« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Senators Signal Gonzales Perjury Inquiry over Spying Testimony
The Senate Judiciary Committee will review Alberto Gonzales' past statements to determine whether Gonzales lied to the committee in 2006 by saying there had been no internal Justice Department dissent over the legality of the president's Terrorist Surveillance Program (otherwise known as the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program). When confronted by the senators, Gonzales today offered a surprising explanation of his consistency and veracity: he repeatedly suggested there's a different intelligence program, other than the TSP, that Justice Department officials found legally dubious in 2004. If Gonzales is telling the truth, he just disclosed the existence of a previously unknown intelligence program. If not, the embattled attorney general could be in some serious legal jeopardy.
Gonzales's "no-dissent" testimony sought to assure outraged Senators that the Justice Department had complete confidence in the controversial warrantless surveillance program known as the TSP, which was first disclosed by the New York Times in December 2005. But that line was cast into serious doubt by ex-Deputy Attorney General James Comey's May testimony that he thought the TSP was illegal during a stint as acting attorney general in March 2004. Indeed, the top echelon of Justice Department leadership was prepared to resign over the president's decision to continue a surveillance program without Department authorization.
Today, Gonzales did something absolutely unexpected: he said that Comey's doubts were about "other intelligence activities" than the warrantless surveillance program President Bush confirmed in December 2005 -- i.e., the TSP. That's how his 2006 statement that the TSP was uncontroversial could still be correct.
But the senators weren't buying it. And they say that they'll be examining Gonzales' statements closely to see whether the attorney general has perjured himself.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) battered Gonzales about the distinction between the TSP and the "other intelligence activities" Gonzales alleges existed. Schumer pointed out that in a June press conference, Gonzales confirmed that Comey was in fact talking about the "highly classified program which the president confirmed to the American people sometime ago" -- that is, the TSP. But Gonzales said at the hearing that shortly thereafter, he contacted Washington Post reporter Dan Eggen to retract the statement -- and then he stuck to his line about there being "other intelligence activities" that were at issue in March, 2004.
Next up was Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). The panel's ranking Republican, listening to Gonzales's new revelation -- or quasi-revelation, as the case may be -- said simply, "I do not find your testimony credible." Specter said that it was obvious that, as Gonzales initially confirmed last month, Comey was testifying about the Terrorist Surveillance Program -- meaning that Gonzales was not only lying to the Senate in his 2006 testimony, but lying today about "other intelligence activities" to cover up the lie. His advice to Gonzales was "to review your testimony carefully" and that the committee should see "if your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable."
Then it was Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)'s turn. Feingold, a member of the Senate intelligence committee, has received briefings on the TSP, and he came away from listening to Gonzales believing that the attorney general's 2006 testimony was "misleading at best."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), also a member of the Senate intelligence committee, later said he concurred with Feingold. "I have no choice but to conclude that you intended to deceive us and to mislead us away from the dispute that the Deputy Attorney General [Comey] subsequently brought to our attention." For his part, chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) advised Gonzales that the panel will "be looking at that transcript very, very closely" -- and that Gonzales should, too.
That might represent a final chance for Gonzales to step back from the brink of a perjury investigation. Whatever Gonzales expected to get out of today's hearing, he left the Senate having raised two lingering and mutually exclusive questions: whether the Bush administration has pursued a second secret, internally controversial intelligence program of dubious legality; or whether the attorney general of the United States lied under oath. Gonzales looked this morning like he had beaten back his political foes. What he probably didn't expect is that this afternoon, he became his own worst enemy.
Here are the transcripts:
SCHUMER: Those are your words, sir. So please help us understand how you didn't mislead the committee. You just admitted to me there was only one program that the president confirmed in December of 2005. I asked you, "Was there dissent?" You said no. Now you're saying -- you said in a letter to me there was -- well, there was -- there was dissent over other intelligence activities. But your June 5th statement confirms that what Comey was testifying about, because he had then testified, was the very program, sir -- the very program that you said there was no dissent to. How can you say you haven't deceived the committee?GONZALES: Well, I stand by what I said to the committee. This press conference is one that I would like to look at the question, I would like to look at my response.
