Democrats seeking perjury charges against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales got more ammunition Wednesday. FBI Director Robert Meuller gave testimony to the House Judiciary Committee that seemed to conflict with sworn testimony that Gonzales has given Congress. Contrary to what Gonzales has said, Meuller said there were disagreements within the Bush administration about its secret eavesdropping program. A Justice Department spokesman said that Gonzales was referring only to the international eavesdropping program, not the domestic one, when he said there was no controversy. Few lawmakers are buying that.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- bowhowdy2 on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
37 Comments
Only a bushie would buy that.
The Phantom,
Indeed. Nobody else is buying it. Yet another episode of “who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?” brought to you by the Bush Administration.
And, surprise surprise, after talking tough towards Gonzales, Arlen Specter now says it would be “premature” to appoint a Special Prosecutor.
Gonzales is so done and has been for some time.
Does anyone remember a political incident like this where an administrative official gets jeered by congressional folks, is considered way past done by every pundit, but yet same said official contends that he needs to stay to fix the problems that he was unaware existed, is responsible for, but not to blame for. Get all that?
And jeered by those in his own Party.
Obviously Gonzo didn’t get his bike riding skills from George Fell-off-a-Segway Bush, considering all the back-pedaling he’s doing.
Steven, We the People are being ignored. How does it feel to be invisible?
Republicans vote for people that wear pooped-in-diapers.
And we Liberals are considered to be out of the main stream.
Gonzo: ” Oh, you meant the illegal eavesdropping in the U.S. on American citizens, Not the leagal International eavesdropping program that was going to cause half the admin. to resign. Why didn’t you say so, duh!”
The issue on these “FISA Warrantless Wiretaps” is that we now live in a “packet-switching” type network not the old POTS system of line to line phone tapping shown in 1950’s movies.
The terrorist can originate a phone or net call in Pakistan to Argentina with no connections in the US…however, it is many times routed via US networks through the US…so is it a “domestic” call or ” foreign” call.
People are not out running around listening to your mama.
“To understand more of why these are set up, keep in mind that we live in a world of fiber optics and packet-switching. A wiretap today doesn’t mean the FBI must install a bug on Abdul Terrorist’s phone in Peshawar. Information now follows the path of least resistance, wherever that may lead. And because the U.S. has among the world’s most efficient networks, hundreds of millions of foreign calls are routed through the U.S.
That’s right: If an al Qaeda operative in Quetta calls a fellow jihadi in Peshawar, that call may well travel through a U.S. network. This ought to be a big U.S. advantage in our “asymmetrical” conflict with terrorists. But it also means that, for the purposes of FISA, a foreign call that is routed through U.S. networks becomes a domestic call. So thanks to the obligation to abide by an outdated FISA statute, U.S. intelligence is now struggling even to tap the communications of foreign-based terrorists. If this makes you furious, it gets worse.
While some FISA judges have been open to expediting warrants, as well as granting retroactive approval. But there are 11 judges in the FISA rotation, and some of them have been demanding that intelligence officials get permission in advance for wiretaps. This means missed opportunities and less effective intelligence. And it shows once again why the decisions of unaccountable judges shouldn’t be allowed to supplant those of an elected Commander in Chief.
When the program began, certain U.S. telecom companies also cooperated with the National Security Agency. But they were sued once the program was exposed, and so some have ceased cooperating for fear of damaging liability claims. We found all of this hard to believe when we first heard it, but we’ve since confirmed the details with other high-level sources.”
Some ideas on Gonzales’s staying power:**********Gonzales also serves another useful function: as a lightning rod.
“There is a body of thought among Republicans that gives Gonzales great credit for drawing fire and putting up with it so the others in the Bush Cabinet can do their jobs,” said GOP consultant Rich Galen. “Because, if Gonzales is gone, they (Democrats) will just look for a new guy to go after.”
Galen said only Bush and Gonzales know the next act in this drama.
Still, he said, “I suspect there will come a time here, maybe as early as the August (congressional) recess when everybody’s out of town, when the attorney general decides that his best course is to go.”
Bush could then make a so-called “recess appointment’ of a new attorney general. The Constitution gives him that authority. Such appointments, made when Congress is in recess, bypass the Senate confirmation process entirely.
Such an appointee could serve until the next Congress convenes — which coincides with the inauguration of a new president.**********
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070727/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gonzales_meltdown_2
The above especially makes sense given Bush’s lame duck status and the likelihood that he would have a very difficult time getting one of his fellow ideologues confirmed by the Senate.
That makes sense to me, SD. I’ve thought such might be the approach (recess appointment following resignation).
Posted by: mrbill | July 27, 2007 at 03:53 PM
Much of your post was in quotation marks, so I assume it is a quote from somewhere. Would you provide the source?
