our country.
Most of us want to change that.
Show me an alleged evil act that doesn't have a valid reason. You cannot!

boutons_

07-30-2007, 09:00 AM

Gonzales's Truthfulness Long Disputed

Claims of Misstatements to Shield Bush Stretch Back a Decade

By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 30, 2007; A01

When Alberto R. Gonzales was asked during his January 2005 confirmation hearing whether the Bush administration would ever allow wiretapping of U.S. citizens without warrants, he initially dismissed the query as a "hypothetical situation."

But when Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) pressed him further, Gonzales declared: "It is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes."

By then, however, the government had been conducting a secret wiretapping program for more than three years without court oversight, possibly in conflict with federal intelligence laws. Gonzales had personally defended the effort in fierce internal debates. Feingold later called his testimony that day "misleading and deeply troubling."

The accusation that Gonzales has been deceptive in his public remarks has erupted this summer into a full-blown political crisis for the Bush administration, as the beleaguered attorney general struggles repeatedly to explain to Congress the removal of a batch of U.S. attorneys, the wiretapping program and other actions.

In each case, Gonzales has appeared to lawmakers to be shielding uncomfortable facts about the Bush administration's conduct on sensitive matters. A series of misstatements and omissions has come to define his tenure at the helm of the Justice Department and is the central reason that lawmakers in both parties have been trying for months to push him out of his job.

Yet controversy over Gonzales's candor about George W. Bush's conduct or policies has actually dogged him for more than a decade, since he worked for Bush in Texas.

Whether Gonzales has deliberately told untruths or is merely hampered by his memory has been the subject of intense debate among members of Congress, legal scholars and others who have watched him over the years. Some regard his verbal difficulties as a strategic ploy on behalf of a president to whom he owes his career; others see a public official overwhelmed by the magnitude of his responsibilities.

( other than Yoni and WC, does ANYBODY see Gonzo as competent, professional government employee and skilled administrator of the DoJ? He's exactly the kind of weasal-wording, scumbag lawyer that typifis the profession )

Administration officials say Gonzales's enemies are distorting his words for political gain. The Justice Department has portrayed the criticism as unavoidable and a matter of routine misunderstanding, provoked by the attorney general's presence at a "friction point between the executive branch and Congress when it comes to national security policy," as spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Friday.

Gonzales told senators earlier this year that allegations that he had been untruthful "have been personally very painful to me." But Gonzales's critics on and off Capitol Hill say he has had trouble with the truth for more than a decade, pointing to a controversy over Gonzales's account of why Bush was excused from jury duty in 1996 while serving as the governor of Texas.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who joined other Democrats last week in calling for an inquiry into possible perjury by Gonzales, said Friday that "most public servants -- Democratic or Republican, conservative, moderate or liberal -- seem to want to try to tell the truth. . . . With Gonzales, whatever answer fits he will tell, whether it's true or not. It almost seems pathological."

Over the past 2 1/2 years, lawmakers have accused Gonzales of dissembling on many topics, including civil liberties abuses under the USA Patriot Act and his role in reviewing aggressive interrogation tactics. After a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in February 2006, Gonzales sent the panel a six-page, single-spaced letter to "clarify" six major points of testimony, including his erroneous claim that the Justice Department had never undertaken a legal analysis of domestic wiretapping.

But scrutiny of Gonzales increased dramatically this year as a result of Democrats' aggressive investigations into the Justice Department's firings of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006. Gonzales has particularly come under fire for his shifting explanations of his role in the dismissals and for his statements that he could not recall a host of details about the firings.

At a Senate hearing in April, for example, Gonzales said more than 60 times that he could not recall events or facts related to the firings, including a final, high-level meeting in his office at which the dismissal plan was formally approved.

Democrats and some experts on the use of language say that Gonzales's gaffes are too numerous and consistent to be chalked up to misunderstandings. In most instances, his answers, or his refusals to answer, have served to obscure events that would be damaging to the administration, Gonzales or Bush.