SCHUMER: OK, we're going to bring it up to you right now, sir. OK?
(CROSSTALK) GONZALES: Good.
SCHUMER: These are your words, right? You don't deny that these are your words. This was a public press conference.
GONZALES: I'm told that in fact here in the press conference I did misspeak, but I also went back and clarified it with the reporter.
SCHUMER: You did misspeak?
GONZALES: Yes. But I went back and clarified it with the reporter...
SCHUMER: When was that? And which -- what was the reporter's name?
GONZALES: At The Washington Post two days later.
(CROSSTALK) GONZALES: Dan Egan (ph) was the reporter.
SCHUMER: OK. Well, we'll want to go follow up with him.
But the bottom line is this: You just admitted there was just one program that the president confirmed in December...
GONZALES: The president...
SCHUMER: ... just one. Is that correct, sir?
GONZALES: The president talked about a set of activities...
SCHUMER: No, I am just asking you a yes-or-no simple question, just as Senator Specter has. And just like Senator Specter and others here, I'd like to get an answer to that question. You just said there was one program. Are you backing off that now?
GONZALES: The president...
SCHUMER: Was there one program or was there not that the president confirmed?
GONZALES: The president confirmed the existence of one set of intelligence activities.
SCHUMER: Fine. Now let's go over it again, sir, because I think this shows clear as could be that you're not being straightforward with this committee; that you're deceiving us. You then -- then you said in testimony to this committee in response to a question that I asked, "There has not been any disagreement about the program the president confirmed." Then Jim Comey comes and talks about not just mild dissent, but dissent that shook the Justice Department to the rafters.
SCHUMER: And here, on June 5th, you say that Comey was testifying about the program the president confirmed. You, sir...
GONZALES: And I've already said...
SCHUMER: Sir.
GONZALES: ... I have clarified my statement on June 5th. Mr. Comey was talking about a disagreement that existed with respect to other intelligence activities.
SCHUMER: How can we -- this is constant, sir, in all due respect with you. You constantly make statements that are clear on their face that you're deceiving the committee. And then you go back and say, "Well, I corrected the record two days later." How can we trust your leadership when the basic facts about serious questions that have been in the spotlight, you just constantly change the story, seemingly to fit your needs to wiggle out of being caught, frankly, telling mistruths?
It's clear here. It's clear. One program. That's what you just said to me. That's what locks this in. Because before that, you were, sort of, alluding -- in your letter to me on May 17th, you said, "Well, there was one program," -- you said there was the program, TSP, and then there were other intelligence activities.
GONZALES: That's correct.
SCHUMER: You wanted us to go away and say, "Well, maybe it was other" -- wait a second, sir. Wait a second.
GONZALES: And the disagreements related to other intelligence activities.
SCHUMER: I'll let you speak in a minute, but this is serious, because you're getting right close to the edge right here. You just said there was just one program -- just one. So the letter, which was, sort of, intended to deceive, but doesn't directly do so, because there are other intelligence activities, gets you off the hook, but you just put yourself right back on here.
GONZALES: I clarified my statement two days later with the reporter.
SCHUMER: What did you say to the reporter?
GONZALES: I did not speak directly to the reporter.
SCHUMER: Oh, wait a second -- you did not.
(LAUGHTER) OK. What did your spokesperson say to the reporter?
GONZALES: I don't know. But I told the spokesperson to go back and clarify my statement...
SCHUMER: Well, wait a minute, sir. Sir, with all due respect -- and if I could have some order here, Mr. Chairman -- in all due respect, you're just saying, "Well, it was clarified with the reporter," and you don't even know what he said. You don't even know what the clarification is. Sir, how can you say that you should stay on as attorney general when we go through exercise like this, where you're bobbing and weaving and ducking to avoid admitting that you deceived the committee? And now you don't even know. I'll give you another chance: You're hanging your hat on the fact that you clarified the statement two days later. You're now telling us that is was a spokesperson who did it. What did that spokesperson say? Tell me now, how do you clarify this?
