Just when it seemed things couldn’t get worse for Gonzales…

When it comes to Alberto Gonzales’ precarious future, it’s important to remember that we’re not just dealing with one lie, we’re dealing with several. He lied about DoJ divisions over domestic surveillance. He lied about coaching witnesses before congressional testimony. He lied about violations of the Patriot Act.

In each instance, he lied in sworn testimony, in public, before congressional committees, which is exactly why several lawmakers are now asking that he be investigated for perjury.

But just when it seemed things couldn’t get worse for Gonzales, the evidence against him gets a little worse.

FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress on Thursday that the confrontation in 2004 between then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in Ashcroft’s hospital room was over the controversial warrantless surveillance program — in apparent contradiction of Gonzales’ Senate testimony on Tuesday .

Mueller said he spoke with Ashcroft shortly after Gonzales left the hospital, and he was told the meeting dealt with “an NSA (National Security Agency) program that has been much discussed, yes.”

Mueller made the comment as he testified before the House Judiciary Committee.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Gonzales insisted he had visited the ailing Ashcroft in the hospital to discuss “other intelligence activities,” not the surveillance program.

That, of course, wasn’t … what’s the word … true.

Indeed, Mueller’s testimony was a sharp rebuke of the line Gonzales has taken for quite some time. While the AG argued that there were no Justice Department reservations about warrantless domestic searches, the FBI director testified today that the agency was deeply divided.

Mueller also testified Thursday that he had serious reservations about the warrantless surveillance program at the time of the dramatic internal administration showdown and threats of top-level resignations.

Mueller did not confirm he had threatened to resign, but he twice said he supports the testimony of former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who had testified that Gonzales and former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card tried to pressure Ashcroft to reauthorize a surveillance program against terror suspects.

Mueller for the first time publicly confirmed he did dispatch — as Comey had testified — an FBI security detail to the hospital room to ensure that Comey was not removed from the room when Gonzales was there.

It’s worth remembering that, as a matter of governmental hierarchy, Gonzales is Mueller’s boss. But as of now, that doesn’t seem to matter much.

How many more of these revelations will it take before the White House has seen enough? How much more will craven congressional Republicans tolerate?

I’m not an expert on the subject, but if impeachment of cabinet officials is a possibility, it seems like a no-brainer in Gonzales’ case.

Post Script: In case there’s any question, here’s a clip from today’s House hearing.

Rep. Jackson-Lee: “Did you have an understanding that that the conversation was on TSP?”

Director Mueller: “I had an understanding that the discussion was on an NSA program, yes.”

Rep. Jackson-Lee: “I guess 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?”

Director Mueller: “The discussion was on a national NSA program that has been much discussed, yes.”

How will Dubs handle this? Why he’ll fire Meuller, of course.

  • I posted the following about the Rove / Jennings subpoenas; it also applies to Gonzales and his lying:

    It all comes down to the MSM. Until the MSM overcomes its lack of moral fiber, the process of exposing and rectifying the undemocratic and criminal behavior of the Bush administration will not happen. Thirty some years ago, David Broder (and others) had a spine and a broad reach to the public; today, all that we seem to have is Keith Olbermann playing Don Quixote five nights a week.

    On a related issue, Sen. Leahy and Sen. Whitehouse are former prosecutors. What other congressional Democrats are former prosecutors? Shouldn’t the DNC and congressional Democrats play up the fact that these Democrats have serious legal minds and aren’t playing partisan politics and being sock puppets for their party.

  • Mueller’s testimony and its implications is exactly the reason why I would have preferred impeachment to investigating Gonzo on perjury. It’s public, it’s much more expedient, and it pours a bit more concrete into Gonzo’s shoes. How many witnesses like this could be called… the mind boggles.

  • slip kid no more – If memory serves I think John Kerry was also a prosecutor. I haven’t paid close enough attention, but I don’t think that he is on this committee with Leahy.

  • I’m even more curious now what Ashcroft and Comey felt was illegal about the NSA program.

  • I’m looking forward to seeing this one play out. My guess is that the White House will stonewall, the Republicans will vote along party lines and the Dems will bark without biting. I’d love to be wrong about it but I believe that when the harrumphing is over Gonzales will still be AG. Losing Gonzales would bring down the whole house of cards and the Republicans know it.

  • And is it not a crime to discuss classified activities in a non-secured area (like a hospital room)?
    Pile it on, step on their necks, & show no mercy. It’s just frustrating that it takes so long. But take heart, remember that the MSM wanted to blow off the USA firings. Things change.

  • i assume it’s all “no comment” from the 4 republicans in the “gang of eight”. anyone know otherwise?

  • benjoya-there were comments yesterday from “anonymous sources” saying that fredo was consistent in his testimony in regards to what was said to the gang of 8. I wonder who those people could be…….

  • If the evidence contradicts AG’s testimony, then we just need to find better evidence.

    It’s the universe that needs to shift, ’cause I ain’t budging.

  • I’ve said this before; I’ve felt that it’s been a mistake for the Dems to take the impeachment of George W. Bush off the table and also to head too hastiy into impeachment of any of the (criminal) Bush underlings. The thinking goes that if Congress impeaches a lower hanging fruit like Gonzo, then the American public will possibly think Congress and the Dems are power mad if they also take action against GWB for Iraq, the TSP or any other number of cases, no matter how justified those cases may be.

    However, the Gonzales debacle is getting worse by the minute and it’s not even playing out according to the script where the target deftly deflects the matter until he effectively runs out the clock. Gonzo’s failures are atrocious and I’m sure even some of the GOP hacks are completely bent out of shape since they know they can’t come up with any coherent apologism for Gonzo in the face of such a poor (criminal?) performance.

    I’m jes’ seyin’

  • Well, they’re not really “revelations” to the White House, all these moves and counter-moves planned out in advance, and a degree of attention brought to crisis management that would have shown the Katrina survivors a quite different White House response, had it been employed there. I’m quite sure Gonzo called in a panic to the White House, and somebody passed him instructions – he’s too meek and subservient to pick up a dropped fork without direction.

    No, I wonder – as I have for pretty much all of the Bush presidency – how much DON’T we know? What’s still under wraps that has yet to be discovered? Gonzales was just a stooge, and stooges will crack under enough pressure. The only thing that keeps him smirking and shrugging while he’s being questioned is the assurance that Bush will protect him. If his questioners were somehow able to convince him that protection was no longer there, and that he was looking down the barrel of a fairly long stretch in prison, I think he’d sing.

  • The loss of Gonzo will rip a gaping hole in the political levee that’s holding back a massive deluge of incriminating evidence. If the GOPers on the Hill have nothing to hide, then why not rid themselves—and the tattered vestiges of their “Grand Old Party”—of this most heinous of administrations?

    Or—perhaps the “new-fallen snow” that they’re supposedly so clean as is, in actuality, nothing more than ashes from Cheney’s all-night bonfires in the Naval Observatory incinerators….

  • “The discussion was on a national NSA program that has been much discussed, yes.”

    That statement still leaves a bit of ambiguity, because he doesn’t say who had discussed the program.

    I wonder why he didn’t just say “yes”? Does he want to lose his credibility too?

  • Racer X,
    The reason he doesn’t just say “yes” is because the TSP is still a classified program. If he says “yes” then he is confirming parts of that program. His ambiguity is intended to not reveal (by confirmation) classified information. Just because others have talked/leaked doesn’t remove the classification.

  • I would like to know why the Judiciary Committee hasn’t summoned Ashcroft himself for testimony on this subject. Or am I missing something?

  • Comments are closed.