July 26, 2007

Did Gonzo Lie? (Updated: FBI Chief Contradicts Gonzo)

Alberto Gonzales performed poorly as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, as he usually does. As I pointed out yesterday, his shifting explanations about correcting a misleading statement at a press conference calls into question how he ever got the job in the first place, and whether he has ever learned anything about preparing for testimony.

But did Gonzales lie about a key meeting with Congressional leaders? The AP seems to think so, but its logic seems a bit off:

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.

Does it contradict the testimony? Not really, not even by the AP's own reporting:

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."

Gonzales said that the dissent that sent him and Andy Card to the hospital to seek John Ashcroft's approval of an intel program had to do with something other than the NSA's controversial terrorist surveillance program (TSP). The Congressional briefing itself covered the TSP, but also could have -- and probably would have -- covered a range of secret programs that the intel community operated. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that the meeting covered the TSP, and that another program included in the briefing created some resistance.

It's also perfectly reasonable to think otherwise. After all, the timeline corresponds to some changes that took place in the TSP after the White House heard Congressional objections about it, changes reportedly prompted by Ashcroft, among others. Other attendees at the briefing have mixed recollections; the Democrats insist that they wanted the TSP shut down pending those changes (which is supposedly why Gonzales went immediately to Ashcroft in the hospital), while at least one Republican says that no one suggested shutting down the TSP.

James Comey, who revealed the late-night hospital run, refused to say which program was discussed at the hospital, as John Hinderaker notes. Given that the TSP was unfortunately in the public domain at that time, the reticence seems to indicate that it was, as Gonzales stated in his testimony, a different program to which the Congressional delegation objected. And as incompetent an administrator as Gonzales is, it's almost impossible to believe that he's such a bad lawyer as to leave himself open to such an easy perjury trap.

In any case, the AP has "proved" nothing here. And it's worth noting that Gonzales offered more than once to talk about the program in closed session, but that the Judiciary Committee refused his offer. If they really wanted to know about it, they could have agreed to that very appropriate request.

UPDATE: Tom Maguire has an open thread on Gonzales; be sure to check it out.

UPDATE II and BUMP: FBI director Robert Mueller says that the conversation did indeed involve the TSP, and not another program:

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

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

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

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

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

Well, this is not good for Gonzales, no matter how one wants to paint this. Gonzales made it quite clear yesterday that the conversation did not involve the TSP (see above). Mueller did not participate in the meeting, but instead spoke with Ashcroft immediately afterwards, and can reasonably be considered a reliable witness in this regard.

This seems like a very clear conflict. Gonzales testified that he did not discuss the TSP with Ashcroft, and Mueller says Ashcroft told him that the TSP was the subject of the conversation. There is virtually no wiggle room here. If Gonzo lied, he absolutely has to go.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/10630

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Did Gonzo Lie? (Updated: FBI Chief Contradicts Gonzo):

» Gonzales and the fired attorneys “scandal” from Sister Toldjah
I’m having a hard time keeping up with the developing news about how Gonzales supposedly ‘lied’ to Congress, but Captain Ed and John Hinderaker try to sort through it all. Make sure you read what they have to say before falling in l... [Read More]

Comments (72)

Posted by crossdotcurve | July 26, 2007 6:45 AM

"dissent"?!

It depends what the meaning of "is" is. Sheesh.

"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."

"A four-page memo from the national intelligence director's office shows that 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."

Posted by joe S | July 26, 2007 6:53 AM

Nobody cares how many congressmen he talked to. This guy lies about EVERYTHING! Nobody cares what the AP proves, just what congress can prove. After all the sworn testomony Gonzales has given, his entire story is made of Swiss Cheese. Notice how many Republicans came to his rescue? NONE! You cant defend the indefensable

Posted by Lightwave | July 26, 2007 6:55 AM

It's a fair question to ask "What were these other intelligence activities?"

But as Ed has pointed out, the Democrats aren't interested in that. They are still fishing for charges against the man and just waiting to go "AHA! Caught you!"

As I asked before, what did this week's hearing accomplish? Did it serve the American people, or the Democrats?

So step up, Dems. If you're so sure that you've got the man red-handed...and I remind you it took Ed all of a couple paragraphs to throw reasonable doubt on the perjury...then let's see the charges.

By all means, keep wasting America's time for another 16 months or so. We'll miss you when you're gone in 2009. Really.

Posted by Jazz | July 26, 2007 6:58 AM

This whole flap has left me confused from the beginning. No matter whether it's Republicans hunting Democrats for sport or vice versa, I'm really not a big fan of taking "issues" which, in and of themselves, are not illegal, and turning the subsequent fallout into a legal issue with such obvious political red meat attached. It's similar to the Az. attorney firings. Apparently Gonzales isn't too bright if he lied about things relating to the firings and left himself open as a target. But the original issue was about the Bush administration replacing appointed officials. We may disagree with the decision, but the fact is that the president gets to appoint and "unappoint" (if you'll forgive the term) who he pleases, pretty much without restrictions. If you want different types of people appointed, elect a new president.

Chasing Gonzales over the obviously controversial surveilance programs looks, once again, like some people looking for a target they can actually hit rather than finding some way to pin it on the real targets. (i.e. Bush and Cheney themselves.)

Gonzales could probably help himself, his party and the country a lot by just bowing out and going home at this point. He gives, at a minimum, the apperance of gross incompetence, and nobody needs that. There's plenty of things going on that could certainly use investigating. At this point wasting more time and ink on Gonzales seems like a waste.

(Note: I'm not in any way saying I support Gonzales himself. I do not. But I smell politics spinning wheels which could be better applied putting traction elsewhere in this disturbing period of time.)

