Feingold has a good question for Gonzales

January 31, 2006

When the Senate Judiciary Committee convenes next week to consider the president’s warrantless-search program, one Dem member will have a really good question for the attorney general.

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator’s question about warrantless eavesdropping as a “hypothetical situation” during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president’s authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was “not the policy or the agenda of this president” to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.

(Feingold has posted a statement and a copy of his letter to Gonzales.)

I suppose it’s possible that Gonzales will have some kind of creative defense for this, but Feingold’s observation seems pretty damaging. At the time of Gonzales’ testimony, there was nothing hypothetical about the inquiry — indeed, Gonzales had personally signed off on warrantless searches as White House counsel — and Gonzales didn’t come back to brief lawmakers on the surveillance.

Feingold said, “It now appears that the Attorney General was not being straight with the Judiciary Committee and he has some explaining to do.” Given the circumstances, that seems like an entirely fair assessment.

I suppose Feingold did the professional thing by sending this letter in advance, but part of me thinks it would have been far more entertaining if Feingold sprung this on Gonzales during the hearings. Gonzales might have asked for more time to review his earlier testimony, but it might have been a dramatic moment, right?

Doesn’t it make you wish the NYT had spilled the beans a little earlier so those questions could have been asked during Gonzales’ confirmation hearings?

  • None of them are being straight, because that’s the key to winning this thing. They know exactly what they are doing. And W and Al aren’t stupid when they avoid answering the question asked – Bush pretending that the issue is about “enemy surveillance” isn’t due to his bubble. They are clouding the issue just enough to ensure that it boils down to he-said/she-said in the news. In the end, that means that the base will give them the benefit of the doubt and not waver from their 85% support. Having the left scream out that Bush is lying only adds to his credibility. Seems like we should stop helping the WH play this game and push out our own national security message.

    from the Note:
    Boston Globe columnist Peter Canellos wisely looks at the terms of the debate swirling around the NSA warrantless wiretapping program and writes of the President’s insistence to define that debate as one about values.
    “By framing the issue in terms of values — by answering ‘why’ instead of ‘what,” ”when,’ or ‘how’— Bush chokes off any serious discussion of policy choices and tradeoffs. He leaves his critics arguing on an entirely different plane, which is both infuriating to them and confusing to voters.”

  • ….but it might have been a dramatic moment, right?

    Probably, but this will give ShrubCo the opportunity to come up with their best, top tier, golden globe award winning response and it will still be sorry ass and they won’t have any excuse when folks point and them and tell them so.

    Even when they have an opportunity to go in and put some clothes on, they still come out buck nekid.

    Assholes.

  • Dick Cheney wants to end FISA and get back to the Imperial presidency. It was passed just after he left the Nixon and Ford administrations and just before he became a congressman for Wyoming.

    Gonzales read all those nice white house counsel statements that FISA was not really constitutional because the President can wire tap anyone during a war and he ignored the fact that every president since 1978 still abided by FISA because they KNEW it was constitutional.

    So they wanted a test case to gut FISA, and LtGen Michael Hayden, Director of the NSA, offered up one.

    The simple fact is, the President LIED to the American people during the campaign when he said that all surveillance of US Citizens required and received warrants under FISA. He knew at the time that he had his fingers crossed, that he was conducting wire taps without Article III court approval. But he wasn’t willing to tell the American people that in the middle of his campaign.

  • No, actually, asking those questions during confirmation hearings would not change diddlysquat. The timing of the NYT’s article does not mean anything so long as Democrats accept answers from people who say things like “he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance.”

    Why? Because if you *LET* someone say, “I hope to alert you if X,” then you are *LETTING* them retain the option of saying, “I would have liked to tell you X, but national security prevented me. You understand, of course.”

    And unless Democrats are prepared to declare war on weasel words and weaselly arguments, stories like this will keep seeping out, and the spin will be, “If we play by the rules, the terrorists win.” That’s all Gonzales – or Bush, or Rove, or anyone in the administration – has to say.

    Democrats think this is a “good” question because they think they’ve trapped Gonzales. Trapped him in the briarpatch of being a tough-on-terror Bush Administration cowboy who’ll do what it takes to catch the bad guys even if it means breaking a couple stupid rules or promises. If Democrats have really been reading about “framing” stories, I’d like to see them avoid strengthening their opponents’ frames and stories (note: if Feingold already knows this and has prepared for *that* eventuality, great, but otherwise, I smell backfire).

  • Chris – the solution is to “re-frame” the argument.
    I say that BushCo. is “letting the terrorists win” by subverting the Constitution by doing this domestic illegal spying. And if Shrub can toss aside the 4th amendment, then he can toss aside the 2nd amendment and come after our guns. He’s not a “true” conservative, you know.
    Try that with the wingnuts. Only the ones that have completely addled their brains with the kool aid won’t pause.

  • How many times must the Dems let the opportunity go by before they use the specific, explicit word ‘liar’. During the ’04 campaign, he said GWB ‘did not tell the truth’. Enough of the mamby-pamby tact; GWB has said the most gross untruths imaginable, often about fellow Americans because he doesn’t care about legacy or integrity. Dems might care about those virtues, but they have to also bury their opponents and use blunt language to do so. Look at all the official criticism of the GOP and you don’t see that stark language; it’s all diplomatic code that they hope the electorate will be able to distill.

    Feh!!

  • “And if Shrub can toss aside the 4th amendment, then he can toss aside the 2nd amendment and come after our guns.” – BuzzMon

    George Bush says he is justified in warrantless searches of our telephone calls because 3000 Americans died in an terrorist attack in 2001.

    In 2001 more than 6000 Americans died in hand gun violence where the murderer legally owned or lived with the legal owner of the gun.

    Doesn’t that justify coming after legal hand guns in violation of the 2nd amendment?

    He’s the president. He says his job is to protect the American people. More are dying to hand guns and automobiles than to terrorists. Shouldn’t he protect us?

    Maybe if he remembered the words of his presidential oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Why didnt’ the founding fathers make that “preserve, protect and defend the People of the United States.”? Because they did not want the Government to take away our liberties and smother us with security.

    Is it any wonder that George Bush has overseen the huge increase in the size of the Federal Government after the Clinton reduction?

  • As a matter of timing, sending the letter and making it public in advance was a great move. The public and media will be primed for it now, paying a great deal more attention to his answers than they might have otherwise.

    It will add yet another public demonstration of the corruption and lack of truth endemic in this administration, which will be great for the November elections.

    Same with Reid’s pre-response to tonight’s address. The public has heard what the president *should* say, and will have that standard by which to measure what actually comes out of his mouth.

    I’m really liking this strategy. I hope they keep it up. Only eight more months to go!

  • Curmudgeon has much more faith in the public and the media than I. I hope his prediction is correct, but I fear otherwise. I am fascinated by the “shock and awe” that the words “lie” and “liar” engender in the political discourse. In my experience people – who are only marginal supporters of the President – have extreme difficulty with hearing the words “Bush lied about” – regardless of what follows. It is almost like those words are an antidote for critical thinking. I’m beginning to believe it is an excuse for not taking a hard look at the damage this administration has done and is doing. I sense a powerful desire in many to simply “whistle past the graveyard” and hope for the inevitable “course correction” that someone (but who will it be?) will initiate before we all go to hell in that handbasket Bush has built.

    Gonzales will simply lie again. It’s what these guys do best.

  • Everybody raises good points. Trouble is the nation isn’t a debating society.

    The Democrats will never have any respect until they learn to play OPPOSITION politics. That includes using words like “liar” (and “gangster” and “baby killer” and “grand theft” and “un-American” and “traitor”, etc.). It also includes presenting the electorate with some truly new, unambiguous IDEAS (and meaning it):
    * universal health care
    * tolerance of (and genuine education about) drug use (no arrest or jail time)
    * death with dignity
    * an end to capital punishment
    * elections without political whoring (public funding; granting free tv time)
    * building the best schools in the world
    * making certain that there’s a federally operated abortion clinic within a day’s drive of every American
    * making it the law that pharmicists *must* deliver what a doctor prescribes (or leave the profession)
    * cracking down on obscenely paid executives (establishing some maximum ratio of executive pay to average worker pay)
    * making it a crime for a corporation to ditch its pension fund while the company is making reccrd profits
    * funding our national parks without selling them off
    * dismantling inner-city high-rise housing projects
    * taking away the tax-exempt status of so-called “churches” (most are primarily businesses)
    * restoring art and music education to the public schools, sacrificing interscholastic athletics if need be
    * establishing a universal draft … with options for community service or experience abroad (peace corps, but industrial societies too)

    Needless to say, none of those things can be achieved until the cowardly bastards are driven out (Republic and Democrat). It’s time we put principle before politics. It’s not naive … it’s what our Founding Fathers actually did, against far great odds and with potentially far worse consequences (hanging).

  • Seems to me that Gonzo was under oath when he gave his answer, making it perjury. He has to step down, and the Dems should fillibuster every last piece of business until he does.

  • Just checking in.
    .
    the carpetbagger report wrote:

    I suppose Feingold did the professional thing by sending this letter in advance, but part of me thinks it would have been far more entertaining if Feingold sprung this on Gonzales during the hearings. Gonzales might have asked for more time to review his earlier testimony, but it might have been a dramatic moment, right?

    .
    Strategy. What a refreshing noise…

    Right on both counts.

  • I’m afraid of reading too much into it, but the same question was posed to Alito by Leahy during the hearings.
    .
    Now here’s Feingold’s similar concerns as posed to Alberto Gonzales. (Great lead, Carpet Bagger!! Thanks!)
    .

    (3) The limits, if any, to the Administration’s legal theory that the President has the
    authority either under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force or as Commander
    in Chief to violate criminal laws of the United States. What other statutes or treaties are
    being or might be violated under this legal theory? Would this legal theory permit
    surveillance of communications by U.S. citizens solely within the United States or the
    assassination of U.S. citizens within the United States? Ifnot, why not?

    .
    http://feingold.senate.gov/Gonzales_NSA_13006.pdf
    .
    Let me reiterate. This is the second time in about a week this question has come up.

  • Total bullshit; Feingold is just another talking head for Israel and if you listen to him carefully he barfs the official party line of building up the troops in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. Feingold also lies about the real perps of 911 saying that he remembers they came from Afghanistan. Bullshit again; anyone with an IQ greater than a porch swing knows 911 was an inside job conducted by elements within the US military together with Mossad operatives. Americans are taking the heat for Israel’s crimes while their destiny is being determined by Jewish banksters and their media whore counterparts. Do the research; Feingold is on the payoff list from AIPAC; his latest bribe from Israel was $56,810. For readers interested in what’s really going on, get yourselves a copy of PNAC, Planks of the Communist Manifesto and Protocols of the Learned Zion Elders. It all fits into the Talmudists and Rothschild’s game plan. Welcome to the New World Disorder; it’s a disease that must be stopped.

    • Comments are closed.