AP docs point to Gonzales perjury

July 26, 2007

At yesterday’s White House press briefing, Tony Snow actually bragged about how strong Alberto Gonzales appears after having been exposed as a corrupt, incompetent and dishonest fraud. Bush’s press secretary boasted that the Senate Judiciary Committee never “laid a glove on him.”

Maybe Snow and I have different definitions of “gloves.” Does perjury count?

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. […]

At a heated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly testified that the issue at hand was not about the terrorist surveillance program….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.

….”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.”

Wrong answer. The AP obtained a four-page memo from the national intelligence director’s office that says the White House briefing with the eight lawmakers on March 10, 2004, was, in fact, about the program generally known as the terror surveillance program, or TSP. Gonzales was lying; the documents prove it.

The irony is, Gonzales was apparently lying to cover up earlier lying. Last year, Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee there was no disagreement about the program. Then James Comey said there was a lot of disagreement about the program. A month ago, Gonzales said he and Comey were referring to the same program. Tuesday, Gonzales said he and Comey were referring to different programs. What a tangled web he weaves….

Next step: kicking the investigation up a notch.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy threatened yesterday to request a perjury investigation of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, as Democrats said an intelligence official’s statement about a classified surveillance program was at odds with Gonzales’s sworn testimony.

Leahy (D-Vt.) told reporters he is giving Gonzales until late next week to revise his testimony about the surveillance program or he will ask Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine to conduct a perjury inquiry: “I’ll ask the inspector general to determine who’s telling the truth.”

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said yesterday that Gonzales “stands by his testimony,” and that “the disagreement . . . was not about the particular intelligence activity that has been publicly described by the president. It was about other highly classified intelligence activities.”

Now, you might be curious, as I was, about how Gonzales can “stand by his testimony” after having been caught lying. What’s the rationalization here? He testified that that March 10, 2004, meeting was not about the TSP, and it was about the TSP. So why deny what is plainly obvious?

Anonymous Liberal makes a compelling argument that Gonzales is trying to slice the truth as thinly as possible, based on the notion that the TSP underwent some procedural changes in 2004, after the Justice Department refused to certify it. As such, in Gonzales’ mind, it was no longer the actual TSP — it was a new TSP — and therefore two distinct surveillance programs.

If that’s Gonzales’ actual defense, I can’t wait for the perjury trial.

Man, can’t wait to see how in a shambles the administration is, oh, this time next year. Think about that, we have a clearly disfunctional Justice Department headed by an incompetent – and absolutely no sign that any of that will change for almost 18 months.

The Bush administration clearly is taking incompetency to new and unheard of heights.

  • The more Tony Snow fumes that Congressional Democrats are being unreasonable, when they are quite obviously being more than reasonable, the more unreasonable Snow — and by extension, the whole administration — start sounding. Which is how you get to 25% approval.

  • And I’ve never seen a more clear example of the TV News sucking ass. Where is the story of the Attorney General perjuring himself before Congress? This morning’s craptacular TV coverage included Bicycle Doping, Basketball Scandal, and an update on Lindsay Lohan.

    I remember when the Oliver North hearings captivated the nation. I don’t think those same hearings would amount to a blip in the mainstream media today. TV News is rotten to the core. The blogosphere is the last bastion of news, information and free speech.

  • Anonymous Liberal makes a compelling argument that Gonzales is trying to slice the truth as thinly as possible, based on the notion that the TSP underwent some procedural changes in 2004, after the Justice Department refused to certify it. As such, in Gonzales’ mind, it was no longer the actual TSP — it was a new TSP — and therefore two distinct surveillance programs.

    I feel compelled to point out that I had made this argument back in May.

  • Is it not obvious that EITHER Comey or Gonzales are guilty of perjury?

    There were other people in the room. How hard is it to go to those people and put them under oath and ask them what happened?

    I think the Democrats should tell Gonzales that he is in need of a pardon because we will have a reall Attorney General in 2009. Even if the Republicans win, the new AG won’t accept perjury to go unpunished.

  • I doubt there’ll be a perjury trial. Once there is a criminal investigation of DOJ, the heat gets too close to Bush and Cheney. Bush and Cheney may be ‘loyal’ but their first rule of loyalty is that nothing touches them personally. They’ll run the clock as long as possible, then Gonzo will ‘resign’. With Gonzo gonzo, there will be less pressure to prosecute – certainly any potential repub support will be canceled. The soonest anything can come of this will be Sept, when all eyes and ears are on Petraeus, and Iraq.

    My prediction is that Gonzo stays until mid Sept. The repubs will do everything they can to make a foodfight out of approving his replacement, and then make that an ’08 campaign issue by blaming it all on partisan Democrats.

  • This just in: Tony Snow to begin reciting scripture in defense of WH personnel. He’ll emphasize how we need to be closer to our maker and learn to forgive these scoundrels in the WH. -Kevo

  • The problem with Gonzales is that he is a terribly inept liar. A special prosecutor (not Fitzgerald, but someone independent) needs to be appointed to investigate the ever-shifting stories about what really happened with the fired attorneys and the subsequent cover-up. This needs to be done ASAP before January 2009. I want Bush to leave with a black mark on his face when he leaves office.

  • What a great moment in Mexican pride. I’d be very surprised if they weren’t talking it up that he’s really a Filipino, or Hawaiian or something. Karl Rove or somebody very like him probably predicted Gonzales would not be questioned too aggressively and likely confirmed, because everybody would be afraid to be thought a racist – in spite of Gonzales’ mediocre record in law.

    Predictably, defenders of The Decider pointed to his even-handedness in choosing minorities for high-profile posts. Everybody should have known then that Gonzales was picked for his compliance – nay, eagerness – to play fast and loose with the law if his idol said there was a good reason.

    What a disgrace.

  • As I understand it, a perjury investigation of Gonzales, if called for by congress, would be done by the DOJ. After Justice investigates, any criminal charges would also be brought and prosecuted by Justice. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    This looks like a win-win for the Bushies. Lil’ Bush is going to stand tall behind Gonzales. Gonzales is going to appoint Harriet Meiers as Special Prosecutor for investigation and Monica Goodling as Special Prosecutor for prosecution and recuse himself. The Dem leadership in the congress is going to go apoplectic, scream and hold their breath ’till they turn blue and Bush/Cheney/Rove will have once again successfully crapped on the Dems, the Congress and the Constitution. GWB can do this with impunity because the only recourse the Congress has is to impeach or to cut off the money and Bush knows that the Dems simply don’t have the cojones.

  • #7 Is it not obvious that EITHER Comey or Gonzales are guilty of perjury?
    and #10 The problem with Gonzales is that he is a terribly inept liar.

    Gonzalez is inept, no doubt about it, even if he isn’t a liar. Suppose Gonzalez has been tying himself in knots to avoid divulging tippy-top secret information which we legitimately do not want to be publicly known. In that case, it’s his own damn fault for not effectively communicating this to the Congress, and instead doing a very good impression of a very bad liar.

    It’s in my nature to grant the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, but Gonzalez is all but begging to be branded a liar here.

  • “Condi! Where did I put my Pardon Pen?”
    “On the nightstand next to the KY and the Veto Stamp, George. Now help me zip up this cat woman outfit so we can get to that Cabinet meeting on time!”

  • Maybe Gonzo’s new spin is that the old Alberto Gonzales had a religious conversion experience, and the guy they’re talking to now isn’t really the old Gonzales, he’s the “born again” Gonzales.

    Two different people.

    Seriously though, the Authoritarians among us, the ones who wouldn’t bat an eye if Bush threw Sy Hersh in Guantanimo, they will buy the “new TSP / Old TSP” argument. You watch.

  • Just because you aren’t paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you. What if Gonzales is telling the truth? What if the gang of 8 discussions covered secret but illegal surveillance that somehow benefited the participants or trapped them by blackmail into a deadly embrace? What if the gang of 8 views Gonzo as the idiot he is and a danger to their nefarious plot? What if they made a deal with Shrub to set him up for perjury? Gonzo goes down in flames. Shrub’s participation is purely passive. And they all await senate confirmation of the new AG candidate, Patrick Fitzgerald, the Manchurian Lawyer nobody saw coming.

  • I find A.L.’s analysis very persuasive. Gonzales is playing a delicate semantic game. Prior to March 10, 2004 the Domestic Spying Program (TSP) had elements which Comey et al. found legally unjustifiable. The program was then changed in such a way that it could at least be argued, in some tenuous way, that the program did not violate FISA. How?

    What we know of the legal justification of the program at its inception, from testimony of Micheal Hayden, is that the AUMF argument was not used.

    In his confirmation hearing yesterday, Gen. Hayden yesterday all but acknowledged that when President Bush ordered the NSA to engage in warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, the administration did not, at that time, rely upon any purported claim that Congress had authorized the President to engage in warrantless eavesdropping via its authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda. That legal theory justifying violations of FISA only came much later. The sole justification the administration had when the President ordered warrantless eavesdropping was its claim that the president has “inherent authority” to violate the law.

    So then, the likely outcome on the legal front of the March 10th showdown was the addition of the AUMF argument. However, as A.L. argues there was also likely an operational change to the TSP. The inherent powers argument, if it were valid, would place no restrictions on the president. The AUMF argument would restrict the TSP to Al-Qaeda. This suggests that prior to the March 10, 2004 showdown, the White House was engaged in wholesale domestic spying.

    Plausible, n’est pas ?

  • “So then, the likely outcome on the legal front of the March 10th showdown was the addition of the AUMF argument. However, as A.L. argues there was also likely an operational change to the TSP. The inherent powers argument, if it were valid, would place no restrictions on the president. The AUMF argument would restrict the TSP to Al-Qaeda. This suggests that prior to the March 10, 2004 showdown, the White House was engaged in wholesale domestic spying.

    Plausible, n’est pas ?”

    I find this all too plausible. It would be interesting if at least some of the phones being tapped were Democrats, including Kerry.

  • It would be interesting if at least some of the phones being tapped were Democrats, including Kerry.—Lloyd George

    I have always believed that is precisely the reason why they are so secretive about the details of the TSP; it’s Richard Nixon squared. I think they were listening to the phones of journalists who asked too many questions, (think Dan Rather) and have been able to get out ahead of every unfavorable story.

    • Comments are closed.