Comments (20)

KestrelBrighteyes wrote on July 10, 2007 2:44 PM:

Sounds like a good reason not to interview ANYONE in this administration about ANYTHING without a transcript, behind closed doors, and without being under oath.

Will the courts agree?

And when will Congress file charges against Abu?

NapalmGod wrote on July 10, 2007 3:18 PM:

He just didn't remember it, if he ever read it, and, of course, he can only testify to things he remembers.

After all, he's the Attorney..... umm... I use to know... Major?

anon wrote on July 10, 2007 3:19 PM:

... a good reason not to interview ANYONE in this administration about ANYTHING without a transcript...

No kidding. Seems to me that Leahy and Conyers ought to mention, again and again, in those polite letters that they write that an oaths and transcripts are necessary since the AG has set an example by his leadership in that department and, presumably, lying is the department policy.

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 3:23 PM:

It doesn't appear AG Gonzalez motivation for lying is narrowly on the FISA issues, but as a broader policy to mislead the Congress to secure support for MCA, Habeas Destruction, and the Passage of Patriot Act. The above legislation included specific words which would forward to defendants funds from Congress to assist with their defense. Also, with the Patriot Act, it was in interests of the AG to lie if he knew, by lying, he could avoid Senate debate on the terms of the "direct AG appointment"-provision which bypassed the Senate.

- How many _other_ abuses, lines of evidence, and reports of illegal activity has the AG ignored, known about, not enforced, blocked enforcement, or been actively involved with carrying out, implementing, and executing?

- What actions was AG Gonzalez involved to retaliate against those who reported the illegal conduct, or attempted to provide evidence to Congress that the AG had lied?

- What's taken so long for the AG knowledge of the illegal activity to be disclosed;

- Has there been an effort to deprive Congress of a timely report form DOJ Staff, DOJ Staff counsel, or the DOJ IG on when they were aware that Congress had been mislead when the AG was or was not aware of specific things?

- How much illegal activity is the AG "ignoring" because he was actively involved as WH Counsel 2001 onward, then as AG, in the active implementation of these illegal procedures, policies, and activities?

- What new questions might we raise about the President's blocking of DOJ OPR review of the FISA violations: Was this an effort to thwart detection that Gonzalez well knew of the FISA-NSA violations; but had not reported to them as required the evidence of this illegal activity; nor taken any enforcement action?

- To what extent was Gonzalez in saying that he was "not aware" of any violations, attempting to thwart Congressional investigators from discovering Gonzalez role in thwarting the DOJ OPR review of illegal activity Gonzalez as WH Counsel then as AG had personal knowledge of, involvement?

- How is the RNC e-mail destruction and DOJ work flows in the US Atty e-mails related to the work flows and reports to the DOJ Secretariat related to this evidence which DOJ AG said he was not aware?

- Are there specific meetings AG Gonzalez had with OLC and other DOJ Staff personnel on this illegal activity; and those other DOJ Staff have also lied to the public, made presentations, issued editorials, or filed meritless affidavitits to the DC Court in re FOIAs and privilege; but they knew, or should have known, that the invoked reasons for privilege were not to protect any state secret, but to hide evidence of the AG involvement, awareness of, or partition in that illegal activity?

- How do the revelations of the DOJ Atty firings, and the evidence in the e-mail shed light oh the lines of evidence Members of Congress should ask for: When was WH legal/political/public affairs involved with discussions related to this illegal activity; why would the WH legal-political-public affairs office be "in the loops" on US Atty firings, but not aware of the illegal activity which Gonzalez was lying about?

- How did Gonzalez know about, discuss, and review with the WH Counsel's office the information related to the illegal activity?

- Did Gonzalez use the AGOS2007 e-mail account to interface with WH legal, political, and public affairs before he provided testimony to the Congress on these questions?

- Which WH legal, poetical, or public affairs personnel were involved with the AG testimony preparation on these issues AG Gonzalez is alleged to have lied about: What information did the WH legal-poetical-public affairs or DOJ Staff have from Congress about the types of question that would be asked;

- Was Gonzalez warned of the question; did Gonzalez communicate with others on a "Whet House approved"-response to the anticipated questions related to the illegal activity Gonzalez feigned ignorance?

- When did AG know of the FBI abuses, the NSL violations, and other DOJ-connected improper conduct under FISA; and why did he lie:

- What was the relationship between [a] AG's lying; and [b] passage of MCA?

- Did the same DOJ Staff -- involved with alleged FISA violations -- also have an interest to hide their knowledge of prisoner abuses?

- How much money from outside legal counsel was linked with DoJ Staff counsel and AG lying so that outside counsel would enjoy an unchallenged provision reimbursing them for litigation costs outside counsel had been complicit in not stopping, assisting, or implementing while it was assigned to the US Government?

- How much money through GOP campaign funds and lobbying was linked with provisions in the Patriot Act: DOJ Contract language that would be supported in Congress if there was no effectively challenge to those controversial DOJ programs; thereby securing unchallenged funds for Member of Congress pet programs?

ON THE TABLE

Line of inquiry into campaign funds, contracts, and other legal fees to outside counsel in exchange for AG silence on illegal activity.

