Gonzales Back Before Congress

[Adrienne]

Feedback   Gonzales explains bedside meeting with ailing AshcroftStory Highlights
Bedside meeting concerned domestic surveillance program

Gonzales says Congress was exerting pressure to recertify program

Gonzales' account differs from that of Ashcroft's deputy at time

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales denied Tuesday that he and former White House chief of staff Andy Card tried to exploit then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's frail condition by pressuring him to recertify President Bush's intelligence-gathering program during a 2004 hospital visit.




Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

 Gonzales said that he and Card had been urged by congressional leaders of both parties to take steps necessary to ensure that the unidentified intelligence program survive a looming deadline for its expiration. To do that, Gonzales said, he needed Ashcroft's permission.

At the time, Ashcroft was in an intensive care unit recovering from gall bladder surgery and Gonzales was Bush's White House legal counsel. Ashcroft had transferred the powers of his office to Deputy Attorney General James Comey.

"We went there because we thought it was important for him to know where the congressional leadership was on this," Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee in his first public explanation of the meeting.

"Clearly if he had been competent and understood the facts and had been inclined to do so, yes we would have asked him," Gonzales added. "Andy Card and I didn't press him. We said 'Thank you' and we left."

Gonzales' version conflicts with Comey's.

"I was angry," Comey, testified in May, releasing details of the meeting for the first time. "I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man who did not have the powers of the attorney general."

Don't Miss
Gonzales says he wants to fix problems
Bush ex-counsel may face contempt proceedings
Gonzales aides deny he misled Congress
Ex-Bush aide declines to answer Senate questions
Democrats and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, pressed Gonzales about the visit, saying it raised the question of whether the attorney general's loyalty to Bush damaged his judgment.

But it was only one of a large selection of issues on which lawmakers pounded Bush's longtime friend during the tense proceedings Tuesday.  Watch senators grill the attorney general »

Harder on Gonzales than most Democrats, Specter at one point raised the prospect of appointing a special prosecutor to investigate whether the department fired federal prosecutors at the White House's direction, to make room for new U.S. attorneys who would handle corruption cases in ways that might help Republicans. He said that Bush had conflicts of interest in the matter and that such a scenario may now be necessary because administration officials have made statements that might have the effect of shutting down congressional supervision.

"The constitutional authority and responsibility for congressional oversight is gone," said Specter, the Judiciary Committee's senior Republican. "If that is to happen, the president can run the government as he chooses, answer no questions."

Glaring at Gonzales just a few feet away at the witness table, Specter declared, "The attorney general has the authority to appoint a special prosecutor."

"I don't trust you," Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, told Gonzales.

But the story about Gonzales' hospital visit elicited the most anger from senators because it addressed the concerns of some that the attorney general's loyalty to the president damaged his judgment and the Justice Department's independence.

Comey said that he and Ashcroft had decided against recertifying the classified program. There were concerns at the time about whether the domestic eavesdropping program violated civil liberties. The program was slated to expire on March 11, 2004, if not recertified by Justice.

But Gonzales said Tuesday that he did not know whether Ashcroft had made a decision or whether he had been aware of Comey's objections. Furthermore, he said, House and Senate leaders of both parties urged him during an emergency meeting earlier on March 10 to make sure the program survived the deadline.

"How can you get approval from Ashcroft for anything when he's under sedation and incapacitated? For anything?" Specter asked.

"We would not have sought nor did we intend to seek to get any approval from General Ashcroft if in fact he was not fully competent to make that decision," Gonzales replied.

"I'm not making any progress here," Specter snapped.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, grilled Gonzales on whether the attorney general provided misleading statements when he said there had been no dissenting views in the administration on the domestic surveillance program that then operated without warrants.

"How can you say you haven't deceived the committee?" Schumer asked.

Gonzales stood by his comments.

"The disagreement that occurred, and the reason for the visit to the hospital, senator, was about other intelligence activities," Gonzales said, refusing to say what the other program might be.

"How can you say you should stay on as attorney general when we go through exercises like this?" Schumer asked. "You want to be attorney general, you should be able to clarify it yourself."


Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, told Gonzales that he believes the attorney general intentionally misled the committee about which program caused dissent among administration officials.

Gonzales said he couldn't say in an unclassified setting, but offered to go into more detail in private meetings with senators. E-mail to a friend

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/24/gonzales.hearing.ap/index.html

[Volitzer]

Impeach them all Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, etc.

[Kristina]

Gonzales Digs a Deeper Hole
Tuesday, Jul. 24, 2007 By JAY NEWTON-SMALL/WASHINGTON  US



Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Tim Sloan / AFP / Getty


Just when it seemed that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' reputation on Capitol Hill couldn't possibly get much worse, he showed up Tuesday for yet another hearing. And as with so many of his recent appearances before Congress, his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee raised a lot more troubling questions than it answered — not just about his own conduct of and honesty about the U.S. Attorney firings, but also about the Administration's domestic intelligence gathering programs.

Related
Was Gonzales' Emergency Visit Illegal?
Questions are raised about whether he violated the law by discussing classified information in Ashcroft's hospital room

Will Miers' No-Show Land in Court?
With the former White House Counsel defying Congress, the battle over executive privilege is heating up


That new wrinkle stemmed from Gonzales' testy exchange with Senator Arlen Specter, the panel's top Republican. Specter opened up with former Deputy Attorney General James Comey's testimony to the panel in May over Gonzales' actions while serving as White House Counsel. Comey had alleged that Gonzales tried to convince an ailing Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was in the hospital recovering from gallbladder surgery, to sign off on Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. "There are no rules saying he couldn't take back authority," Gonzales said, trying to explain that they had hoped Ashcroft might be able to sign off on an intelligence program due to expire the next day, a program that Comey as acting AG had refused to renew.

But what Specter really wanted to know was how that meeting squared with Gonzales' previous testimony that there had been no serious internal disagreements over the program. Gonzales seemed to believe he had a simple explanation. "The disagreement that occurred was about other intelligence activities, and the reason for the visit to the hospital was about other intelligence activities," the Attorney General said. "It was not about the terrorist surveillance program that the president announced to the American people."

Both Specter and later Senator Chuck Schumer latched onto Gonzales' puzzling comment. Schumer in particular brought up several examples where in sworn testimony Gonzales has named the Terrorist Surveillance Program as the one at issue during the hospital visit to Ashcroft's room. Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy then ordered a complete review of Gonzales' statements to the committee. "This is such a significant and major point," Leahy said. "There's a discrepancy here in sworn testimony and we're going to find out who's telling the truth."

Specter later circled back to Gonzales on the matter, warning him: "My suggestion to you is you review your testimony to find out if your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable," Specter said. The maximum penalty for being caught lying to Congress is five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 per count. Specter wryly noted to reporters during a break that there is a jail in the Capitol complex.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, who was involved in the briefings at the time of the hospital visit, said the so-called Gang of Eight — the eight top bipartisan members of Congress on intelligence issues — were not briefed about any sunset the program was facing, as Gonzales claimed. He also emphatically refuted Gonzales' statements that there was more than one program under discussion at the time and that the Gang of Eight had agreed the program was so important that if it had been allowed to lapse they were considering emergency legislation.

"Once again he's making up something to protect himself and creating situations that never happened," Rockefeller said, adding that "based on what I know about it, I'd have to say" Gonzales has committed perjury.

Gonzales' woes actually began even before he was sworn in. He took his seat as a protestor held a pink banner reading "Impeach" behind him and to yells of "Impeach him!" from protesters in the room, who were quickly escorted out. Specter threatened the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into the firings of the eight U.S. Attorneys last year and a Senate "trial" to hold in contempt those Administration officials refusing to comply with Senate subpoenas. Then Leahy gaveled in the proceedings, saying "the Attorney General has lost the confidence of the Congress and the American people." ( When asked about Specter's threat of holding a Senate trial on contempt citations, Senator Trent Lott, the No. 2 Senator Republican, said he didn't "believe that's necessary," adding he intended to speak with Specter about the issue.)