A ‘recess appointment’ would fit nicely into the way the Bushies like to run the government.
Wow.
Two people with two versions of the same event.
That never happens, right?
I mean all witnesses in a trial tell identical stories down to the letter.
(rolls eyes)
Kansas, did you watch the hearings or any part of them, easily available on C-Span or YouTube?
Your comments suggest not.
Go do your homework, kids.
I am so sick of intellectually dishonest Bush apologists who think Tony Snow is a credible source on anything.
Well, for once the primary source is right there, and I defy anyone to watch the hearings and come away with anything other than Gonzales lying.
(rolls eyes)
No, I’ve been gone most of the day couldn’t watch any TV.
Even if I could watch it, I’m not privy to all the documents supposable in possession of the Judiciary committee.
As I’ve always said, this fishing expedition is a game about “gotcha.”
One could prosecute their own grandmother if they spend enough time.
This has zero to do with Justice or what the American Public desires out of its lawmakers.
Lawmakers being the key word and what they should be doing.
Oops, put the quotes in but forgot the link in my note above about even if the whole phone conversation originates outside the US it may still go through the domestic net.
It was in the WSJ at:http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010389
You can go watch it NOW, Kansas. That’s the point. Here, I’ll hand it to you, since you apparently can’t do it yourself:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/us_attorneys/alberto_gonzales/
One of Congress’s functions is oversight. They are doing what they are paid to do–catch Bush scumbags not doing THEIR jobs.
(rolls eyes again)
Kansas the problem for Gonzales is that there is more then one that is discrediting his words. So far the list is five that have sworn under oath to the contrary of Gonzales.****Now the idea that Gonzales is a lighting rod is possible. But judging from passed performances it shows that the Administration acts as if they have an Ace up their sleeves. Otherwise saying that they really do believe that they know something about the law and Government that no one else has noticed that protects them. Gonzales himself as the President’s counsel as much took a tactic in his memo to the Administration about a “Coining of a phrase “ Would give protection from upcoming charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the use of torture against suspected Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Lawyer ball as Hank Hill would call it!
The signing statements and the like are another example of their believe that there is an Ace they can play will needed. Even the so called experts on the subject are scratching their heads as to if they are an overriding factor to the law of the land. Perhaps it is the simple fact that Bush has control over the investigating Attorney that would be instructed by Congress to investigate. And that Congress is powerless to stop it.
The ancient Chinese had a curse, “May you live in interesting times!”. Friends, this maybe the most interesting times in this country’s history!
I would like to get Leahy and Schumer in the hotseat.
I bet I could make them lie about their last name before the day was over.
This show trial has nothing to do with seeking Justice about anything, it’s a political sideshow.
The Democrats are going to pay dearly for what they are doing and they don’t even realize it.
Okay, delsol, I watched it and saw nothing there other than some Congress people need to lose their clearances for talking about a classified program in a Public venue.
Mueller said “NSA briefing” and he was probably stalling because it was a classified meeting. Besides, that is a NSA program, not FBI.
So, let me understand this…The Dems want to charge perjury because Mueller called it a “NSA Meeting” and Gonzales called it another term and didn’t use the proper acronym.
That’s it?
We are going to charge people with perjury because they didn’t use the proper acronym?
Ridiculous.
Well, I guess there’s no saving you, because it damn sure is not about the acronym.
The point is Gonzalez lied under oath back in 2004 about whether there was adminstration disagreement about the TSP program, according to James Comey. Mueller supported Comey’s claim that Gonzales was lying. The acronym part is important because Gonzales claimed the 2004 disagreement was about a DIFFERENT secret surveillance activity, which would beg the question–there’s another secret program that no one has been told about?! Mueller confirmed Comey’s account that the past dissent–the dissent AG told Congress did not exist– was about the one program (TSP).
Gonzales’ lie way back when led to Congress approving the TSP program.
And his continued obfuscation–I guess you did not watch the segment with Diane Feinstein–has led to most of his staff resigning, and we still do not know who actually was responsible for firing the nine US attorneys.
Of course, you will make light of this…illegal wiretapping by the FBI and an Attorney General that can tell the WHOLE truth to Congress–without being a complete shill for the White House– are just not very important.
I have not heard a single person defend Gonzales that is not affiliated with White House or the Republican Party.
Actually…I have not heard a single Republican congressman defend Gonzales, either.
But Weblog Republicans…THEY get that poor AG is victim of a witch hunt!!
Even after all these months of tacking and backtracking, Gonzales’ lack of command of the details is something to behold.