One example involves the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which allowed the National Security Agency to monitor telephone calls between the United States and overseas in which one party had been tied to al-Qaeda. Gonzales has testified repeatedly that there was never "serious disagreement" among administration officials about the program and that an unusual visit by Gonzales to the hospital bed of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was focused on "other intelligence activities."

But FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III testified last week that the NSA program was the subject of a fierce debate within the administration and was the issue under discussion during the hospital visit.

Gonzales and his aides say the differing accounts boil down to a dispute over terminology: Gonzales was referring only to the surveillance program in the precise form that was confirmed publicly by Bush.

A news account yesterday said that the legal wrangling was about an effort to mine databases for sensitive information, which was linked to the NSA program but not acknowledged by Bush. That suggests that Gonzales's description might have been technically accurate.

But others privy to details of the surveillance activities -- including several lawmakers and Mueller -- have suggested that they were all part of a single NSA program. Gonzales's critics say his distinction was a lawyerly one that stretched the bounds of the truth.

"He's a slippery fellow, and I think so intentionally," said Richard L. Schott, a professor at the University of Texas's Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. "He's trying to keep the president's secrets and to be a team player, even if it means prevaricating or forgetting convenient things."

"This almost subconscious bond of loyalty" between the attorney general and the president "may be driving a lot of this," said Schott, who has studied relations between the executive and legislative branches of government and the role of psychology in political behavior. "It's obvious that Gonzales owes Bush his career. Part of his behavior comes from this gratitude and extreme loyalty to Bush."

Bill Minutaglio, a University of Texas journalism professor and author of biographies of Gonzales and Bush, said Gonzales kept an "extremely, extremely low profile" in the three jobs Bush gave him in the Texas government -- general counsel, secretary of state and judge on the Supreme Court -- and had little practice before he came to Washington at responding publicly to stiff scrutiny. "The grilling he's enduring right now is beyond anything he had ever experienced in his life. He was ill prepared for it," Minutaglio said.

Gonzales has irritated congressional Democrats, and a few Republicans, by saying that he is responsible for decisions made within the Justice Department but distancing himself from the process that led to the prosecutor firings. At the April hearing, he said a dozen times that he accepted responsibility. But he also has told Congress that he did not know who placed the names of prosecutors on the firing list, and he has pinned much of the responsibility on his outgoing deputy, Paul J. McNulty, who has said he was only marginally involved.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) told Gonzales at the hearing that much of his testimony was "a stretch," and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said he was "taken aback" by Gonzales's memory lapses. Last week, Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the Judiciary Committee's senior Republican, warned Gonzales to review his remarks, saying: "I do not find your testimony credible, candidly."

Deborah Tannen, a professor of linguistics at Georgetown University who has written about the confrontational character of dialogue in public life, said Gonzales's responses to grilling by lawmakers are an extreme example of a rhetorical style that many politicians adopt when they get into trouble. Although accepting responsibility, she said, they "very explicitly stop short of, 'I made a mistake. I'm at fault.' "

Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at the New York University School of Law, said that Gonzales's strengths "may lie elsewhere, but they are not in management."

"The idea that nine U.S. attorneys could be fired and the head of the department is only casually in the loop -- it is preposterous that a manager would let that happen." Gillers also said he thinks that Gonzales has exacerbated his problems because "when the inconsistencies are pointed out, he refuses to back down," adding: "He is digging himself deeper and deeper into a hole."

Questions about Gonzales's willingness to shade the truth on Bush's behalf came to prominence in the 1996 episode in which Bush was excused from Texas jury duty in a drunken-driving case. Bush was then the state's governor, and Gonzales was his general counsel. If Bush had served, he probably would have had to disclose his own drunken-driving conviction in Maine two decades earlier.