Posted by Monkei | July 26, 2007 7:30 AM

Captain ... this is a classic case of you say "tomato" I say "tomAto", or in words that GOP wingnuts will understand, it depends on what "is" is.

The fact that we are trying to dissect how MUCH the AG lied vs did he lie at all tells it all.

Posted by mrlynn | July 26, 2007 7:52 AM

Jazz is correct. This is all just a waste of the taxpayer's dollar, which pays the salaries of these fatuous, self-aggrandizing boors called 'Senators', especially (but not exclusively) 'Democrats'.

On the other hand, they could be doing real mischief, like enacting the socialist legislation they all aspire to. So let them bang poor Mr. Gonzales around. He'll survive, and it'll take their attention off the preparations to attack Iran.

/Mr Lynn

Posted by sherlock | July 26, 2007 7:55 AM

How come every rock that gets kicked over reveals Jim Comey hiding under it?

Posted by hunter | July 26, 2007 8:09 AM

It is instructive that the dhimmies here, to keep their witch hunt alive against the AG, have to rely on their fearless leader's classic lie about 'is'.
I think the AG is very likely going home and laughing a good one over the wasted efforts of the mental midgets in Congress and the MSM who are so busy fabricating charges.
Wow, the Exec. branch fired Exec. branch employees. Must be a crime - to mental cases.
Hmmm, the Exec. branch in time of war used lawful means to intercept enemy communications.
Must be a crime - to mental midgets.
History will laugh at the state of the democrat party today, after they finish spitting at their memory.

Posted by starfleet_dude | July 26, 2007 8:10 AM

Ed, Gonzales lied:

At a heated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly testified that the issue at hand was not about the terrorist surveillance program....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.
...."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."

No, it wasn't. Kevin Drum explains:

Other intelligence activities? Not the TSP? Despite the recollections of other participants that the meeting on that day was precisely about the TSP?
Well, guess what? It turns out the dates of all the TSP meetings were the subject of a memo from John Negroponte last year. So it's all down on paper. And you know what date shows up? March 10, 2004. Looks like Gonzales has some 'splainin to do.

When the lies keep piling up, it's no longer possible to keep making excuses for them.

Posted by howard lohmuller | July 26, 2007 8:13 AM

The whole Gonzolas thing is much ado about nothing. But Republicans should be thankful that the Demoocrats are using up ammunition on something the public has no feel for and does not care about. So they should keep up the rope-a-dope lest Democrats latch onto a serious issue that hurts them.
Meanwhile, during the August recess, Republican leaders in Congress should talk about earmark reform, earmarks, earmarks, earmarks, every day, every hour, every minute. There is no good response to it except ending the practice as it exists. Revenue sharing with the states or regions might be the best alternative.

Posted by Michael | July 26, 2007 8:32 AM

starfleet_dude, you, like the AP, have proven that they did talk about the TSP that day, but you have not proven that they did not talk about other programs, programs that are probably still classified and can't be talked about in open session today, on that day.

Posted by onlineanalyst | July 26, 2007 8:41 AM

Sherlock: Your question about Comey (Schumer's boy) is the one that bothers me, too.

Posted by Teresa | July 26, 2007 8:51 AM

Gonzales has repeatedly mislead this committee on a variety of issues -- changing or revising his story numerous times. I would think even the most partisan Republican would be embarrassed by having such a man as the top law enforcement officer in the land.

For those of you who think that criminal charges are necessary for a congressional investigation, I'd argue that most congressional hearings are not about things that are criminal in nature. (For instance how to improve things at Walter Reed.) Something can be WRONG without being criminal. Cheating on your wife is wrong, but not against the law. Firing attorneys for political reasons is wrong, even if it might not be illegal.

Posted by cascobay | July 26, 2007 8:57 AM

GOP may say this is much ado about nothing, but the donkeys know blunders do as blunders are, the Justice department and its actions are low hanging fruit. Bush would have been better served by having a competient AG.

Posted by starfleet_dude | July 26, 2007 9:02 AM

starfleet_dude, you, like the AP, have proven that they did talk about the TSP that day, but you have not proven that they did not talk about other programs, programs that are probably still classified and can't be talked about in open session today, on that day.

Proving a negative (about a "secret program" no less) is just so much bull. It's painfully obvious that Gonzales is trying to get out of telling the truth to Congress by pretending there's some super secret other program that was the subject of his visit to Ashcroft's hospital room.

Posted by tomjfrombfflo | July 26, 2007 9:16 AM

I think Gonzales has done a great deal of damage to the USA, to the Justice Department, and to President Bush.

The defense of Gonzales rests on two points, first, he is not a liar he is just incompetent beyond any reasonable expectations of anyone in any job, much less AG of the USA; and second, he had some "Secret truth" that he cannot admit in public.

The incompetence defense is sad, and the secret defense is sadder. Think of how a Republican Congress is supposed to run in 2008: "Vote for incompetence provided by the defense of secrecy: Vote Republican!"

I think that jet will not make it to the runway.

Posted by starfleet_dude | July 26, 2007 9:18 AM

Steve Benen sums the lies of Gonzales up in a nutshell:

The irony is, Gonzales was apparently lying to cover up earlier lying. Last year, Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee there was no disagreement about the program. Then James Comey said there was a lot of disagreement about the program. A month ago, Gonzales said he and Comey were referring to the same program. Tuesday, Gonzales said he and Comey were referring to different programs. What a tangled web he weaves…

Posted by Georg Felis | July 26, 2007 9:47 AM

The purpose of the Democrat screaming that is going on now is not to actually reveal any facts, or to clear up any misunderstandings. The whole purpose is to frame the 2008 elections as “The Republicans lie to you, cheat, steal, get you involved in wars you don’t like, hate you and are corrupt. Don’t vote for them.” They have completely abandoned any pretence of working with the President (ex. the present Myers flap) or any serious attempt to accomplish anything legislatively. Their first 100 hour strategy stretched into 100 days and slowly faded from sight. But they’re stuck doing this. They have to keep it up or their base (and the media) will abandon them, and that’s about all they have left.