GONZALES: I don't know, but I'll find out and get back to you.
SCHUMER: How do you clarify this? This is serious, because it looks like you've deceived us.
GONZALES: Well...
LEAHY: In your own words, how would you clarify it?
SCHUMER: How would you clarify it? You don't need to -- if you, sir...
GONZALES: What I would -- what I would say -- let me answer the question.
SCHUMER: If you want to be attorney general, you should be able to clarify it yourself, right now, and not leave it to a spokesperson who you don't know what he said. Tell me how you clarify it.
GONZALES: Mr. Comey's testimony about the hospital visit was about other intelligence activities -- disagreement over other intelligence activities.
GONZALES: That's how we'd clarify it.
SCHUMER: That is not what Mr. Comey says. That is not what the people in the room say.
GONZALES: That's how we clarify it.
SCHUMER: Explain that again, because it still doesn't add up.
(CROSSTALK) SCHUMER: You said there's one program the president confirmed. Are you saying Mr. Comey didn't disagree with the program that the president confirmed in December?
GONZALES: What I'm saying is...
SCHUMER: That's what you're saying here.
GONZALES: ... the disagreement which Mr. Comey testified about was about other intelligence activities.
SCHUMER: Mr. Chairman, I think we have to pursue this at some point. Because this is -- I've never heard anything quite like this.
LEAHY: Could I ask, if I might, you said you made a clarification to some -- to a reporter. This is such a significant and major point. Did you ever offer such a clarification to either Senator Specter or myself?
GONZALES: You mean in terms of what was said at the press conference?
LEAHY: Yes.
GONZALES: I don't believe so. But I think my correspondence and testimony is accurate. The statement at the press conference was not accurate, and I corrected it. That was corrected.
SCHUMER: But, Mr. Chairman, if I might, now what the attorney general is saying the way this is clarified is that Jim Comey was not talking about the program the president...
LEAHY: I'm going to ask for a review of the transcript, both of what Mr. Comey said...
SCHUMER: Everyone knows that's not true.
LEAHY: ... and what Mr. Gonzales said. There's a discrepancy here in sworn testimony. We're going to have to ask who's telling the truth, who's not.
SPECTER: Going back to the question about your credibility on whether there was dissent within the administration as to the terrorist surveillance program, was there any distinction between the terrorist surveillance program in existence on March 10th, when you and the chief of staff went to see Attorney General Ashcroft, contrasted with the terrorist surveillance program which President Bush made public in December of 2005?GONZALES: Senator, this is a question that I should answer in a classified setting, quite frankly, because now you're asking me to hint or talk -- to hint about our operational activities. And I'd be happy to answer that question, but in a classified setting.
SPECTER: Well, if you won't answer that question, my suggestion to you, Attorney General Gonzales, is that you review this transcript very, very carefully. I do not find your testimony credible, candidly.
GONZALES: I certainly would endeavor to do that, Senator. I guess I'm very surprised at your conclusion that I may have been misleading, if, in fact, you understood the briefings in the Intel Committees, quite frankly. I find your statement surprising, so I look forward to your correspondence.FEINGOLD: I look forward to your -- the information in the classified setting and to your public attempts to set this straight. And I strongly disagree with your analysis of how somebody would come down as to whether you were misleading.
Comments (581)
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 2:37 PM:Of course, if Gonzales is indicted for perjury, he should resign or be impeached.
ohiomeister wrote on July 24, 2007 2:42 PM:How many tax dollars are spent on the Bush/Cheney Administration's team that has to go through the testimony of these clowns to determine whether they've committed perjury and to tell them that they need to change their testimony when they have done so?
Seriously. They clearly have staff members doing so, and it's definitely a full-time job for multiple people.
urban pirate wrote on July 24, 2007 2:47 PM:Gonzales is a shameless sack of crap. He has destroyed the credibility of the DOJ to an unimaginable extent.
Impeachment proceedings should begin immediately.
