Gonzales’ Testimony To Congress Contradicted By Memo
The AP has come up with yet another indication that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales either was not honest in his Congressional testimony or has a major memory problem — two things that would have made previous Presidents of either party give their AG the boot:
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.
The documents underscore questions about Gonzales’ credibility as senators consider whether a perjury investigation should be opened into conflicting accounts about the program and a dramatic March 2004 confrontation leading up to its potentially illegal reauthorization.
A Gonzales spokesman maintained Wednesday that the attorney general stands by his testimony.
It’s almost now like the old Stan Laurel line: “That’s our story and we’re stuck with it.”
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.
One of the residues of the Bush administration will be the misuse of executive privilege. All but the most steadfast partisans will now forever raise their eyebrows when officials of ANY administration go before Congress and refuse to answer questions. Also: Gonzales and the Bush administration’s behavior and disdain for what is increasingly seemingly like a toothless Congress with the executive branch running away with its teeth means if there’s a Democrat in power GOPers are going to have to be stalemated the same way.
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.â€
“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.â€
“It was not,†Gonzales answered. “It was about other intelligence activities.â€
A four-page memo from the national intelligence director’s office says the White House briefing with the eight lawmakers on March 10, 2004, was about the terror surveillance program, or TSP.
There are just too many instances of Gonzales’ testimony not jibing with others to give him the benefit of the doubt. Or, increasingly, to give the benefit of the doubt to the administration on a host of issues. And if you watch the polls in coming weeks, it’s likely the flight of independent voters from the GOP will continue because of a multiple-fronted credibility gap that is now surpassing that of the Nixon administration.
PREDICTION: If the issues the Bush administration is essentially provoking wind up in court, in the end the administration may win since it now has many sympathetic judges in place in many parts of the court system. All of the assumptions by some pundits that the courts will counter the Bush administration could be operating on outdated assumptions.
If that is indeed true, that would mean the ultimate impact of the Bush administration will mean a downsized Congress, an all-powerful executive — but a potential problem for Republicans in Congress if a strong-willed Democrat is in the White House.
11 Responses to “Gonzales’ Testimony To Congress Contradicted By Memo”
Prediction: This will wind up in court and will be decided in favor of the President on its merits. Congress will be forever weakened and all Americans will be worse off for it. To keep the discussion ‘moderate’, it will be a problem for any future congress in the face of a strong Executive Branch.
Wouldn’t it be nice if congress would focus on: Social Security, Health Care, Energy Policy, Education, National Defense etc, etc….
[...] Court Link to Article white house Gonzales’ Testimony To Congress Contradicted By Memo » Posted at [...]
I agree that an overly powerful executive that railroads Congress and the Judiciary is a huge threat to the system of checks and balances. If Bush had picked anyone but Cheney, he might have been a poor president, but a weak one. Cheney has propelled Bush to the pinnacle of expanded executive power through his belief in the “Unitary executive”. His theory is too close to monarchy for my taste, and Bush is too close to corporate interests and the religious right, which has moved us towards authoritarianism.
Even though I am center left and believe a Democrat will win the WH in ’08, I’d rather have the separation of powers and checks and balances maintained. They protect all of us from the unitary executive, and move us towards the center.
…so the Bush administration can continue to shred the constitution un-encumbered by that pesky oversight thingy.
I swear, its going to take the republican party years to recover from this period of lockstep support for an administration so far out of line even their most senior and respected leaders are disgusted.
The truth is Congress is capable of focussing on many things at one time. I can’t think of any more important than trying to corral this abuse of executive power.
What Bush and his feckless minion Gonzales have done to DOJ alone is a national disgrace. Do Republicans want a Democratic administration that pursues their party’s wrongs above all else? Its best for everyone concerned that Justice remains as nonpartisan as possible.
The power grab by the Executive branch and the politization of all (not just the DOJ) departmets pf the government are the most ominously dangerous developments in domestic politics, IMO.
I shudder to think what this means for our future, since it seems that politics picks up and maximizes the worst developments of the past much more readily than on the positive aspects. Power and money corrupt exponentially when prindiples are shed off.
I have thought that those crying about the demise of democracy were kooks, but now I begin to seriously wonder.
At the risk of being accused of Bush bashing, I can’t help but ask: where is our President, the chief guardian of what this country stands for?
How can he not care? If we needed a strong leader after 9/11, we need one equally now. There is enormous power in the symbolism of the presidency, beyond that of the person of a current president. It’s that aspect that is being critically neglected and misused. We are lost, asking one another what it is that we stand for and where we are headed.
.
“So let me get this straight, we do whatever we want and if anyone has a problem with it we call executive privilege?”
“Yes sir.”
“And if that doesn’t work the people who investigate us I get to appoint? I basically would have to hire people that would be willing to risk their jobs should they do their jobs with regards to me?”
“Right again sir.”
“After I tell them they can’t actually interview under oath anyone who might know anything and they still manage to turn up some evidence and it does go to court I get to appoint the judges as well?”
“Now you’re getting it, sir. ”
“And even if all that doesn’t work I can just pardon whoever gets convicted?”
“Unless its you sir. But then Congress has to have enough votes to impeach you, which they don’t. Aside from that all they can do is get red in the face and look impotent. But other than that, yes, you just pardon anyone.”
“I think I’m going to like being president.”
“So will we sir. So will we.”
This presidency has succeeded in making us much more cynical about power in politics. We’ve taken the fairness of our justice system for granted, not even realizing what it would be like if the DOJ was used in a partisan manner to go after voter fraud or stifle corruption prosecutions.
No one envisioned that a president who is supposed to represent all of us, would choose to reward his cronies and political allies, while stacking the deck for everyone else. For me that is even lower than deceiving us into a war of choice after 9/11.
Patrick Leahy described for the first time the reason that VP Cheney used the f word towards him. Leahy said he approached Cheney and wanted to shake hands, and invited him to cross the aisle and work with the Democrats as well as the Republicans. Cheney’s response is a microcosm of this administration’s attitude towards their political adversaries.
Sam – Thanks, that was good one. I needed a laugh today.
Great comic relief, Sam/
What did the last Republican Congress do:
1) ignore states rights fir one individual – Schiavo.
2) Nothing on SS. Bush pushed it, but the polls said stay away.
3) The Robert(R -Ks) over site?
4) Constitutional amendments on flag burning and teh gay marriage
It was six years of a rubber stamp Republican Congress, maybe someone should look into past practices.