If they can keep up the screaming for another year and a half, they can keep their base energized and hopefully suppress enough of the Republican base to get a D in the White House. And the last time that happened, within days they rammed thru the largest tax increase in US history that applied retroactively. This time will be worse.

Posted by sherlock | July 26, 2007 10:14 AM

"It's painfully obvious that Gonzales is trying to get out of telling the truth to Congress by pretending there's some super secret other program that was the subject of his visit to Ashcroft's hospital room."

I don't understand then, why :
- Gonzales would offer to tell them what it was in closed session, which is consistent with his contention that it is still classified
- why the committee would turn that offer down unless they want to avoid hearing an answer
- why the media omits reporting either of those facts.

Note: I have asked a straightforward question here. If anyone wishes to answer it please do, but remember, I don't respond to flames. So if you flame this, you are basically saying to everyone here "I have no answer."

Posted by GOP08_DOA | July 26, 2007 10:23 AM

"The whole purpose is to frame the 2008 elections as “The Republicans lie to you, cheat, steal, get you involved in wars you don’t like, hate you and are corrupt. Don’t vote for them.”
Posted by: Georg Felis

Truer words have never been spoken.

Posted by Monkei | July 26, 2007 10:26 AM

They have completely abandoned any pretence of working with the President (ex. the present Myers flap) or any serious attempt to accomplish anything legislativel

well THAT's a two way street ... I bet you were just out in your front yard doing republican cartwheels when the dems were working with this "president" and the "president" working with the dems over the immigration bill!

Posted by starfleet_dude | July 26, 2007 10:31 AM

I don't understand then, why :
- Gonzales would offer to tell them what it was in closed session, which is consistent with his contention that it is still classified

Because the White House's offer to testify in closed session is limited to one, count 'em one, interview with no follow up. If anything is abundantly clear by now, it's that Gonzales has a problem being definite about much of anything.

Posted by starfleet_dude | July 26, 2007 10:36 AM

Breaking news: Senate Democrats are calling for a special prosecutor to probe Alberto Gonzales . . . more soon.

Posted by GOP08_DOA | July 26, 2007 10:40 AM

"why: Gonzales would offer to tell them what it was in closed session, which is consistent with his contention that it is still classified"

Abu and the WH are hardly trying to be cooperative here, so don't even try to paint it that way. I could flood this board with examples of their stonewalling. What they want is to have it their way only so they can continue to lie some more.

"why the committee would turn that offer down unless they want to avoid hearing an answer"

The committee doesn't want to "avoid hearing the answer," what they want to hear, is the TRUTH, under oath, and they're not even getting that.

"why the media omits reporting either of those facts"

Because your "facts" are easily refutable right-winger talking points. Actually I think I've heard FOX try to spin it your way. Come to think of it, you probably got your talking points directly from FOX.

Posted by Lightwave | July 26, 2007 11:02 AM

"Breaking news: Senate Democrats are calling for a special prosecutor to probe Alberto Gonzales . . . more soon."

Excellent! By all means, I'm sure the special prosecutor will have been appointed and have concluded the investigation well before the end of Bush's term!

The LAST special prosecutor or course worked out so well for America, and was such a vital user of American taxpayer dollars!

The Democrats really are trying to go for single digit approval ratings here, and that digit is looking to be '0'. Bring on the useless circus that will insure the Democrats are gone in 08!

Posted by starfleet_dude | July 26, 2007 11:10 AM

Lightwave, I think the "B'rer Rabbit" defense is supposed to work by pretending you're afraid of being thrown in the briar patch... ;-)

In any event, the House and Senate have no choice now but to pursue the matter given the refusal of Miers and Bolton to obey the House subpoenas issued for them and Gonzales' continuing evasions before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Posted by Rovin | July 26, 2007 11:15 AM

Mr Lynn and howard lohmuller have mistakenly revealed super-duper double top secret intell on the 2008 Republican election strategy.

Karl Rove obviously called Alberto into is office and cooked up this whole affair to feed the leftoids bearmeat while believing it is bull.

While the drones in the dem leadership are busy creating their flypaper to catch what? A Fly?-----at the same time the MSM, the leftoids, and the Dudes and Monkies are caught standing on the same flypaper and going nowhere.

This has Rove's "footprint" all over the place. And it's a gift that keeps on giving. But please remember that this is all classified super-douper top secret stuff, until the NYT's prints it tomorrow.

Posted by starfleet_dude | July 26, 2007 11:17 AM

More indeed:

Senate panel to subpoena Rove
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said today he will subpoena White House political adviser Karl Rove to testify about the firings of federal prosecutors

Posted by Okonkolo | July 26, 2007 11:32 AM

Again, Gonzales is not incompetent, he is covering for the White House. And trying not to implicate your bosses while answering questions can sure make one look like an incompetent idiot, but he is surely not. To have him at the helm of DOJ is a disgrace that will, unfortunately, not be going away for some time. I bet the GOP candidates get another "fire Gonzales" question at their next debate. Standing by that guy will make anyone look bad.

Posted by FedUp | July 26, 2007 12:16 PM

And I care if Gonzales lied or not? Let's face it kiddies, if we hunted out every public servant that lied, we'd have to ship them to the moon! I'm sick of these witch hunts that have no socially redeeming importance. We could include: bribery, sexual misconduct, not making good on election promises, ineptitude, chronic senility... and the list goes on!
Let the hunters beware of the old adage... what goes around, comes around.