- How much money was being diverted to the DOJ Small Business office to assist with court translation services?

- Were the court translation services also known to AG Gonzalez to be in error?

- How was information gleaned illegally used to tamper with transcripts using contractors associate with the DOJ Small Business office?

- If the US government agents and personnel were found to be linked with illegal activity, prisoner abuse, or other illegal conduct during abusive interrogations, how did AG Gonzalez lying on these known abuses attempt to block Congressional oversight of the misconduct that would have warranted review of the Geneva violations?

- When after Spike Bowman visited Guantanamo did Gonzalez lie about the known abuses DoJ Staff counsel were associated; how did AG Gonzalez plan to account for the DOJ-connected abuses which surfaced in re oversight and enforcement of war crimes; did Gonzalez not make any review of the 6th Military Police Group to the Joint Staff as he had a duty to on issues of alleged war crimes and Guantanamo?

- How much abuse were FBI and DHS personnel involved during warrantless interrogations of US Citizens; when did the AG learn of these illegal interrogations; was there no plan by the AG to report these violations to Members of Congress?

dee illuminati wrote on July 10, 2007 3:34 PM:

It was the NSL's in conjunction with warrantless eavesdropping that provided 'true bushies' with a tool to harrass and intimidate on an ongoing basis, journalists, senators, congressman, former intelligence officials, reluctant adherants to administration policy and just plain old 'examples' that the administration wanted to make similar to the Plames, Generl Shineski, Treasury Secretary Snow, and others. But the coordinated acts of NSL's to allienate and isolate, disrupt lawful endeavours, and to bully and intimidate for purely political purposes are at the core of the abuses committed and often committed by 'delegated authority' to an ongoing delegated list of investigators.

The real litmus of the abuse of targeted individuals is based on the number of repetitive assignments by field assets, as if the conclusion was not warranted for further investigation, and yet annother investigation was delegated without the previous findings, or those findings altered.

The lack of controls cited in the I.G.'s report were exactly the attitude: "do not let facts stand in the way of your convictions" in a similar manner of a disgraced prosecutor who continued pursuing criminal indictments against lacrosse students for purely political gain.

I would imagine that there were cases were large jet aircraft flew circles over a targets house, while NSL's were issued to zoning officials and builders, all the while as the banking and investing records along with computer and telephone inofrmation was accessed, and the reason behind this?

Politics and hubris.

Make no mistake about this.. the NSL's not filled out correctly were the ones that did not substantiate a continuation of harrasment, or.. were so unrelated to any activity but harrasment that they need to be filed that way.

This A.G. should go to jail and Glen Fine should be appointed acting attorney general pending confirmation of a new one by the Senate.

Jay S. wrote on July 10, 2007 4:03 PM:

Democracy is flawed. It is powerless to this kind of things. It simplly cannot beat smart/bad guys.
Can democracy win Iraq war?

Praful R Shah wrote on July 10, 2007 4:17 PM:

Once got elected and no more to face election, the adminstration & Attorney Generals are telling congress scew yourself. You can not do naything. There is proverb in Hindi, if one becomes naked God can not do naything to him. (Nange shaye Khuda bechar)

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 5:12 PM:

Since we know to a certainty that Congress isn’t going to act according to their sworn duty to uphold the constitution, what point is there in confirmation of the enormity of Gonzales’s perjury?

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 5:25 PM:

CIFA-JTTF-NSLs: Alleged RNC Attacks on RNC Offices To Blame Others

Recall, the court concluded the RNC did illegally harass the RNC Protesters against the war. Recall, TALON Database was destroyed. This was an intelligence file DOD was keeping. It relates to CIFA: Counter Intelligence Field Activity, DoD-JTTF domestic surveillance. If there was nothing wrong, should not have destroyed the evidence:

- Where is the log of the destruction? There had to have been one.
If there was no log kept of the security classifications/documents in that "bonafide" file, it's not bonafide. CIFA appears to have been involved with OPERATION FALCON; and it likely also used self-issued NSLs to target innocent civilians.
- When did AG Gonzalez know about the CIFA databased destruction; and use by CIFA-JTTF personnel of illegal NSLs?
- How did the RNC use the NSLs, CIFA-JTTF databases, and other DoD-related entities to target for harassment leadership within the ranks of those opposing illegal RNC activity?
- If the RNC has a "great relationship" with prosecutors, why are there no results of the attacks on on the RNC offices during the 2004 election?
- Who in the RNC blocked the full investigation of the attacks on the RNC offices in re the 2004 election?
- What was the relationship between the voter margins in the states where the attacks occurred; to the perceived risks Rove communicated to the RNC through the RNC e-mails?
- When did AG Gonzalez suspect that the RNC had attacked their own offices as a pretext to blame others?
- If the RNC "knew" that the "unions" were attacking, what was the basis for the letters to the Unions?
- How did the RNC "know" who to write the letters to; but there is no record that the targets of these RNC letters were subsequently prosecuted?
- How was the data from [ NARUS STA 6400 ] forwarded to GOP-affiliated entities, and contractors to develop propaganda in re Iraq in violation of the Hatch Act; what are the contract numbers for these GOP-related-efforts and media messages; what is the relationship between the NSA contractors, telecoms, and the GOP entities involved with this alleged illegal media messaging
- How was illegally captured information used to target non-combatant/civilans for domestic surveillance, warrantless montiroing, and abuse; how were opponents to illegal actdivity added to the watch lists?

