Atlantis Online
March 29, 2024, 10:48:23 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Update About Cuba Underwater Megalithic Research
http://www.timstouse.com/EarthHistory/Atlantis/bimini.htm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Lawmakers seek probe into possible Alberto Gonzales impeachment

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Lawmakers seek probe into possible Alberto Gonzales impeachment  (Read 76 times)
0 Members and 44 Guests are viewing this topic.
Adrienne
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2428



« on: July 31, 2007, 03:14:31 pm »

Committee demanding details of NSA data-mining
Story Highlights
NEW: Lawmakers seek probe into possible Alberto Gonzales impeachment


Rep. John Conyers wants all opinions, memos and background on data-mining

Gonzales, FBI director seem to disagree about basis of 2004 dispute

Conyers: Did White House leak classified material to protect Gonzales?
Next Article in Politics »


 Read  VIDEO
     
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A House committee is requesting Justice Department documents on a data-mining project that reportedly identified the senders and recipients of calls and e-mails intercepted via the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program.




Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is being asked to provide records about a data-mining program.

 In a Monday letter, Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to hand over "all opinions, memoranda and background materials, as well as any dissenting views, materials and opinions" about the data-mining program.

On Tuesday, a group of congressmen announced they had introduced a resolution calling for an investigation to determine whether the attorney general should be impeached.

While the Bush administration has acknowledged OK'ing the controversial program in which the government wiretapped phone calls without obtaining a warrant, it has remained mum on whether it authorized the NSA to use computers to sift through databases to identify who participated in intercepted communications. (The computers reportedly do not identify the contents of the communications.)

Critics have said the surveillance program violates a 1978 act requiring a special court's approval before eavesdropping on communications in intelligence cases.

In his letter, Conyers wrote that his committee is considering changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and therefore must be "fully apprised of these controversial, and possibly unlawful, programs."

The Michigan Democrat continued, "It is difficult to craft appropriate legislative responses unless we have all of the relevant facts concerning these programs."

The embattled Gonzales is at the center of the controversy and is presently defending himself against allegations that he lied to Congress about a dispute between the White House and Justice Department over the eavesdropping program's legality.

Don't Miss
Ex-official: Gonzales 'splitting hairs'
White House: Congress creating controversies
FBI director appears to contradict Gonzales
Gonzales has denied there was any significant dissent over the program in the Justice Department, but former Deputy Attorney General James Comey and FBI Director Robert Mueller have indicated otherwise.

At issue is a 2004 late-night hospital visit to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, which Gonzales claims did not involve discussion of "the terrorist surveillance program that the president announced to the American people." Mueller testified last week that Ashcroft told him it did involve the program.

A former government official familiar with the program said over the weekend that the dispute was so contentious some officials, including Comey, threatened to resign from the administration in protest.

Last week, Gonzales told a Senate committee that the dispute involved "other intelligence activities," which he declined to discuss. The former government official said that the dispute centered on data mining, not eavesdropping.

Gonzales will lean heavily on this distinction as he defends himself against perjury charges.  Watch how Gonzales may defend himself »

Democrats, however, say it doesn't matter because the data-mining project was a facet of the NSA eavesdropping program. Also, the former government official who confirmed the existence of the data-mining program has said Gonzales "may have been splitting hairs."

In his letter to Gonzales, Conyers questioned whether the White House leaked classified information about the data-mining program "to rehabilitate previous controversial testimony by you." Conyers further said that the Judiciary Committee wants to know if the Justice Department knew about the leaks or authorized them.

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and other top administration officials briefed a group of lawmakers on the issue Monday. Gonzales' testimony was discussed during that session, said Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Specter added that the Bush administration has agreed to address the matter in writing by Tuesday, but the senator would not disclose what else was discussed during the 80-minute briefing, nor would he divulge which lawmakers attended.

The White House is "preparing" the letter requested by Specter, spokesman Tony Snow said Tuesday. He would not comment on a deadline or the letter's contents but said it would be delivered Tuesday.

President Bush acknowledged the NSA eavesdropping program in December 2005 and defended it as a vital counterterrorism tool. The program was authorized to intercept communications coming into or out of the United States involving people suspected of having links to al Qaeda, Bush said.

But the administration has not acknowledged using computers to identify who sent or received millions of Americans' phone calls and e-mails.

Gonzales' disputed statements -- coupled with an ongoing controversy over the allegedly political dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys last year -- have sparked bipartisan calls for the attorney general's resignation or ouster.

On Tuesday, Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Washington, said he introduced a resolution calling for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Gonzales should be impeached "for high crimes and misdemeanors."

Inslee said Gonzales' alleged actions constitute "a national embarrassment." In addition to the issues involving the U.S. attorneys and the eavesdropping program, Inslee also said Gonzales had politicized the U.S. judicial system and been dishonest with Congress and the American people.