Posted by FedUp | July 26, 2007 12:35 PM

PS... you want to talk about disgraces... Nancy, Harry, Murtha, Teddy, DeLay, Byrd, William Jefferson, Vitters, Foley... and THAT list goes on!

Posted by Robes | July 26, 2007 12:59 PM

Gonzo might consider using the standard response of Janet Reno. "The matter is under our investigation and therefore I cannot comment."

Posted by Neo | July 26, 2007 2:36 PM

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said. “You’re deceiving us.

This is definitely the best example of mobius logic that I've ever seen or Alberto Gonzales has mastered the Jedi Mind Trick.

Posted by starfleet_dude | July 26, 2007 3:22 PM

The deadline for Karl Rove (and his deputy Scott Jennings) to respond to the Senate's subpoenas is one week from today, August 2nd. Since it's all but a foregone conclusion that neither will submit documents or appear to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I expect contempt charges to follow. If President Bush is deliberately trying to see how low his popularity can go, he's certainly going about it properly.

Posted by starfleet_dude | July 26, 2007 3:35 PM

Gonzales lies have been gaining on him for months now, so it's little surprise to see one finally catch up to him in public. If President Bush still refuses to dismiss Gonzales, we can be sure that what's being covered up in the White House stinks plenty bad.

Posted by Crust | July 26, 2007 4:07 PM

Either Gonzo resigns or he gets impeached. I don't see this ending any other way.

Posted by olddeadmeat | July 26, 2007 4:24 PM

Just when you thought the AG had run out of feet to shoot....

Call him "Centipede" Gonzales

Posted by Lightwave | July 26, 2007 4:34 PM

1) Who is going to prosecute Gonzales that the President will accept?

2) Who would replace Gonzales that the Democrats would accept?

I'm 99% sure that the answers to both questions are the same: Nobody. Look at how the Democrats continue to deny confirming Bush's Federal judges. And should the President refuse to prosecute the charges, what then?

The Dems can't profit in any way from this. The public is already sick of tired of these hearings that simply don't accomplish anything, and there's real legislation, funding, and reforms that must be passed.

I just don't understand why we're going after "What the definition of 'is' is" again.

Posted by Fight4TheRight | July 26, 2007 4:46 PM

Everyone has done a good job of analyzing all of this. I'm sure here to remind everyone that Chuck Schumer couldn't care LESS about Alberto Gonzales. Schumer doesn't give one rip if Gonzales is fired , resigns or stays where he is.

Schumer is after the big fish (Bush and Cheney) and believe me, this little exercise by Schumer was simply setting the table. A proven lie or lies by Gonzales will lead to Phase 2 then of course Phase 3 and 4.

Schumer's only issue at this point is if he can get to Phase 4 BEFORE January of 2009.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | July 26, 2007 4:51 PM

I thought this was supposed to be about fired attorneys, not the NSA program. It just grows and grows and the politicians just run their mouths and the pundits opine and the lefties get all excited...and the critics call for people to be fired.

In truth I think it is ridiculous. There is no crime, most Americans expect the government to listen in on terrorists communications. Most Americans do not give a rat's ass if a handful of political appointees get canned.

No one cares. There are several programs they could have talked about at the same meeting, but this particular program might not have been the reason for the visit to the hospital at all, the truth is there are people speaking here on the issue who themselves do not know the truth, they were not there. As for what Ashcroft said, I have not actually heard the man say anything myself.

In any event I think it is still ridiculous.

The thing is the Democrats can not find a real crime to charge some one with so instead they invent these little freak shows for the TV cameras etc. Considering the fact that their own approval rating is in the tank, perhaps they should spend more time doing their job and less time using their political position to harass their political enemies. Aren't they supposed to be legislating or something?

I only wish they were as bound and determined to track down and stop terrorists as they are to go after the Bush administration.

So now they will go after Rove and we will have the whole Plame thing with hate mongering wild eyed lefties drooling over supposed crimes of the Bushies and the right getting all nervious and demanding people's heads on blocks.

Meanwhile most normal people just think it is nonsense. The truth is if Bush wants to track terrorists, that is fine with me. If he wants to fire attorneys that is fine with me.

I remember the Clinton years with Reno giving an order that lead to 80 dead Americans in Waco. I remember numerous Clinton administration officials being indicted for honest to God crimes....so I would say after the 90s this is all small potatoes.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | July 26, 2007 5:01 PM

starfleet_dude exhaled:

" If President Bush is deliberately trying to see how low his popularity can go, he's certainly going about it properly."

First of all, Shrub's not running for anything, and second, he's got a long way to go to get lower than Concgress' job approval numbers. But do keep up the good work!

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | July 26, 2007 5:03 PM

And what exactly are they supposed to be hiding?

The other day I read at powerline that G handled himself well. Whatever, but the truth is there is no way to handle hours and hours of questions by the likes of Shumer well. These people make their livings, making themselves look good and the other guy look bad.

The other day I read over at Big Lizards that Dubai Ports had agreed to let the Bush administration place some CIA agents in the field so that they could monitor possible terrorist activity. It seems that might have had something to do with Bush's support of the Dubai deal. But when Shumer got out in front of the camera and accused the Bush administration of selling ports to terrorists, the right was more than willing to follow his lead.

I say don't follow his lead again. We should wait and see what is going on before we destroy Gonzales and betray Bush again.

Posted by suek | July 26, 2007 5:05 PM

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

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

This whole paragraph(part quoted) has me really confused. It sounds like:

"Did you discuss wolves?"
"We discussed dogs."
"Well, we call dogs 'wolves'...so did you discuss wolves?"
"We discussed dogs."

