Reply With Quote
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 "Do ents 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 do ent, 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 do ent 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 do ent, 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 iden y 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 do ents, 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.