The judge, prosecutor and defense attorney involved in the case have said that Gonzales met with the judge and argued that jury service would pose a potential conflict of interest for Bush, who could be asked to pardon the defendant. Gonzales has disputed that account. He made no mention of meeting with the judge in a written statement submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

==================

Gonzalez is living indictment, a "quality indicator", of the scumbags in the dubya and dickhead Exec.

George Gervin's Afro

07-30-2007, 09:14 AM

As I have mentioned already I cannot fathom anyone wanting our govt to doing things in complete secrecy. Any administration wanting these powers should be checked or balanced by some type of oversight. This isn't a right vs left rather it's an American issue. Of course the administration follow- alongs will deride this as an attack on Bush...

DarkReign

07-30-2007, 10:00 AM

As I have mentioned already I cannot fathom anyone wanting our govt to doing things in complete secrecy.

So, I take it you missed Yoni's "Dictator for a Year" post?

It tells you everything you wanted to know about him, why he supports the President so fervently. He wants totalitarianism, he wants an oppressive state, fill the courts with new "moral crime" legislation and hes not quiet about what dissension means to him and how it should be dealt with.

Because he knows he wouldnt be persecuted under such circumstance. Of course, alot of people he knows and loves would, but theyre just casualties for the cause.

Methinks Yoni has a very idealized view on the world and how it should be by any means necessary, but the actual implementation of any such system would haunt him...he just doesnt know it.

Yonivore

07-30-2007, 10:44 AM

So, I take it you missed Yoni's "Dictator for a Year" post?

It tells you everything you wanted to know about him, why he supports the President so fervently. He wants totalitarianism, he wants an oppressive state, fill the courts with new "moral crime" legislation and hes not quiet about what dissension means to him and how it should be dealt with.

Because he knows he wouldnt be persecuted under such circumstance. Of course, alot of people he knows and loves would, but theyre just casualties for the cause.

Methinks Yoni has a very idealized view on the world and how it should be by any means necessary, but the actual implementation of any such system would haunt him...he just doesnt know it.
I think you missed my post as well.

Yonivore

07-30-2007, 11:16 AM

I love the way Democrats continue to admit they're idiots.

It’s downright hilarious to see Democrats trying to simultaneously play the “Bush is a moron” and “Bush duped me” angles.

Seriously, if he’s as dumb as they claim… yet he’s been one-upping them at every turn, what’s that actually say about them?

The latest is Chuck Schumer (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5146.html), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, referring to the confirmation of Justices Alito and Roberts:

“There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked.”
Nevermind the threats of filibusters and unprecedented theatrical presentations on the Senate floor during the confirmation hearings of both men… no, Chuckie was still hoodwinked.

And in 2006, it was John Rockefeller (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/09/eveningnews/main1990644.shtml) of West Virginia, the lead Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee who was “duped”.

In 2005, co-president for 8 years and 2008 Democrat Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,247578,00.html) was “misled”.

And back in 2004, Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/11/kerry_campaign_says_bush_misled_us_on_iraq) was “misled” too.

If I were a Democrat, I’d be embarrassed as hell that such a moron has been so successful at misleading, duping and hoodwinking the collection of self-absorbed geniuses that represent me.

But, even at that, the Democrats can't hold a candle to the British!

UK wanted US to rule out Bin Laden torture (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2136651,00.html)

So, Bush's poodle wouldn't hand over intelligence on bin Laden because apparently the Clinton administration wouldn’t promise to avoid torturing him.

Ministers insisted that British secret agents would only be allowed to pass intelligence to the CIA to help it capture Osama bin Laden if the agency promised he would not be tortured, it has emerged.