Kevo wrote on July 24, 2007 2:49 PM:After today's deflective and embarrassing testimony by our beloved AG, he is probably unhireable even as a used car salesman! -Kevo
Mstessyrue wrote on July 24, 2007 2:50 PM:It is probably no surprise to anyone that our president and his administration have, yet again, hid the truth from the American public. Similar to the dealings with the war in Iraq, this administration has been feeding lies to the public. Now the war has proven to be a failure and is causing more violence, terror and poverty in this world. According to the Borgen Project, it only takes $19 billion dollars annually to eradicate world hunger and poverty. However, our government has already spent more than $450 billion dollars over this fruitless war in Iraq. It is time for the Bush Administration to take a real interest in the lives of the American people as well as people who are in desperate needs around the world. Stop the lies and stop poverty now.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 2:50 PM:http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Senator_shows_Cheney_granted_authority_to_0724.html
In my view...this is the smoking gun~
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 2:50 PM:Yes, urban pirate, we can hold the trial in the barn. I'll sew the costumes, and Uncle Goober can be judge.
Slim Pickin's wrote on July 24, 2007 2:52 PM:This is so glaringly obvious now that I do not think even the Republicans can stand behind Gonzales - of course, I've been surprised by the complete spinelessness on so many occasions now. Looking forward to hearing something out of Dan Eggen at the Post.
Josh or Paul - you guys have Dan's number? Give him a call and see if the AG's description of "amending" his public statement is correct.
bobh wrote on July 24, 2007 2:55 PM:Does anyone else think Gonzales sounds very 'other-team' when he gets cornered? His hand motions are quite effeminate also. Very strange....then again there was a male prostitute going into the WHite house over and over again for the better part of a year. Whos to say?
Anyway...AGAG embarrased himself and Hatch made himself look the damn fool reading his script of snowball and softball questions.
anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 2:56 PM:JakeD: "Of course, if Gonzales is indicted for perjury, he should resign or be impeached."
Since there is no evidence of any kind that would ever convince you that Gonzales lied, even an admission by Gonzales himself and and acknowledgement by Bush, this statement is meaningless.
Code word = shame, as in the word figuratively plastered all over Gonzales's forehead.
whocares wrote on July 24, 2007 2:58 PM:what difference does it make? so next november bush can pardon another conviction if it even comes to that?
this government is broken beyond repair
urban pirate wrote on July 24, 2007 2:58 PM:The house has more than enough evidence to begin impeachment proceedings. Put it all together and let the Senate vote on conviction.
Patrick Langhenry wrote on July 24, 2007 2:59 PM:"Gonzales looked this morning like he had beaten back his political foes. What he probably didn't expect is that this afternoon, he became his own worst enemy." Having not seen or heard the testimony, could someone explain what made the morning session go so well for him.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 3:01 PM:Obviously, an admission by Gonzales that he lied under oath -- or even if Bush thought that Gonzales lied under oath -- is WORSE than an indictment. Thus, the same standard would apply -- Gonzales would have to immediately resign, or be impeached -- if that were the case (you are correct in noting that no one has pointed out enough evidence to indict), then Gonzales should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I'm not sure how I could be more clear than that.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 3:02 PM:Unless Gonzalez is impeached, future Presidents may pardon him.
MLK: "The time is always right to do what is right."
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 3:06 PM:1. Illegal Assertion of non-delegated powers
Gonzalez committed perjury: "the government’s position that it retains the right to opt out of the FISA regime whenever it chooses"
[ http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf ]
He has not told the truth to Congress, but has self-delegated himself "power" to opt out of all legal requirements.
2. Obstruction
The evidence has been destroyed: Gonzalez, as WH Counsel, knows of the backup email system that thwarted the Hatch Act. He only permitted the backup destruction when he realized the scope of the illegal activity was known; and could not be reasonably protected by privilege. Why else would they destroy something that was supposed to be forever hidden?
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 3:09 PM:Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 24, 2007 2:37 PM
What a load of non-sense. You're asking that impeachment be delayed until there is a prosecution.
WTF. You can't have it both ways: Either prosecutions start _now_; or impeachment starts _now_. Because the President refuses to "allow" prosecutions, impeachment is the only option . . . unless the States are going to do this.