–he doesn’t know the total number of U.S. attorneys who were fired;
–he doesn’t recall his participation in reversing former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton’s decision about whether to seek the death penalty in a case where all the evidence was circumstantial;
–he doesn’t know why DoJ’s new guide to prosecuting voter fraud removed or watered down key directives against pursuing cases in a way that could interfere with the outcome of an election;
–he doesn’t know why the Justice Department’s guidelines restricting communications with the White House now suddenly include a blanket exception for contact between the attorney general and the vice president and his counsel;
–and, of course, he doesn’t know who put the names of the U.S. attorneys on the list he approved for firing.
Liar? Incompetent?
Oh yeah…I shouldn’t be worrying my pretty little head about. Tony Snow says it’s not our business.
Whatever. Watching Tony Snow lie about Alberto Gonzales lying is getting to be a bit old hat.
We know what we’ve seen, and we’ve seen enough. Oh, waiter! Special Prosecutor, please!
delsol,
Re your 9:01 PM post upthread. The HUGE difference is, republicans in Congress are not anonymous, unlike the ones here on WE Blog.
The ones here on WE Blog can easily ignore reality, and post lies — with no consequences.
I sure hope some poor dumb sucker never gets some of these Democrat Bloggers as Jurors.
Talk about making pre-drawn conclusions…
Kinda like a lot of us dumb suckers getting Neocon Republicans as an Executive Branch?
KANSAS, your lack of attention to the story and obvious reliance on administration hearsay, rather than the facts, illustrates your own “pre-drawn conclusion” quite clearly.
If you don;t actually pay attention you are doomed to the opinion of others.
Bill Clinton: “whether or not I lied depends on the meaning of ‘is.’
Alberto Gonzales: “whether or not I lied depends on whether Robert Mueller really meant ‘yes’ when he answered ‘yes’ that I was at the meeting in which the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) was discuseed.”
Seems a bit selective, those Republicans who pounced on the first while giving a pass to the second.
Enough. The Attorney General of the United States lied under oath. Fire his ass.
Alberto has lost all creditable support. The only people who support him are — guess who? GWB, Tricky Dick II and Tony Snow! That’s some support isn’t it? “Alberto, those tea leaves are telling you something!” GET OUT WHILE THE GITN’S GOOD!!!!
Yeah, all the Dems are right. Let’s just shoot all Republican office holders in the head and get it over with.
No doubt Gonzales lies every minute of the day and cannot tell the truth.
Perhaps he’s really not Alberto Gonzales, but Bush with a mask on.
Dems say Bush is a constant liar.
Stick to the argument at hand, please. This is about AG AG, not the rest of the administration.
Please don;t make assumptions about what “Dems” say. We don;t all say the same thing, just like Republicans don’t. Blanket statements on either side like that are really counterproductive.
For example, I don’t think Bush is a liar at all, myself.
Guess it all depends on what ‘is’ is! Govt. using data mining as well it would appear.Mining of Data Prompted Fight Over SpyingSign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Single Page Reprints ShareDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalinkBy SCOTT SHANE and DAVID JOHNSTONPublished: July 29, 2007WASHINGTON, July 28 — A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program.
It is not known precisely why searching the databases, or data mining, raised such a furious legal debate. But such databases contain records of the phone calls and e-mail messages of millions of Americans, and their examination by the government would raise privacy issues.
The N.S.A.’s data mining has previously been reported. But the disclosure that concerns about it figured in the March 2004 debate helps to clarify the clash this week between Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senators who accused him of misleading Congress and called for a perjury investigation.
The confrontation in 2004 led to a showdown in the hospital room of then Attorney General John Ashcroft, where Mr. Gonzales, the White House counsel at the time, and Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff, tried to get the ailing Mr. Ashcroft to reauthorize the N.S.A. program.
Mr. Gonzales insisted before the Senate this week that the 2004 dispute did not involve the Terrorist Surveillance Program “confirmed” by President Bush, who has acknowledged eavesdropping without warrants but has never acknowledged the data mining.
If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct.
But members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who have been briefed on the program, called the testimony deceptive.
“I’ve had the opportunity to review the classified matters at issue here, and I believe that his testimony was misleading at best,” said Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, joining three other Democrats in calling Thursday for a perjury investigation of Mr. Gonzales.
“This has gone on long enough,” Mr. Feingold said. “It is time for a special counsel to investigate whether criminal charges should be brought.”
The senators’ comments, along with those of other members of Congress briefed on the program, suggested that they considered the eavesdropping and data mining so closely tied that they were part of a single program. Both activities, which ordinarily require warrants, were started without court approval as the Bush administration intensified counterterrorism efforts soon after the Sept. 11 attacks.
A half-dozen officials and former officials interviewed for this article would speak only on the condition of anonymity, in part because unauthorized disclosures about the classified program are already the subject of a criminal investigation. Some of the officials said the 2004 dispute involved other issues in addition to the data mining, but would not provide details. They would not say whether the differences were over how the databases were searched or how the resulting information was used.
