That was fast. It’s getting to the point where you can tell that Gonzales is lying because his mouth is moving.
At a heated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly testified that the issue at hand was not about the terrorist surveillance program, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on suspects in the United States without receiving court approval.
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. Those objections were led by then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey, who questioned the program’s legality.
“The dissent related to other intelligence activities,” Gonzales testified at Tuesday’s hearing. “The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program.”
“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.”
A four-page memo from the national intelligence director’s office shows that the White House briefing with the eight lawmakers on March 10, 2004, was about the terror surveillance program, or TSP.
The memo, dated May 17, 2006, and addressed to then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, details “the classification of the dates, locations, and names of members of Congress who attended briefings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program,” wrote then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte.
It shows that the briefing in March 2004 was attended by the Republican and Democratic House and Senate leaders and top Intelligence Committee members, as Gonzales testified.
WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats called for a perjury investigation against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Thursday and subpoenaed top presidential aide Karl Rove in a deepening political and legal clash with the Bush administration.
Because the alternative is to admit that he lied in earlier sworn testimony. Of course the net result is an even greater erosion of his credibility, which is (to mirror Specter’s comments) pretty much non-existent by now, anyway. Tony Snow’s protestations that this is all just political theater are pretty laughable. I mean, now Gonzales is getting caught lying, in sworn testimony to Congress, to cover up other lies that he has made in past sworn testimony to Congress. Isn’t it time to start wondering whether maybe, just maybe, Gonzales is not really as pure as driven snow?
It shows that the briefing in March 2004 was attended by the Republican and Democratic House and Senate leaders and top Intelligence Committee members, as Gonzales testified.
Man… how do you even attempt to lie about the content of the briefing when some of the people you are trying to deceive were there? If that’s not the definition of contempt, I don’t know what is.
Not only that, but he dropped the bombshell that he took notes about the whole hospital affair, at the time it happened. He was concerned about the irregularity of the whole affair, and wished to have the details reviewed by the Office of the General Counsel.
It’s simple. If Bush fires Gonzales, then he has to appoint a new AG, which can then be questioned by the Senate during the approval process – which can then open up a whole new discovery process. It’s really a lose-lose for Bush, but the calculation is that he loses a little less by not firing the current AG, and runs the clock out.
I know, it’s kinda my trademark. But seriously, who and how is anyone going to stop Dubya and his gang of crooks? Or as someone more evil than me put it: How many divisions does the Pope have? How many divisions does Congress have?
Seriously, though, who fucking cares? The Democrats are basically shooting a lame, crippled, universally hated duck. They won’t have time to convict anybody before the 2008 elections anyway. At this point it’s all simply about revenge stomping and trying to get a few final jabs in after the last seven years of obvious malfeasance and corruption. I can’t say I blame the Dems for trying to make up for lost time, but it’s not like it’s going to make any real difference at this point.
…Is it? Or am I missing something? God knows I’d love to be missing something here…
What you are missing is that Bush still has a lot of real power, “direct” power left, and 18 months is actually a pretty long time for him to exercise that power. It is true that his “indirect” Presidential power (to persuade, to inspire trust, to build political coalitions or diplomatic alliances) is very very low, but his straight up Presidential power is still vast. He has (as he has recently demonstrated) the power to pardon, which he can use to his political advantage if he chooses. He is still the Commander in Chief and can continue to order the troops to fight on in Iraq, in an occupation I personally find to be pointless and wasteful. He still has the power to Veto bills, which means he can prevent the Democrats from doing much of anything for the next 18 months. He is still the head of the executive branch, including the badly compromised Department of Justice, which means he can order investigations and prosecutions of anyone in the US for any reason. He is still in charge of the system of detaining and interrogating “terrorist suspects” which means he can currently order the detention and indefinite imprisonment of anyone that the military can grab hold of.
He may be a lame duck politically but our system is a system of strong executive power and Bush still wields all of that power for another year and a half.