And then the conclusion is made that the conversation was about wolves.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | July 26, 2007 5:11 PM

I also think that some people on the right are willing to turn on AG because they do not think he is a real conservative. I keep hearing about RINOs, but I have noticed a tendency among conservatives to dump people when they think are not pure enough for them. So much for Reagan's 11th Commandment.

The fact that AG is another Republican is beside the point. If he was Ashcroft, it might be different, but since he is not the real deal it is ok to throw him under the bus. After all, if he was slicker, if he never made a mistake, if he was really one of them, things might be different.

I think Libby got a raw deal, I really do, but I also think he should have followed Hillary Clinton's example and said I do not recall a couple of hundred times. But the truth is the right was far more willing to make excuses for Libby in spite of the fact that the jury found him guilty.

They are not even willing to give AG that much of a chance. And for what? This crap?

Posted by sherlock | July 26, 2007 5:57 PM

Mueller sounds remarkably like someone who wasn't there: whether he was or not, that's what he sounds like. AND he sounds remarkably like someone who wants to sound like he is confirming the Senator's question without actually saying so, in sticking to his own wording despite being asked directly it the Senator's "translation" is correct.

So instead of "I was there, and yes, the conversation was about the TSP." we get this obliqueness. Why? It does not seem to be designed to protect Gonzales - in fact its "design" seems to be the opposite.

Maybe we should rename Washington D.C. to "Salem"? Mueller smells.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | July 26, 2007 6:20 PM

Well, he can no know, he was not there. Ed says there is no wiggle room, but that is obviously not true since the guy was not even there.

Besides, the meeting might have been about some other program but mention was made of other issues as well.

Like I said it is ridiculous and the willingness of the right to eat their own is distressing.

Posted by MayX | July 26, 2007 6:36 PM

Don't government officials always talk around classified information in ridiculous-seeming ways? Think about the CIA re-classifying Plame's employment there and not wanting to talk about it after it had already written a letter about it that had been read into the Congressional record.
Why are the good senators even asking Gonzales about this? Is "None of your business" an acceptable response?

Posted by Monkei | July 26, 2007 7:17 PM

Pineapple stated:

First of all, Shrub's not running for anything, and second, he's got a long way to go to get lower than Concgress' job approval numbers. But do keep up the good work!

Incredibly you are right ... however, there are many GOP senators and every GOP congressmen who are running and they have to make a choice, support this friend of the president and face the consequences in November, or hang him out to dry ... which will probably be the case because "shrub" doesn't have the courage to get rid of him (or needs him for coverage) and is willing to bring the GOP down because he doesn't have the "gnads" to fire him.

Quite frankly I would love to see him stick around and see if he can help "shrub" beat Nixon's record for low marks!

BTW, do you think Congress' low approval marks are because they are trying to end the war, trying to get answers out of SOMEONE under oath, or because you don't like them.

What you fail to see, again, is that this congress is laying the ground work for a real swell in 2008 for the democrats. They are allowing the GOP to paint themselves into a corner with Gonzalez, Bush and of course Iraq Iraq Iraq and Iraq. It's nice to know that some of your wingnuts think this is all about the Congress and the Democrats. Last time I checked there were GOP Senators and Congressman still in that body. So, when November comes around you really think the GOP will win close elections because they are fighting to STAY in Iraq and to keep Gonzalez employed when 65 percent of the electorate is against both? Great, you are indeed a good Dem.

Posted by Ray | July 26, 2007 7:55 PM

Congress should demand the appointment of an Independent Prosecutor who will spend the next 12 months investigating Gonzales and other people in other departments in the Bush administration after requesting and receiving an extension of his or hers authority. That prosecutor can then issue a report.

Regardless of what that report contains, the House should instigate impeachment proceedings against Gonzales, Bush, Rove, and anyone else named in the report. After the House spends several months debating and voting to impeach, they can hand the Articles of Impeachments to the Senate who will then spend another month or two debating and voting to acquit.

After the Democrats claim a major victory, President Bush can then issue Gonzales a pardon (remember him? he was the one that supposedly committed a crime, which was the original reason for this investigation) and America can finally put this all behind them, just in time for the next election.

After seeing just how much time and tax dollars these useless investigations and impeachment proceedings wasted, Americas will be pissed off at both parties and will overwhelmingly vote for Rudy as President so he can come in and "clean house" on Congress. (That would be a great campaign slogan: It's time to Clean House on Congress!)

Four years after all this over, most people will have a hard time even remembering who Gonzales was, let alone what he was accused of.

Posted by Teresa | July 26, 2007 8:23 PM

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the Gonzo problem. It has nothing to do with the US attorneys. Gonzo testified to congress earlier about the wiretapping program. He told them that there was NO disagreement at Justice about the legality of the program.

Comey, Mueller, and others have testified that there was significant disagreement and that they were prepared to resign because what Gonzo and the White House were doing was clearly illegal.

Gonzo is sticking to his lie about there being agreement on the TSP program, because if it turns out that he was knowingly breaking the law by wiretapping people he could be criminally liable.

Cast your minds back to the Clinton administration when conservatives were howling about the use of "secret" FISA courts. Now all of a sudden you are fine with people wiretapping your phones. True conservatives believe in limited government -- not a police state.

Posted by Ray | July 26, 2007 8:49 PM

"Now all of a sudden you are fine with people wiretapping your phones."

Well, I highly doubt that anyone is wiretapping my phone as I am not any threat to this country or it's citizens, so I'm not too concerned about something I know isn't happing, But I am concerned if NO ONE is wiretapping the phones of those who contact, or are contacted by, known terrorist and/or their supporters, contacts we ALL know are happing. Just how do you think terrorists coordinate their attacks, smoke signals?