Something is going to happen now: Which?
tjallen wrote on July 24, 2007 3:10 PM:Will Bush allow any kind of criminal charges to be filed against Gonzalez by the US Justice dept or Wash DC US Attorney, who are mere emenations of His will? Why bother with criminal words like indict, grand jury or perjury, when Bush the unitary executive won't allow it? Gonzalez was just carrying out Bush's wishes. Impeachment of Gonzalez is the only game left.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 3:11 PM:5 USC 3331: "without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion"
Gonzalez is evading his oath. 5 USC 3331 indictments are on the table. What is _now_ going to happen: Prosecution or impeachment?
Now.
JEP wrote on July 24, 2007 3:14 PM:Smoking gun, hell!
...this is a virtual mushroom cloud!
Even better, we get Gonzo versus Gonzo, in a wierd, twisted dual-personality showdown.
Do we now have TweedleDum and TweedleDee sharing the same body? Which version will we see next time?
The Gonzo Twins need to get their internal story straight. It reminds me of Gollum talking to itself.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 3:14 PM:If Congress does not impeach, prosecute, shut down funding, we can only reasonably conclude: Congress isn't serious.
JEP wrote on July 24, 2007 3:17 PM:The Gonzo Twins...
sometimes I even tickle my own funny bone...
JohnW1141 wrote on July 24, 2007 3:19 PM:I think Jake D is actually Victoria Toensing
JohnW1141 wrote on July 24, 2007 3:19 PM:I think Jake D is actually Victoria Toensing
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 3:21 PM:I do not think "perjury" means what you think it means -- it doesn't mean "Illegal" Assertion of non-delegated powers (whatever that is) or Obstruction of Justice -- no wonder you guys were defending Bill Clinton so vigorously.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 3:21 PM:The robots in the GOP can define soemthing as "important to the President" as anything, including (illegally) defending him against charges of FISA violations/war crimes:
http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/GonzalesPolicy.pdf
"important" could mean spreading misinformation to the public and Congress to mislead them; using threats to dissuade investigators; or pretending "tehre is no time, because we have important legislation to pass" while the GOP blocks legislation.
"Important" in this memo can mean anything the GOP wants it to mean.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 3:23 PM:No, JohnW1141, I am not Victoria Toensing (although I agree with her that Plame was not covert when Novak revealed her identity ; )
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 3:31 PM:BINGO!
JEP wrote on July 24, 2007 3:31 PM:I do believe that JNagarya is correct. This has been a slow, deliberate investigation that has tried to guide the persons involved down an ever-narrowing path until... THEY HANG THEMSELVES!
The Bush administration nees something desperately...
A DRUG TEST!!!
THEY SURE SEEM TO SMILE IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY!
And even some of the right-wingers have noticed it in Bush, they consider it an intractable spirit, but most of us in realityland suspect it is more likely synthetic morphine, or one of Rummy's designer "Perks from Merck..." than optimism that fuels their cheery images.
How else can they continue to smile as the house of Cards falls down around them?
How can they continue to act uplifted, when their reputations have been completely destroyed?
How can they smile, when all they have left are the brainless, vile, war-loving zombies who would willingly follow them right over the cliff.
Just ask Rush. He knows all about it. And we don't have to go far to find these lemmings-in-Republican-clothing, we have some great examples of these blind followers, and their desperate, hopeless ravings, right here on this blog.
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 3:32 PM:Based on this memo, last page (highlighted)
[ http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/GonzalesPolicy.pdf ]
_When_ did AG provide info to WH/OVP on status of FISA, Geneva, and NSA investigations, prompting:
- OVP blocking archivists audit of OVP info
- OVP evidence shredding
- RNC e-mail destruction
- Creation of an illegal e-mail backup system
- Non-use of official e-mails
- Destruction of backup e-mails
Check the AG2007 email files; the workflows; and the information Addington and OVP outside counsel were discussing as FBI were closing in on the Libby issues:
A. What kind of leaks was AG involved in in re the Libby Grand Jury; and other information from Fitzgerald's classified investigation/ grand jury proceedings?
