WASHINGTON, July 25, 2007
Documents Contradict Gonzales Testimony
AP: AG Told Congress Meetings Did Not Focus On Surveillance, Documents Show Otherwise
-
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is sworn in on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, July 24, 2007, prior to testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)
-
Who's Who Firings Firestorm Justice Department at center of controversy over firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
The documents, obtained by The Associated Press, come 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.
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 leading members of both chambers' intelligence committees, as Gonzales testified.
Bush acknowledged the existence of the classified surveillance program in December 2005 after it was revealed by The New York Times. In January, it was put under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for judicial review before any wiretaps were to be approved.
Asked for comment on the documents Wednesday evening, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Gonzales "stands by his testimony."
"The disagreement referenced by Jim Comey in March 2004 was not about the particular intelligence activity that has been publicly described by the president," Roehrkasse said. "It was about other highly classified intelligence activities that have been briefed to the intelligence committees."
The disagreement over whether to renew the program led to a dramatic, and highly controversial, confrontation between Gonzales and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on the night of March 10, 2004.
After briefing the congressional leaders, Gonzales testified that he and then-White House chief of staff Andy Card headed to a Washington hospital room, where a sedated Ashcroft was recovering from surgery. Ashcroft had already turned over his powers as attorney general to Comey.
Comey was in the hospital room as well, and recounted to senators in his own sworn testimony in May that he "thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."
Ultimately, Ashcroft sided with Comey, and Gonzales and Card left the hospital after a five- to six-minute conversation.
Gonzales denied that he and Card tried to pressure Ashcroft into approving the program over Comey's objections.
"We never had any intent to ask anything of him if we did not feel that he was competent," Gonzales told the Senate panel Tuesday. "At the end of his description of the legal issues, he said, 'I'm not making this decision. The deputy attorney general is.' And so Andy Card and I thanked him. We told him that we would continue working with the deputy attorney general and we left."
Democrats and Republicans alike expressed disbelief at Gonzales' version of events.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The secrets of tennis legend 
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 8
- next
See all 149 CommentsPosted by realpatriot1 at 10:01 AM : Jul 26, 2007
These meetings included Daschle, Pelosi, Frist et al according to AP. The same AP sory is running on various networks but with various information either included/excluded depending on who is publishing.
Would the Pentagon's letter be part of the Kabuki act?
Bush is starring in Act 2 titled, "Al Quaeda in Iraq is coming to America, we can't follow them here we must fight them there."
Posted by stevex47
Yeah, just like the big deal she made of the standard letter from the pentagon telling her that they don't divulge strategy. And all of a sudden because she is on one of those military committees they are telling her to bud out. She, the Senate Judiciary, Feingold another banana who really would need 2/3 vote to censure anyone, except it would be nice if he did that with his mouth, are all into Kabuki Theatre. The only thing that's missing is the costumes.
Write you members of Congress and Senators demand the AGs removal, like Iraq, Bush turns his back on the American people and supports his failed dishonest or inept AG.
"Big deal! Hillary contradicted her own rhetoric regarding meeting with terrorist dictators from 3 months ago, but no one in the MSM reports on that"
So, she met with Bush? I agree, she shouldn't do that.
Do you believe that Gonzo: 1.) didn't discuss TSP during the 3/10/04 meeting of 8, 2) went to Ashcroft's hospital bed that same night to discuss TSP(to do an end around the acting AG who wouldn't sign off), and 3.) told the White House 2 years later to tell the Spaker of the House that it had been discussed, and 4.)remembers 3 years later that it wasn't discussed like he said last year? This is the same guy who answered practically every other question with "I can't recall."
It's simply not credible to a rational person.
Regarding partison recollections of the meeting, I've only heard Gonzo and Jane Harman discuss it. I haven't any Republican who was there reinforce Gonzo's testimony about that, although I certainly could've missed something.
:)
Posted by cozzicon
Wise choice since you haven't a clue what you or McVet are talking about. Best thing is to not make statements in the first place that you can't support. We call them rants.
Heh,
Actually I have the preamble and the first two articles memorized- along with the bill of rights from reading it so much.
I *would* read it to you, but I've learned two things about life that are incontrovertible:
1. There's very little I actually have control over.
2. You can't fix stupid.
Both rules one and two seem to apply to you. So I'll opt out.
:)
In the end, Pedro Gonzales will serve out his term and all the tears and teeth mashing from the left will have been for nothing. Keep beating your heads against the wall....it's pretty funny! :)
A jackass is someone who swears under oath to abide by legal precedent and not "legislate from the bench"(sound familiar?) then does just the opposite once they have a lifetime appointment.
Posted by realpatriot1
And where did the new appointees not adhere to stare decisis?
The memo is from that wild eyed hippie liberal and Bush appointee, John Negroponte.
Afraid of your conscience?
You betcha.
Posted by cozzicon
Well, then why don't you read it to us.
Come on Reid and Pelosi, now is the time to show some courage.
The President cannot issue pardons for convictions on impeachment!
He lied because lying is a crucial part of the fabric of this administration.
Lies prompted Congress to vote to give the administration power to prosecute and conduct an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation and the subsequent war which has cost thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and created a focal point for terrorist activities. This power was then subverted into a vehicle for illegal imprisonment, torture, and domestic espionage which included a crime for which Richard Nixon was impeached in disgrace, wiretapping.
The real danger lies not in the power itself but in the character of those entrusted with it.
Are you saying that the White House was providing false information to the Speaker of the House rather than the Attorney General providing false information to the Senate now?
Posted by realpatriot1 at 09:18 AM : Jul 26, 2007
I am saying that the most credible evidence is contempoaneous evidence. A memo drafted 2 years after the fact is certainly not very credible. Participants of the meeting seem to have differing views and interestingly along party lines.
Instead of attacking him, why don't you read it yourself?
Afraid of your conscience?
You betcha.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 8
- next
See all 149 Comments