MI6 believed it was close to finding the al-Qaida leader in Afghanistan in 1998, and again the next year. The plan was for MI6 to hand the CIA vital information about Bin Laden. Ministers including Robin Cook, the then foreign secretary, gave their approval on condition that the CIA gave assurances he would be treated humanely. The plot is revealed in a 75-page report by parliament’s intelligence and security committee on rendition, the practice of flying detainees to places where they may be tortured.
But you know what’s funny? The Guardian is apparently blaming Bush for this:

The report criticises the Bush administration’s approval of practices which would be illegal if carried out by British agents. It shows that in 1998, the year Bin Laden was indicted in the US, Britain insisted that the policy of treating prisoners humanely should include him. But the CIA never gave the assurances.
Why would this report be criticizing the Bush administration? Bush wasn’t President in 1998. You know who was President in 1998? Bill Clinton. And you know who invented the practice of extraordinary rendition? Why, that was Bill Clinton too.

Strangely, though, he isn’t mentioned in this article. I wonder why that is?

Bush Derangement Syndrome -- It's not just for American Democrats anymore.

George Gervin's Afro

07-30-2007, 01:03 PM

I love the way Democrats continue to admit they're idiots.

It’s downright hilarious to see Democrats trying to simultaneously play the “Bush is a moron” and “Bush duped me” angles.

Seriously, if he’s as dumb as they claim… yet he’s been one-upping them at every turn, what’s that actually say about them?

The latest is Chuck Schumer (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5146.html), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, referring to the confirmation of Justices Alito and Roberts:

Nevermind the threats of filibusters and unprecedented theatrical presentations on the Senate floor during the confirmation hearings of both men… no, Chuckie was still hoodwinked.

And in 2006, it was John Rockefeller (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/09/eveningnews/main1990644.shtml) of West Virginia, the lead Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee who was “duped”.

In 2005, co-president for 8 years and 2008 Democrat Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,247578,00.html) was “misled”.

And back in 2004, Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/11/kerry_campaign_says_bush_misled_us_on_iraq) was “misled” too.

If I were a Democrat, I’d be embarrassed as hell that such a moron has been so successful at misleading, duping and hoodwinking the collection of self-absorbed geniuses that represent me.

But, even at that, the Democrats can't hold a candle to the British!

UK wanted US to rule out Bin Laden torture (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2136651,00.html)

So, Bush's poodle wouldn't hand over intelligence on bin Laden because apparently the Clinton administration wouldn’t promise to avoid torturing him.

But you know what’s funny? The Guardian is apparently blaming Bush for this:

Why would this report be criticizing the Bush administration? Bush wasn’t President in 1998. You know who was President in 1998? Bill Clinton. And you know who invented the practice of extraordinary rendition? Why, that was Bill Clinton too.

Strangely, though, he isn’t mentioned in this article. I wonder why that is?

Bush Derangement Syndrome -- It's not just for American Democrats anymore.

If Bush withehld information that would have caused the Congress to think twice about rushing to war then they were misled. Yoni you seem to be a failry smart person but I wonder if you are just playing stupid some of the time. When people say they were misled it seems to be obvious that they were not given all of the information necessary to make an inofrmed decision. Of course you then take these comments out of context and apply them to a completely different circumstance. Bush duped and misled people by withholding information..I know you understand this but you still like to play dumb..

sort of like a DA 'duping' a jury... witholding evidence that would put guilt in questions.... That doesn't take away from the fact that the prosecutor is a complete idiot..

Yonivore

07-30-2007, 01:09 PM

If Bush withehld information that would have caused the Congress to think twice about rushing to war then they were misled. Yoni you seem to be a failry smart person but I wonder if you are just playing stupid some of the time. When people say they were misled it seems to be obvious that they were not given all of the information necessary to make an inofrmed decision.
And, yet, there's been a congressional investigation that found there was no manipulation of the intelligence. And, we know that the Senate Intelligence Committee had access to the same intelligence Bush did. If they were misled, they need to specifically let the country know about what.