Nor would they explain what modifications to the surveillance program President Bush authorized to head off the threatened resignations by Justice Department officials.
An agency spokesman declined to comment on the data mining issue but referred a reporter to a statement issued earlier that Mr. Gonzales had testified truthfully.
The Justice Department announced in January that eavesdropping without warrants under the Terrorist Surveillance Program had been halted, and that a special intelligence court was again overseeing the wiretapping. The N.S.A., the nation’s largest intelligence agency, generally eavesdrops on communications in foreign countries. Since the 1978 passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, any eavesdropping to gather intelligence on American soil has required a warrant from the special court.
In addition, court approval is required for the N.S.A. to search the databases of telephone calls or e-mail records, usually compiled by American phone and Internet companies and including phone numbers or e-mail addresses, as well as dates, times and duration of calls and messages. Sometimes called metadata, such databases do not include the content of the calls and e-mail messages — the actual words spoken or written.
Government examination of the records, which allows intelligence analysts to trace relationships between callers and identify possible terrorist cells, is considered less intrusive than actual eavesdropping. But the N.S.A.’s eavesdropping targeted international calls and e-mail messages of people inside the United States, while the databases contain primarily domestic records. The conflict in 2004 appears to have turned on differing interpretations of the president’s power to bypass the FISA law and obtain access to the records.
1 2
Mining of Data Prompted Fight Over SpyingSign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Single Page Reprints ShareDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalinkPublished: July 29, 2007(Page 2 of 2)
President Bush has asserted that both his constitutional powers as commander in chief and the authorization for the use of military force passed by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks gave him legal justification for skirting the warrant requirement. Critics have called the surveillance illegal because it does not comply with the FISA law.
The first known assertion by administration officials that there had been no serious disagreement within the government about the legality of the N.S.A. program came in talks with New York Times editors in 2004. In an effort to persuade the editors not to disclose the eavesdropping program, senior officials repeatedly cited the lack of dissent as evidence of the program’s lawfulness.
In December 2005, The Times published articles describing the program, the data mining and the internal legal debate. The newspaper reported that the N.S.A. had combed large volumes of telephone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects.
Civil liberties groups, Congressional Democrats and some Republicans reacted to the disclosures with outrage, accusing the administration of operating an illegal surveillance program inside the United States. The uproar grew when USA Today reported in May 2006 more details of the N.S.A.’s acquisition from telephone companies of the phone call databases. In response to the articles, Mr. Bush confirmed the eavesdropping, saying it was limited to communications in and out of the United States involving people suspected of ties to Al Qaeda. He did not, however, confirm the data mining, nor has any other official done so publicly.
Mr. Gonzales defended the surveillance in an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006, saying there had been no internal dispute about its legality. He told the senators: “There has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into.”
By limiting his remarks to “the program the president has confirmed,” Mr. Gonzales skirted any acknowledgment of the heated arguments over the data mining. He said the Justice Department had issued a legal analysis justifying the eavesdropping program.
Mr. Bush and other officials also have repeatedly cited Justice Department reviews as evidence of their care in overseeing the program, never mentioning the bitter conflict that unfolded behind the scenes.
Mr. Gonzales’s 2006 testimony went unchallenged publicly until May of this year, when James B. Comey, the former deputy attorney general, described the March 2004 confrontation to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Comey had refused to sign a reauthorization for the N.S.A. program when he was standing in for Mr. Ashcroft, who was hospitalized for gall bladder surgery.
Mr. Comey described an intense fight that prompted the top leaders of the Justice Department to consider resigning in protest. Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card visited the bedside of Mr. Ashcroft, who was in pain and under sedation, to seek his signature on the reauthorization.
Mr. Ashcroft refused to do so. Mr. Comey testified that he thought the White House officials were trying to take advantage of a sick man.
On Tuesday, to respond to Mr. Comey’s account, Mr. Gonzales testified in a Senate appearance that he went to the hospital only after meeting with Congressional leaders about the impending deadline for the reauthorization. He said the consensus was that the program should go on, so he felt he had no choice but to seek Mr. Ashcroft’s approval.
At the hearing, Mr. Gonzales faced harsh questioning about why he had not previously acknowledged the 2004 standoff. In response, he asserted once again that there had not been disagreements about the surveillance program, insisting that the dispute involved “other intelligence activities.”
After the hearing, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent Mr. Gonzales a transcript of his testimony with pointed instructions — to “correct, clarify or supplement your answers so that, consistent with your oath, they are the whole truth.”
I’m guessing ol’ rubberstamp Roberts was one of the senior congressmen AGAG met with, and that he was aware of the illegal eavesdropping and data mining of American citizens that Justice Dept. members were threatening to resign over. Maybe the Eagle could get a clarification on that. But since the mining has not been officially acknowledged, it is probably to super doublely secret to be commented on!