In his opening statement, Gonzales underlined all the important work the department is still engaged in, highlighting its hunt for sexual predators and its role in the war on terror. But when asked by Senator Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat, if his presence is more detrimental than helpful Gonzales said: "Ultimately, I have to decide is it better for me to leave: I've decided to stay and fix the problem and that's what I'm doing," he said over guffaws from hearing attendees. "We're bringing in good experienced people. We've changed policies, we've been made aware with some of the problems with our policies."

Much of Gonzales' time was spent telling the committee he couldn't remember, wasn't up to date or wasn't at liberty to discuss the details on everything from the department's controversial settlement with the makers of Oxycotin, a drug believed responsible for dozens of deaths and his consideration of death penalty cases. to his involvement in drafting U.S. torture guidelines while working at the White House and why he apparently lied to a Senate panel over President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping programs.

When Specter asked Gonzales whether the President has the right to prohibit the Department of Justice from pursuing Congressional charges of contempt against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten — the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow is expected to issue two contempt citations for their refusal, citing executive privilege, to comply with subpoenas to testify — Gonzales had a short lawyerly response. "I am recused of speaking on that matter due to the ongoing investigation," he said.

Later, when Senator Diane Feinstein, a California Democrat, asked how many names were on the list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired that he approved, he said he couldn't recall. "After all this time and all of the investigations into this, I find it hard to believe you can't remember," Feinstein quipped. "I'll have to get back to you on that," Gonzales said.

He couldn't remember answers for even the rare friendly inquisitors. After Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, tried to prod him about how long Comey was in Ashcroft's room — hinting that maybe he hadn't really been present for much of the conversation — Gonzales replied, "I don't remember."

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1646714,00.html?cnn=yes

[unknown]

Keith Oberman of "Countdown" caught Fox mis-labeling Arlen Specter as a democratic... this is the secong time that I know of that they have misrepresented a controversial Republican as a Democrat, as I see it there can only be too explainations for this.

One, that they are grossly negligent and incompetent.
Two, that they are not "fair and balanced," but an advocacy group, only interested in spreading propaganda.

If anyone who has been watching the Gonzales hearings with a critical eye can tell you, Gonzales has no respect for the constitution, no interest in maintaining the balance of power between the 3 branches of government. His interest is in creating an imperal presidency. His ideas are diametrically opposed to the intention of the Founding Fathers and thus he has no business being Attorney General of the United States.

[Volitzer]

We need to get rid of the whole Illuminati-Bush Administration.

[Luke Hodiak]

Documents contradict Gonzales' testimony
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer





Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refers to himself as he testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing on 'Oversight of the Department of Justice' on Capitol Hill, July 23, 2007. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)


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.

[Luke Hodiak]

Keith Oberman of "Countdown" caught Fox mis-labeling Arlen Specter as a democratic... this is the secong time that I know of that they have misrepresented a controversial Republican as a Democrat, as I see it there can only be too explainations for this.

One, that they are grossly negligent and incompetent.
Two, that they are not "fair and balanced," but an advocacy group, only interested in spreading propaganda.

If anyone who has been watching the Gonzales hearings with a critical eye can tell you, Gonzales has no respect for the constitution, no interest in maintaining the balance of power between the 3 branches of government. His interest is in creating an imperal presidency. His ideas are diametrically opposed to the intention of the Founding Fathers and thus he has no business being Attorney General of the United States.

I saw that on Olberman, too, Unknown.  The other Repub they tried to label a Democrat was Mark Foley, back during the Page scandal (which incidentally has drained so much of Dennis Hastert's campaign money in legal fees that he probably won't be running for re-election).

The Bush plan to control the judiciary is even worse than it looks.  Not only is the Justice Department now a joke, they have also replaced all the U.S. Attorneys with cronies who won't investigate them, let alone rule against them, the decision by the judge in the Plame case is a perfect example. Congress plans to vote to hold Harriet Meyers in contempt hopefully shortly, but the charges will be referred to either the Justice Department or the D.C. Attorney and neither will act on them.

The only way Congress can still keep itself relevant and restore rule to the land is to start impeachment hearings, something they apparently don't have an appetite for yet.

[Volitzer]

Fire his @$$.