Of course you then take these comments out of context and apply them to a completely different circumstance. Bush duped and misled people by withholding information..I know you understand this but you still like to play dumb..
What information did he withhold? And, if he's such a moron, why would Congressional Democrats vote for the AUMF in Iraq without holding hearings to vet the intelligence upon which they based their votes?

sort of like a DA 'duping' a jury... witholding evidence that would put guilt in questions.... That doesn't take away from the fact that the prosecutor is a complete idiot..
If Bush is the moron the left claims, coming up with evidence they were duped shouldn't be so hard. Where is it?

George Gervin's Afro

07-30-2007, 01:16 PM

And, yet, there's been a congressional investigation that found there was no manipulation of the intelligence. And, we know that the Senate Intelligence Committee had access to the same intelligence Bush did. If they were misled, they need to specifically let the country know about what.

What information did he withhold? And, if he's such a moron, why would Congressional Democrats vote for the AUMF in Iraq without holding hearings to vet the intelligence upon which they based their votes?

If Bush is the moron the left claims, coming up with evidence they were duped shouldn't be so hard. Where is it?

maybe they took Bush at his word... BIG MISTAKE

Yonivore

07-30-2007, 01:27 PM

maybe they took Bush at his word... BIG MISTAKE
So, if that's the case, who's the idiot? Particularly since Democrats have been characterizing him as the dim-witted puppet of Darth Cheney for damn near the entire two terms of his presidency.

(But, in any case, where has Bush's word been proven to be intentionally misleading?) Hint: No where.

boutons_

07-30-2007, 01:34 PM

Peter

07-30-2007, 01:35 PM

So is Bush a puppet of Cheney or the diabolical mastermind of a global conspiracy?

George Gervin's Afro

07-30-2007, 01:37 PM

For millioneth time,

dubya/dichead/rummy cherry-picked and hyped supporting intelligence, including outright lying, while classifiying and suppressing all serious doubts and negative scenarios (which were accurate).

Their campaign against Iraq goes back to the 90s when PNAC/AEI/neo-cunts were agitating for Clinton to invade Iraq, long before AQ was a world-wide threat, and long before the WTC.

Boutons it's obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that the intel was cherry picked to make a sound case for war... Yoni will never admit that... if the intel hadn't been cherry picked we may not be where we are today..

George Gervin's Afro

07-30-2007, 01:38 PM

So is Bush a puppet of Cheney or the diabolical mastermind of a global conspiracy?

yes

Peter

07-30-2007, 01:39 PM

So either he's an idiot or the cleverest man ever to inhabit 1600 Penn Ave.

George Gervin's Afro

07-30-2007, 01:46 PM

So either he's an idiot or the cleverest man ever to inhabit 1600 Penn Ave.

I think he knew what he was doing.. that's what makes it so wrong.

Peter

07-30-2007, 01:48 PM

So he's not an idiot?

George Gervin's Afro

07-30-2007, 01:54 PM

So he's not an idiot?

I think he is an idiot for listening to those around him but I don't think he is a dumb man.. he's just plays one really well..

id·i·ot /ˈɪdiət/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[id-ee-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
2. Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.

#1 is a winner!!

gtownspur

07-30-2007, 02:34 PM

I think he is an idiot for listening to those around him but I don't think he is a dumb man.. he's just plays one really well..

id·i·ot /ˈɪdiət/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[id-ee-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
2. Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.

#1 is a winner!!

I love how GGA calls someone an idiot yet fails to see the irony in his recent post contradicting himself senslessly and foolishly.

George Gervin's Afro

07-30-2007, 02:43 PM

I love how GGA calls someone an idiot yet fails to see the irony in his recent post contradicting himself senslessly and foolishly.

shouldn't you be out picketing planned parenthood today? what about starting a gay marriage protest?

Yonivore

07-31-2007, 09:04 AM

Holy shimolies! Now you've got a liberal at the Washington Post defending Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It appears the lies and distortions can only be maintained for so long, eh?

Short of Perjury (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001335_pf.html)

Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A19

I find myself in an unaccustomed and unexpected position: defending Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Gonzales fans, if there are Gonzales fans left, except for the only fan who counts: Don't take any comfort from my assessment.

