Gonzales Responds; Leahy Not Impressed

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 07:06:28 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has responded in writing regarding the apparent discrepancies in his testimony regarding the dispute in the Bush Administration over intelligence activities. My review of the letter leads me to the conclusion that Gonzales has largely abandoned his story about the supposed limited nature of the dispute. It seems entirely different from his previous testimony, though he does weakly cling to the notion that the discrepancies were a result of the different understanding of the term TSP. See for yourself and tell me what you think. Senator Leahy was not impressed:

The Attorney General’s legalistic explanation of his misleading testimony under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week is not what one should expect from the top law enforcement officer of the United States. It is time for full candor to enforce the law and promote justice, rather than word parsing.
“The Attorney General has until the end of this week to correct and supplement his testimony. I hope he will take that opportunity to clarify the many issues on which he appears not to have been forthcoming and to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee and the American people the whole truth.”

That seems a fair request in light of this letter from Gonzales. What does it all mean? I think a non-confrontational approach is what the Bush Administration has chosen. I think Gonzo will, in essence, recant his testimony.

< On The Ground | The Brown Ones >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Gonzales Responds; Leahy Not Impressed | 3 comments (3 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I'm not impressed either. (none / 0) (#1)
by NMvoiceofreason on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:08:01 PM EST

Gonzo was carefully questioned - "Was it Warrantless surveillance?" "No." "Was it the TSP?" "No." "What was it?" "It was something else."

Yeah, that Gonzo really is something else.

Gonzales (none / 0) (#2)
by neutrino on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 01:13:24 AM EST

I find it peculiar that someone with a Harvard law degree would be so misunderstood by entire Senate panel. Seriously, how was he accepted into Harvard? Quotas?

Gonzo admits to perjury (none / 0) (#3)
by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:12:52 AM EST

Gonzo claims that there was no disagreement on the "program outlined by the president." Yet, according to the letter, Comey/OLC "ultimately agreed" to allow that program to go forward...but that did not happen until after the hospital visit....

Here is the key sentence from Gonzo's letter...

In the spring of 2004, after a thorough reexamination of all these activities, Mr. Comey and the Office of Legal Counsel ultimately agreed that the President could direct the NSA to intercept international communications without a court order where the interceptions were targeted at al Qaeda or its affiliates.

Every year, spring starts on or around March 22. The Ashcroft Hospital visit took place on March 10, and Comey got the go ahead to "make it right" on March 12. It was not until "2 or 3 weeks later" that the DoJ certified what was left of the program after they'd made it "legal".

According to Comey's testimony

COMEY: It was reauthorized on Thursday, March the 11th, without the department's -- without my signature, without the department's approval. And it was the next day -- so less than 24 hours later -- that we received the direction from the president to make it right. And then we set about -- I don't remember exactly how long it was -- over the next few weeks making changes so that it accorded with our judgment about what could be certified as to legality. And so it was really only that period from Thursday, when it was reauthorized, until I got the direction from the president the next day that it operated outside the Department of Justice's approval.
FEINSTEIN: For approximately two weeks?
COMEY: I don't remember exactly. It was two or three weeks I think that it took us to get the analysis done and make the changes that needed to be made.

"two or three weeks later, of course, takes you into spring, 2004.