Posted by Carol Herman | July 27, 2007 12:11 AM

ZZZzzzzz

Wake me, when Fitzgerald comes forward and "corrects" the impressions he's made at his pressers. ALL. OF. THEM!

Today, what saddened me the most, as I was sitting and waiting for my car at the dealer's ... was Schumer and Feinstein heading into the lmelight, spouting their "outrage." And, the only thought that came to mind was WHY DID TWO JEWS HAVE TO BE THIS STUPID?

Jews don't have enough problems?

We send crap like this into office? I know you can't blame Jews, entirely. AMong us there's just not enough votes. But when turkeys like this apply for public support, it's worse than watching Welfare Queens milking the system.

I wish it wasn't so.

Alas, it is.

And, it's a black eye.

But not for the President. His support is actually growing. Lots of Americans realize that Bush HAD the support to GO INTO IRAK! And, Bush has lots of support when it comes to all of the tussles with Congress. Even if you don't think so. Most Americans have been giving congress critters "wake up calls." Including the one that went to McPain, and showed him there are lots more people who dislike him, now, than disliked him, before.

As to Feinstein, the only thing I could do, when she ran in 2006 was NOT to vote for her! So, sure. She got in. But I left the temple.

It pays to remember America is a very big country. And, these Jewish politicians make it big where they sell a lot of corned beef. The Big Apple. And, LA. It's not the way it is in other places.

Hey, I even think Hispanics are watching Gonzales being the current piniatta. And, they are not amused. For the most part.

Which is the only part that counts in politics.

Posted by tomjfrombfflo | July 27, 2007 12:39 AM


"The Republicans lie to you, cheat, steal, get you involved in wars you don’t like, hate you and are corrupt. Don’t vote for them.”

You may think that there are quotes around this, but what if that is the impression President Bush is making on the American People. There is such a thing as "conventional wisdom" and whether these Gonzales episodes make one snooze or not my guess is many Americans believe that....

The Republicans lie to you, cheat, steal, get you involved in wars you don’t like, hate you and are corrupt. Don’t vote for them.

no quotes or commercials needed.

Posted by doubter | July 27, 2007 1:30 AM

Um... wow herman... I'm not sure, you are joking right? or what you're jewish too, so you can say things like that? I'm not pc, but you sound racist, or stupid instead of funny, so either way STFU.
Really.

Posted by brooklyn | July 27, 2007 2:19 AM

Now your calling the AG 'Gonzo'?

Geeze Captain, these are the claims of Schumer, Leahy, Durbin, etc...

Again, the bias against the AG is telling, and the worst aspect of it is, it all sounds like the Democrats.

Where is the outrage of the Senate smearing Judicial Nominations as being 'racist'?

Where is the outrage of Democrats telling us al Qaeda is not in Iraq?

Instead, the Captain is buying into the unethical debasing tactics of Democrats?

I remember when someone said Olmert would not last a week as PM...

That someone was completely wrong.

I remember when someone told us the deceitful expression of Bill Clinton did not matter, after a Wallace interview, as he went on to campaign heavily for the DNC in 2006 slandering Republicans repeatedly, and is now hoping to return to the White House with Hillary.

The blogger had it wrong.

Now we are focused on the Democrats unethical attempt to bury a member of their political opposition with malfeasant efforts.

And the Captain is enjoying it?

mmm...

Long ago, this poster felt that the Pundits were part of the problem.

They are not exactly growing the Conservative Agenda, but seemingly weakening the potential.

2006 was a disaster...

And it seems some are eager to repeat more failure.

Pelosi is Speaker and is trying to undermine the USA in Iraq.

But we're just going to jump on the AG for not being perfect, and encourage the likes of Schumer, Leahy, Durbin, etc.

Posted by The Yell | July 27, 2007 3:59 AM

" Mueller did not participate in the meeting, but instead spoke with Ashcroft immediately afterwards, and can reasonably be considered a reliable witness in this regard."

How can he be a witness to something he didn't witness? He can say what Ashcroft said, but why bother? Just ask Ashcroft.

Posted by Captain Ed | July 27, 2007 6:16 AM

Yell,

Yes, I think that's what will happen -- the House or Senate will subpoena Ashcroft now.

Brooklyn,

Not *perfect*? Are you kidding me? Have you watched Gonzales testify? He's unprepared, contradictory, and to hear him tell it, he has no idea what went on in his own department as eight presidential appointees got fired.

I've watched the hearings, and he's a boob. Someone said "he's our boob" as a reason to defend him, but that's ridiculous. Is that our new reason to promote conservative governance -- we're the faction of boobs?

I'm not required to defend incompetency, and I don't blog to protect the Bush administration. If you want Bush apologetics, I suggest browsing www.gop.com.

Gonzales is a disaster, and the damage he does isn't *my* fault.

Posted by Immolate | July 27, 2007 7:09 AM

Ed if you don't see the equivocation in Mueller's statements, then you aren't reading them very carefully.

Personally, I'm content with Shumer and his clown posse wrapping themselves around the Gonzales axle for the next twelve to eighteen months. It keeps them from screwing up anything important. Bush would be unwise to appoint a special prosecutor. Contempt charges against someone within the administration seem inevitable now, and that will force the judiciary's hand. I'm not sure anyone will be pleased with the long-term ramifications of that, but I can't see how the SCOTUS can go along with handing Congress a mechanism by which they can use subpeonas or the threat of subpeonas to control the executive branch. We are already seeing how an unscrupulous congress can use any issue or nonissue to bind an administration to the point of immobility with the nebulous threat of contempt charges. How would the picture change if that threat was existential? Think about that and consider whether you really want the executive to serve at the pleasure of the legislature.