In his Senate testimony last week, Gonzales once again dissembled and misled. He was too clever by seven-eighths. He employed his signature brand of inartful dodging -- linguistic evasion, poorly executed. The brutalizing he received from senators of both parties was abundantly deserved.

But I don't think he actually lied about his March 2004 hospital encounter with then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. I certainly don't think he could be charged with -- much less convicted of -- perjury.

Go back to December 2005, when the New York Times reported on a secret program of warrantless wiretapping. President Bush acknowledged an effort "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al-Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."

Soon, the first stories about the hospital visit appeared.

In a Jan. 1, 2006, article, the Times reported then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey's refusal to approve continuation of the surveillance program and described "an emergency visit" to Ashcroft's hospital room by Gonzales and Andrew Card, then White House counsel and chief of staff, respectively.

Similarly, Newsweek reported how the White House aides "visited Ashcroft in the hospital to appeal Comey's refusal. In pain and on medication, Ashcroft stood by his No. 2."

It was in this context -- senators knew about the hospital visit well before Comey's riveting description in May -- that Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006.

Asked about those reports, he said that "with respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you were identifying had concerns about this program." The disagreements, he said, "dealt with operational capabilities that we're not talking about today."

Flash-forward to last week, when Gonzales once again said: "The disagreement that occurred and the reason for the visit to the hospital . . . was about other intelligence activities. It was not about the Terrorist Surveillance Program that the president announced to the American people."

The emphasis is mine, and it matters. We know, from Comey's account, that the dispute was intense. We don't know precisely what the disagreement was about -- and it makes sense that we don't know: This was a classified program, and all the officials, current and former, who have testified about it have been deliberately and appropriately vague.

In his May testimony, Comey referred only to "a particular classified program." FBI Director Robert Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee last week that the hospital-room encounter was about "an NSA program that has been much discussed."

Does this really contradict Gonzales or turn him into a perjurer? It's clear there was an argument over the warrantless wiretapping program. Comey refused to recertify it. In response, something about the program changed; Justice officials were willing to go along with the modified program.

The New York Times reported Sunday that the disagreement involved "computer searches through massive electronic databases" -- not necessarily the more-limited program the president acknowledged. As the Times put it, "If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales' defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct."

Congress deserves better than technically correct linguistic parsing. So the bipartisan fury at Gonzales is understandable.
I take exception to this because the Attorney General was in the unenviable position of having to defend himself, in public, on matters that were both secret and no longer so. Careful consideration of his words were more likely serving that end than they were intended to make his testimony tedious. In fact, Gonzales offered to go into closed session and more openly discuss the matter -- the committee refused.

Lawmakers are in full Howard Beale mode, mad as hell at Gonzales and not wanting to take it anymore.

But perjury is a crime that demands parsing: To be convicted, the person must have "willfully" stated a "material matter which he does not believe to be true."

The Supreme Court could have been writing about Gonzales when it ruled that "the perjury statute is not to be loosely construed, nor the statute invoked simply because a wily witness succeeds in derailing the questioner -- so long as the witness speaks the literal truth" -- even if the answers "were not guileless but were shrewdly calculated to evade."

Consequently, the calls by some Democrats for a special prosecutor to consider whether Gonzales committed perjury have more than a hint of maneuvering for political advantage. What else is to be gained by engaging in endless Clintonian debates about what the meaning of "program" is?

Rather, lawmakers need to concentrate on determining what the administration did -- and under what claimed legal authority -- that produced the hospital room showdown. They need to satisfy themselves that the administration has since been operating within the law; to see what changes might guard against a repetition of the early, apparently unlawful activities; and to determine where the foreign intelligence wiretapping statute might need fixes.

That's where Congress's focus should be -- not on trying to incite criminal a prosecution that won't happen of an attorney general who should have been gone long ago.