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 5:39 PM:

[ July 10, 2007 5:25 PM ]

Correction, apologies to RNC.

Change: "Recall, the court concluded the RNC did illegally harass the RNC Protesters "

To read: "Recall, the court concluded the _NYPD_, acting as apparent surrogates for the RNC, did illegally harass the RNC Protesters "

Cynthia wrote on July 10, 2007 5:45 PM:

This is ALL relevant because as with the Ashcroft in hospital episode, it was at the behest and with the full knowledge of George W. Bush. DOJ and White House staffers will neither talk nor turn over documents because to do so will give the House all it needs to bring an open and shut case of impeachment against Mr. Bush. There must be avenues of further recourse available to Conyers and Leahy. It appears they're methodically taking it a step at a time.

Cranky wrote on July 10, 2007 10:02 PM:

People might be interested in know that Rep. Nadler (D) has asked for a Special Prosecutor to investigate Gonzales in regards to this issue. You can find more info here. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/10/161041/126

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 10:03 PM:

He just didn't remember it, if he ever read it, and, of course, he can only testify to things he remembers.

After all, he's the Attorney..... umm... I use to know... Major?

Posted by: NapalmGod
Date: July 10, 2007 3:18 PM

He'll be a General before you know it: Bushit supports the troops.

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 10:05 PM:

". . . . - How much abuse were FBI and DHS personnel involved during warrantless interrogations of US Citizens; when did the AG learn of these illegal interrogations; was there no plan by the AG to report these violations to Members of Congress?"

Posted by:
Date: July 10, 2007 3:23 PM

Go away, fantasyland ass.

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 10:09 PM:

"It was the NSL's in conjunction with warrantless eavesdropping that provided 'true bushies' with a tool to harrass and intimidate on an ongoing basis, journalists, senators, congressman, former intelligence officials, reluctant adherants to administration policy and just plain old 'examples' that the administration wanted to make similar to the Plames, Generl Shineski, Treasury Secretary Snow, and others. But the coordinated acts of NSL's to allienate and isolate, disrupt lawful endeavours, and to bully and intimidate for purely political purposes are at the core of the abuses committed and often committed by 'delegated authority' to an ongoing delegated list of investigators."

Where is your evidence for that unevidenced conspirabunk?

Don't have any? I knew that, that's why I asked.

Posted by: dee illuminati
Date: July 10, 2007 3:34 PM

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 10:12 PM:

"Since we know to a certainty that Congress isn’t going to act according to their sworn duty to uphold the constitution, . . . ."

The Democrats are acting according to their sworn duty. But Congress is not composed only of Democrats.

Bash the foot-dragging Republicans.

Or continue to be a Pro-Bushit troll.

Posted by:
Date: July 10, 2007 5:12 PM

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 10:16 PM:

- How was illegally captured information used to target non-combatant/civilans for domestic surveillance, warrantless montiroing, and abuse; how were opponents to illegal actdivity added to the watch lists?

Posted by:
Date: July 10, 2007 5:25 PM

You haven't determined -- with actual, real evidence -- that that occurred, so it is premature to ask how your fantaqsy was effectuated.

So all you do, blowhard, is spew more right-wing anti-gum'mint pseudo-law gibberish conspirabunk.

I'm beginning to conclude that you don't know what it means that you don't know what you're talking about.

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 10:25 PM:

“Each day seems to bring with it another example of this Administration’s troubling pattern of misleading or stonewalling Congress and the public. . . ."

The word "or" was carefully chosen, as it could have been "and". Leahy is a lawyer and former prosecutor; and the Democrats are being appropriately cautious.

In addition, Congress is playing its cards close to the vest. Congress has more evidence than they are revealing; some of what they're doing is inviting Bushit, et al., to stick their foot into this or that carefully distributed pile of shit.

And with every response, Gonazles and the White House oblige with that they term "perjury trap" -- which is an admission that if required to testify under oath, they would lie. That is why they won't testify. So, instead, they lie to Congress, which is illegal.

Of which lying Congress has and is steadily accumulating evidence.

Only "good faith" ignoramouses and pro-Bushit trolls bash the Democrats. Both should STFU and pay attention, out of which they will potentially learn something about how our system of laws, and not of men (John Adams) properly functions.

Roberta wrote on July 10, 2007 11:41 PM:

JNagarya,

Most of your posts include thoughtful analyses of constitutional law and refutations of or challenges to unsupported opinions.

I just wish that you could leave out the ad hominem remarks. Your arguments would be even more persuasive.

Thanks.

regular lurker wrote on July 11, 2007 2:24 PM:

I used to think Gonzales was deliberately trying to obstruct congressional oversight.

I've come to the conclusion that Gonzales is just unbelievably inept. The sooner he's replaced the better.