Posted by pete | July 27, 2007 7:57 AM

how about some intrepid truth seeking reporter from the MSM just goes and asks john ashcroft what was discussed.

Oh --- forgot --- there are no truth seeking reporters in the msm. Only mouthpieces for the DNC who spout the daily talking points.

Posted by Monkei | July 27, 2007 8:12 AM

Ray writes

Well, I highly doubt that anyone is wiretapping my phone as I am not any threat to this country or it's citizens, so I'm not too concerned about something I know isn't happing,

Well gee Ray Ray ... how would they know that if they were NOT tapping your phones? You act like they can somehow be selective on who they listen do when doing a full scare tapping to fish for information.

As citizens we should never ever give away our rights to the government, when you do, you never ever get them back.

I am in more danger of getting hit by a drunk driver 100 times in my lifetime then I am getting car bombed, so why not just tap into everyone's cell phone and put cameras around every bar and citizen police outside every saloon to monitor and check that people getting into the cars to drive are not drunk? I would feel much safer when I am picking my grandkids up to drive them anywhere if I knew my country was stopping drunks from driving ... simply put the government has taken advantage of personal freedoms in this country all under the cloak and dagger of "the WOT".

Anyway ... to answer your BASIC question here Captain "Did Gonzo lie" you could save a lot of bandwidth and server space if you simply asked the question "Did Gonzo tell the Truth?" instead.

Posted by Immolate | July 27, 2007 9:27 AM

Monkei,

I think most people are concerned about government overreach when it comes to privacy. I also think that most people are comfortable with the NSA wiretapping calls coming from or going to suspected terrorists or terrorist enablers overseas, just as they are comfortable with the gov't sifting through international banking data to monitor suspect money trails. And, not to be contentious, but there are examples of the government taking certain powers upon itself, not always for a good reason, and then relinquishing them later, not always because they were forced to. The fairness doctrine stands out.

Posted by starfleet_dude | July 27, 2007 11:43 AM

Arlen Specter speaks out while abord Air Force One:

Mr. Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, wandered back into the press cabin as the plane sat on the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Base before the president arrived from the White House.
According to a pool report of the encounter, Mr. Specter expressed anew his criticism of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales but said he saw no signs that Mr. Gonzales would be forced to resign. Mr. Specter attributed Mr. Gonzales’s job security to Mr. Bush’s “personal loyalty” to him.
Mr. Specter spoke derisively of Mr. Gonzales’s appearance Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he faced accusations that he misled Congress last year when he said there had been no disagreement within the administration over the National Security Administration’s domestic surveillance program.
“Our hearing two days ago was devastating,” Mr. Specter said. “But so was the hearing before that, and so was the hearing before that.”
Mr. Specter also waded into another uncomfortable subject, the Congressional demands for testimony from Karl Rove, the presidential adviser, and Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, among others.
He said that while he hoped “to reach an accommodation” with the White House, “I don’t see it now.”

As I said yesterday, there must be something mighty stinky that's being covered up here for President Bush to back Gonzales defy Congress with respect to Miers not showing up when subpoenaed to do so.

Posted by Ray | July 27, 2007 1:01 PM

"Well gee Ray Ray ... how would they know that if they were NOT tapping your phones?"

First of all, My name is not Ray Ray. Please show me some common courtesy by addressing me as simply as Ray.

Second of all, I do not associate with terrorists or their supporters so there is very little reason to suspect me of being a danger to this country or it's citizens. As I am veteran (US Army 1985-1988), there is greater reason to suspect me of associating with those who oppose terrorists and their supporters, so why would the NSA waste resources monitoring someone who obviously poses no threat?

Here's a question for you: How do you know that the federal government is tapping your phone? Do you have any evidence at all that the government is tapping the phones of ordinary citizens? I think not.

Posted by Ray | July 27, 2007 1:13 PM

Oops, that should read "addressing me simply as Ray" and not "addressing me as simply as Ray" I can see the posts already: "well, simply as Ray." Man, I sure opened myself up for that one, didn't I?

Posted by Monkei | July 27, 2007 1:17 PM

Sorry Ray for calling you Ray Ray.

Here's a question for you: How do you know that the federal government is tapping your phone? Do you have any evidence at all that the government is tapping the phones of ordinary citizens? I think not

I have none. But I have a real problem trying to figure out how they can pinpoint what phones and who they are tapping. If they identified person A as a possible terrorist, then they tap person A's phone, not a problem, there is already laws in place for them to do that. However, to get the goods or even find person B they have to almost blanket tons of calls picking out crucial words or statements for further examination. To do that they would have to go through everything. I think it would be better if you tell me how they listen without tapping everyone in a blanket procedure. So I would simply throw it back at you, how do you know that in mining this fertile ground for achieving possible terrorists they are indeed not listening in on all of us?
Again, why bypass current laws in effect, very liberal laws, just to listen in on person A ... but then again this is the Bush administration, nothing surprises anymore.

Congratulations on your service ... like most of us. But I don't think my 1972-1986 years of military service exclude me or include me in their tapping procedures. Nor does my federal service in the VA from 1986 to present.

Posted by Ray | July 27, 2007 1:43 PM

"How can he be a witness to something he didn't witness? He can say what Ashcroft said, but why bother? Just ask Ashcroft.
Posted by: The Yell at July 27, 2007 3:59 AM "

Repeating what someone else said is called hearsay and that type of testimony would never be allowed in a court of law (unless the person who issued the original statements was dead and thus unavailable to testify, like Vincent Foster), but we're dealing with Congress so it's a case of anything goes and "He said/She said" types of testimony has been allowed throughout congressional history. That doesn't make it right, but since when has Congress been concerned about what's right as opposed to what's politically advantageous?

Posted by Ray | July 27, 2007 2:22 PM

"You act like they can somehow be selective on who they listen do when doing a full scare tapping to fish for information."

Do you believe that the NSA has the capabilities to monitor all the cell phones in America today? What you are suggesting would be damn near impossible.

It would require the cooperation of every cellphone provider to allow the NSA to tap into their networks to monitor them. It would require the NSA to literally monitor and record hundreds of millions of cellphone conversations every single day, a lot of them simultaneously. It would require enormous recording capabilities and massive amounts processing power to sift through those conversations to find any that may be suspicious and flag them for later review.

This processing would have to include the ability to interpret every language spoken worldwide and voice recognition software isn't that reliable for English, let alone the multitudes of possible languages it would have to decipher.

And that just for the conversations. That doesn't include text messages or photo and video sharing. Imaging the resources that would be required to scan every single photo sent via cellphone to insure that a terrorist isn't communicating simply by typing out instructions on a piece of paper and taking a pic which they send to their fellow terrorists. The same would be true of video. Do you really believe that ANY government has the capabilities do all of this 24/7? And that's just to monitor Americans.

Imagine having to do this for several billion cellphone calls made in the world every day. Add to this; landlines, satellite phones. e-mails, faxes, photo sharing sites, etc etc, etc. Do you still believe that our government is actually capable of doing this?

Posted by Ray | July 27, 2007 3:30 PM

"However, to get the goods or even find person B they have to almost blanket tons of calls picking out crucial words or statements for further examination."

Blanket monitoring would not be necessary. All that would be necessary is to monitor all the calls Person A made outside our boarders during this monitoring period. The problem arises when Person A calls someone in the US. According to law, the monitoring must be terminated until a search warrant is requested and approved. By the time the government can receive a warrant, that call would be over and any information that could be gathered would have been lost.

That is what the controversy is all about. The government, at the time, did not have authority to monitor a call without a warrant when one or more parties were located in the US even though the call originated outside our borders. As far as I know, that requirement for a warrant is still law.

There is no mass monitoring of communications like some believe as that is beyond the capabilities of our current technology, as I have explained in the above post.

Posted by Ray | July 27, 2007 3:42 PM

Additionally, the same problem arises when, while monitoring Person A outside our borders, Person B calls Person A from within our borders. Once again the law requires that the monitoring be terminated until a warrant is requested and approved.

Posted by Monkei | July 27, 2007 5:53 PM

Ray, let's say they are not indeed illegally wiretapping everyone ... so why not use the FISA court and do it legally ... do you really jump through hoops and put yourself in this kind of position (the administration) just because you don't want to follow the laws already there? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

And BTW, yes, I do think they can and do monitor any amount of calls they want, maybe not at the ongoing minute of the call, but through random checking based on selective wording and phrasing. Do I have proof? No. but then neither do you.

Posted by Ray | July 27, 2007 8:17 PM

"Ray, let's say they are not indeed illegally wiretapping everyone ... so why not use the FISA court and do it legally ... do you really jump through hoops and put yourself in this kind of position (the administration) just because you don't want to follow the laws already there? Doesn't make a lot of sense."

Let me get this right, you say my explanation doesn't make a lot of sense, but the idea of a vast government conspiracy involving supercomputers and wiretaps that is monitoring America's cellphone and searches for key words and phrases does?

Well, try this scenario and see if it makes sense:

The government has Person A in Country X under surveillance as a low level member of al qaeda. Person A calls Person B in the US. At this point, that call is not being monitored. The operative performing the surveillance of Person A notifies their superior that a call has been made to the US by Person A. That superior notifies the Justice Department and requests authority to monitor that call.

The Justice Department then collects the pertinent information needed for that warrant, like the name of Person B, their number, where the call is originating and where it is terminating, etc. The Justice Department then submits that warrant request to the FISA court for approval.

Assuming that warrant request is properly filled out, the FISA court then requests information as to why this warrant is necessary. The Justice Department submits the requested information regarding Person A and why that person is under surveillance. The Court then approves the warrant.

The Justice Department then transfers that warrant to the NSA. The NSA contacts the telephone carrier or cellphone provider here in America so they may have access to that call. The provider then allows access and now the monitoring can actually begin. After all the time it took for the government to request approval to perform a wiretap and to actually start monitoring, Person A has already hung up.

You have to remember, phone calls normally last only for a few minutes and it takes several times that just to get authorization and to start monitoring that one call.

Person B resides in the US. Unless the Justice Department can show that there is reasonable suspicion that Person B should have continual surveillance, a warrant authorizing a wiretap of Person B's phone will not be issued and the government can not continue to monitor calls made by, or to, Person B here in the US. Since no information was gathered because of the delay encountered in getting the authority to monitor that first call, there is no reasonable suspicion and no warrant will be issued. If Person A calls Person B again, or vise versa, the whole process has to start all over again.

Now do you understand? It that time delay between the start of the call and the eventual authorization that is the biggest problem. That why Bush authorized the monitoring "Person B's" without waiting for a warrant and that's what everyone has been calling domestic wiretapping.

As to blanket monitoring, you may believe anything you wish. If you think the government is that powerful, that's your choice. But let me ask you this, if such blanket monitoring WAS possible, don't you think that SOMEONE would have leaked the existence of such as that would be illegal? As far as I know, no one has leaked the existence of some vast supercomputer network that continually monitors America's phones.

Posted by sherlock | July 28, 2007 12:16 PM

"Mr. Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, wandered back into the press cabin as the plane sat on the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Base before the president arrived from the White House."

What I was hoping to read next was:

"President Bush came into the cabin shortly thereafter, and seeing Specter, pointed to the door and said "Get the hell off my airplane, you lying sack!"