"He has placed his loyalty to one man above his loyalty to the U.S. Constitution and that cannot stand," Inslee said referring to Gonzales' longtime allegiance to Bush. "We have a very deep scar on the integrity of the judicial system now."

Previously, Republican Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut said Gonzales doesn't have much credibility "and he would do us all a favor if he stepped down and allowed the president to select someone else."

Last week, four Democratic senators called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to determine if Gonzales has committed perjury.

But the president has stood by his longtime ally, who has been alongside him since 1995, during Bush's days as Texas governor. Vice President Dick Cheney also has run to Gonzales' defense.

"I think Al has done a good job under difficult circumstances," Cheney told CBS Radio on Monday. "The debate between he and the Senate is something they're going to have to resolve, but I think he has testified truthfully."

Cheney said he disagreed with Specter, who called Sunday for Gonzales to step down.

"I think the key is whether or not [Gonzales] has the confidence of the president, and he clearly does," Cheney said.


On Tuesday, Cheney continued his defense of Gonzales, saying that he stood by him and held him "in high regard."

"With respect to the U.S. attorneys, there has been, I think, a bit of a witch hunt on Capitol Hill as they keep rolling over rocks hoping they can find something, but there really hasn't been anything that has come up to suggest that there was any wrongdoing on any kind," Cheney said. E-mail to a friend

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/31/congress.gonzales/index.html
Report Spam   Logged

"In a monarchy, the king is law, in a democracy, the law is king."
-Thomas Paine

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Luke Hodiak
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2585



« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2007, 11:35:47 am »

Gonzales calls it confusion; Specter calls it 'misleading'
•   Story Highlights
•   NEW: Ranking Republican on Gonzales: "He did not tell the whole truth"
•   NEW: Specter says Gonzales shouldn't play "cat-and-mouse" with Senate
•   Gonzales says he didn't mean to mislead senators
•   Leahy declines Gonzales' invitation for private briefing
•   Next Article in Polit c   
 
 
 
 
 
 
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said he's not satisfied with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' attempt to clarify his testimony about no-warrant surveill nce.
 
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales conceded his testimony "may have created confus on."
 
"He did not tell the whole truth," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said Wednesday.
Earlier the same day, Gonzales sent a letter to Senate leaders saying he "may have created confusion" in his testimony about a program that allows domestic surveillance without a warrant. He had testified that the program had caused no dissent in the administration.
FBI Director Robert Mueller's statements to the committee later raised questions about the attorney general's testimony.
Specter did not accept the clarification. He disagreed that the attorney general had "tried to provide frank answers," and chastised Gonzales' apology for causing confusion.
"It's more than confusion, it's misleading," Specter said. "He did not tell the whole truth."
In a two-page letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales defended his testimony while conceding he was not clear when he described highly classified National Security Agency surveillance activities.
"I am deeply concerned with suggestions that my testimony was misleading, and am determined to address any such impression," Gonzales wrote Leahy.
"I recognize that the use of the term 'Terrorist Surveillance Program' and my shorthand reference to the 'program' publicly 'described by the president' may have created confusion, particularly for those who are knowledgeable about the NSA activities authorized in the presidential order described by the D.N.I. [director of national intelligence], and who may be accustomed to thinking of them or referring to them together as a single N.S.A. program," Gonzales wrote.

The distinction of whether there was only one program or whether "other intelligence activities" constituted a separate program from the confirmed terrorist surveillance program is critical.
Gonzales testified the no-warrant eavesdropping program acknowledged by President Bush in December 2005 was not in dispute, but dissent had erupted over "other intelligence activities." He would not discuss what he meant by "other."
On Tuesday, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell sent a letter to the committee explaining that the no-warrant eavesdropping program is the only aspect of N.S.A. surveillance that can be discussed publicly.
Gonzales offered to give Leahy a special briefing but Leahy declined.
The New York Times disclosed the warrantless domestic spying program included computer searches of domestic phone calls and e-mails, and wiretapping of international calls and e-mail messages by terrorism suspects inside the United States.
"The attorney general's legalistic explanation of his misleading testimony under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week is not what one should expect from the top law enforcement officer of the United States," Leahy said.
"It is time for full candor to enforce the law and promote justice, rather than word parsing."
Leahy said that Gonzales has until the end of this week to correct and supplement his testimony.
"I hope he will take that opportunity to clarify the many issues on which he appears not to have been forthcoming and to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee and the American people the whole truth," Leahy said.
Specter called the hearings a "cat-and-mouse game, and that's not the way the attorney general of the United States ought to treat the Senate Judiciary Committee."
Democrats have called for a special counsel to investigate whether to charge Gonzales with perjury, because of the disputed testimony, and over the firings of U.S. attorneys last year that critics say were politically motivated.
Although he has made it clear that he would like Gonzales to step down, Specter said Wednesday that he doesn't think a perjury investigation is warranted.
In a related development Wednesday, the Bush administration and Democratic congressional leadership struggled to agree on a proposal to broaden the government's ability to eavesdrop on foreign suspects abroad.
The administration is pressing Congress to act before it leaves on its August recess at the end of the week, citing concerns about a heightened terror threat.
McConnell and Congressional Democrats have been exchanging proposals that would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). One of the sticking points involves the interception of communications in which one person is in the United States and the other abroad.
The Democrats want the FISA court -- the special panel that has to approve any wiretaps involving people in the U.S. -- to oversee the eavesdropping and authorize warrants when there is a pattern of calls from a foreign target to the United States.
The administration wants the attorney general to oversee the surveillance. E-mail to a  riend 
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/02/gonzales.congress/index.html
Report Spam   Logged
Luke Hodiak
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2585



« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2007, 11:37:00 am »

Why Bush Won't Ax Gonzales Thursday, Aug. 02, 2007 By MASSIMO CALABRESI
javascript:void(0)javascript:void(0)
Enlarge Photo
U.S. President George W. Bush with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Legislative Conference in Washington, D.C.
If cabinet members were perishable goods, Alberto Gonzales would have passed his "sell by" date sometime last spring. Since January, when he first faced sharp questioning over the firing of U.S. Attorneys, the Attorney General has earned disastrous reviews for his inconsistent testimony, poor judgment and for appearing to place loyalty to the White House above service to the public. By June it was hard to find a Republican willing to defend him. Now Gonzales' dissembling testimony about a controversial domestic-spying program has raised suspicions about what he is hiding and fueled new calls for him to go. Senate Democrats have called for a special prosecutor to investigate his activities as Attorney General, and a group of moderate House Democrats has called for the House to weigh impeachment proceedings against him.

 
Yet the embattled Gonzales' grip on his job seems unshakable. Bush tossed Donald Rumsfeld last fall despite support from conservatives for the then Defense Secretary, and the President chucked Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace at the first sign of congressional resistance to his renomination. So why the extraordinary support for Gonzales in the face of a protracted meltdown at the Department of Justice (DOJ)? Here are four reasons why Bush can't afford to let Gonzales go:
1. Gonzales is all that stands between the White House and special prosecutors. As dicey as things are for Bush right now, his advisers know that they could get much worse. In private, Democrats say that if Gonzales did step down, his replacement would be required to agree to an independent investigation of Gonzales' tenure in order to be confirmed by the Senate.
Without Gonzales at the helm, the Justice Department would be more likely to approve requests for investigations into White House activities on everything from misuse of prewar Iraq intelligence to allegations of political interference in tobacco litigation. And the DOJ could be less likely to block contempt charges against former White House aides who have refused to testify before Congress. "Bush needs someone at Justice who's going to watch the White House's back," says a Senate Democratic Judiciary Committee staffer. If Gonzales steps down, Bush would lose his most reliable shield.
2. A post-Gonzales DOJ would be in the hands of a nonpartisan, tough prosecutor, not a political hand. Newly appointed Deputy Attorney General Craig Morford is in line to take over until a new Attorney General could be confirmed. Morford, a 20-year veteran of the department, was brought in to investigate the botched trial of the first major federal antiterrorism case after 9/11. He is in the mold of James Comey, the former Deputy Attorney General who stood up to the White House over its domestic-eavesdropping program. Even New York Senator Charles Schumer, one of Gonzales' harshest critics, called Morford's appointment a positive step. Over the past six months, more than half a dozen top political appointees have left the department amid scandal. The unprecedented coziness that once existed between the Justice Department and the White House now remains solely in the person of Gonzales.
3. If Gonzales goes, the White House fears that other losses will follow. Top Bush advisers argue that Democrats are after scalps and would not stop at Gonzales. Congressional judiciary committees have already subpoenaed Harriet Miers and Karl Rove in the firings of U.S. Attorneys last year. Republicans are loath to hand Democrats some high-profile casualties to use in the 2008 campaign. Stonewalling, they believe, is their best way to avoid another election focused on corruption issues.
4. Nobody at the White House wants the legal bills and headaches that come with being a target of investigations. In backing Gonzales, Bush is influenced by advisers whose future depends on the survival of their political bodyguard. Gonzales remains the last line of defense protecting Bush, Rove and other top White House officials from the personal consequences of litigation. A high-profile probe would hobble the White House politically, and could mean sky-high legal bills and turmoil for Bush's closest aides.
Keeping Gonzales isn't cost-free. But for now, Bush seems to have decided that the importance of running out the clock on investigations by keeping his loyal Attorney General in place is worth any amount of criticism.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1649013,00.html?cnn=yes
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy