Yesterday, four Senate Democrats from the Judiciary Committee called for an investigation into whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had perjured himself before Congress during testimony re: the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program and the fired U.S. Attorney scandal. (see their letter to the Solicitor General). Note: Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy offered Gonzales a week to alter his apparently false testimony, so this should be interesting.
I don't understand the conspicuous absence of Republican support for the perjury investigation. Investigations aren't the same as throwing someone in jail, and they can actually exonerate people (as well as giving us taxpayers a clearer picture of how our money has been spent).
On Tuesday, Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that when he visited former Attorney General John Ashcroft's post-surgery hospital room on March 10, 2004 he was not trying to pressure Ashcroft to re-authorize the NSA's legally questionable, warrantless wiretapping program. (Background at BN-Politics)
Gonzales also testified that the NSA wiretapping program was not a focus of that hospital-room meeting and that there had been no serious dispute between the Justice Department and the White House over the program's legality (Washington Post 1).
Yesterday, FBI Director Robert Mueller joined the list of officials who've cast doubts on Gonzales' testimony, telling Congress that the wiretapping program was the subject of a the hospital-room meeting and was the topic of "dramatic legal debate within the Bush administration" (Washington Post 2).
Mueller is contradicting his boss, making me wonder what emboldened Mueller to do such a risky deed. Snaking the Drain pointed out: "It's one thing to be a liar, but to be called a liar by the director of the FBI is really something."
Oddly, Gonzales seemed to contradict himself last month at a news conference, indicating that the hospital visit was about the NSA wiretapping program. Days later, Gonzales' spokesman told the Washington Post that Gonzales had misspoken (WaPo).
Below are other officials whose testimony seems at odds with Gonzales' statements:
Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, whose March 2007 testimony indicated that Gonzales had gone to the hospital in March 2004 for the express purpose of pressuring Ashcroft to re-authorize the wiretapping program, though Comey objected based on the program's questionable legality. (See webcast of Comey's testimony.)
In May 2007, former National Intelligence Director John Negroponte (now Deputy Secretary of State) wrote a letter stating that there had, in fact, been a serious legal dispute about the wiretapping program's legality -- a very different picture than Gonzales painted before Congress (MSNBC).
General Michael Hayden, now CIA director, has also contradicted some of Gonzales’s public statements (The Hill).
Gonzales also said that a 2004 briefing of congressional leadership re: the wiretapping program led to consensus that re-authorization of the program should proceed. Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WVA), who was at the 2004 briefing, flatly said that Gonzales "once again is making something up to protect himself" (WaPo 3).
Think Youth has a no-frills take on the situation:
"The White House and Bush have consistently hidden, covered-up, or lied about everything they have done. And they have good reason to, because everything they do is illegal."
Again, my mind reading skills are still up North for the summer, so I don't know if Gonzales has actually lied. It seems to me that the only way to find out is to INVESTIGATE.
Congressional Republicans should remember that:
1) an incompetent or dishonest Attorney General is bad for all citizens; and
2) because the Administration's questionable honesty reflects poorly on Republicans (even if unfairly), appearing to knee-jerk protect the Administration re: the Justice Department investigations may come back to bite them.
The senators who called for the investigation are: Dianne Feinstein (CA), Russ Feingold (WI), Charles Schumer (NY) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI).
Comments