B. Did the AG have any access to non-disclosed Grand Jury proceedings related to Libby, FISA, Geneva, rendition?
C. When did the CIA personnel learn that the AG had tipped off the OVP, and this evidence was destroyed, prompting the CIA to go to the EU with information about the unlawful prisoner abuses in Eastern Europe?
D. Who within the CIA was connected with the OVP to learn that the AG had provided information to the OVP on war crimes investigations, prompting evidence destruction; and how did the civilian cover stories from Abraxas related to CIA personnel learning that the AG did not plan to pursue war crimes issues in re Eastern Europe?
Hobodeluxe wrote on July 24, 2007 3:34 PM:Does anyone have a link to a video of Sheldon Whitehouse's questions for Gonzales today?
We have video for everything else but not that and imo it was some of the most incriminating testimony.
code word horse
as in fark you Gonzo and the horse you rode in on.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 3:35 PM:Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 24, 2007 3:21 PM
You're confusing yourself. The plain reading of the note expressly states
1. Perjury
2. Assertion of non-delegated powers
Not the same. You are misreading the information. It is an assertion of "non dlegated" powers for the AG to have said he could "opt out" of the FISA requirement. That's not permissible. It's the _exclusive_ means to oversee _all_ surveillance in peace and war.
You failed to read the link. Can't help you. You're confusing yourself.
interested litigant wrote on July 24, 2007 3:36 PM:Oh they bought it ... they just don't want you to know how much they know before they can twist you into thinking what they know is right and what you don't know is wrong.... spin before the rinse cycle
melior wrote on July 24, 2007 3:38 PM:Yes, you see Bush Jr. wasn't lying after all when he said the secret program to authorize wiretapping of US citizens never violated the Constitutional requirement that warrants be issued.
All those illegal warrantless wiretaps must have actually been part of a DIFFERENT secret wiretapping program, by definition!
I feel so much better now.
So, now that that's settled, when will the investigation of these newly revealed, impeachable high crimes begin?
dm wrote on July 24, 2007 3:39 PM:Specter is clearly hinting that the hospital visit related to "TSP Version 1", and that the President disclosed "TSP Version 2", which was substantially different from the earlier version. "TSP Version 2" is probably the product of the changes undertaken by Comey after the hospital visit in order to bring the program within the DOJ's legal boundaries. These changes probably included eliminating some intelligence activities which were legally dubious.
joe wrote on July 24, 2007 3:43 PM:If this is the case, then Gonzales' testimony is essentially true, because (1) the disagreement did not relate to "the program the President disclosed" ("TSP Version 2"), and (2) the (clarified?) statement to the reporter did refer both to the TSP generally and to "TSP Version 1" which included other intelligence activities beyond what the President disclosed.
Basically, it seems like Specter was trying to give Gonzales a chance to clear everything up by admitting that there was some substantial difference between "TSP Version 1" and "TSP Version 2". The real question then becomes: What is so bad about "TSP Version 1" that Gonzales is willing to risk impeachment or criminal charges to avoid disclosing its existence?
Unbelievable. I am simply dumb-founded. I'm at work and not supposed to be watching videos but I couldn't resist watching Schumer and AG.
AG says he clarified 2 days later to a reporter (and not the Senate!) remarks he lied about and contested by Comey. BUT THEN HE SAYS that it wasn't actually him that clarified but a spokesperson AND THAT he didn't know what exactly was clarified.
I am speechless. Impeach this guy Today!
melior wrote on July 24, 2007 3:44 PM:This sun is still hot, the sky is still blue, and Jake D. is still trying to bamboozle with stale, dead lies, isn't he? Bush's CIA Director must be a dirty hippie liberal.
"This will be a bitter pill for some conservatives to swallow. CIA Director Michael Hayden personally reviewed and okayed Henry Waxman's opening statement for Valerie Plame's testimony today. Furthermore, Hayden took pains to set the record straight: Plame was indeed a covert agent up until the day Robert Novak revealed as much to the public."
http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/03/16/cia-director-hayden-valerie-plame-was-covert-agent/
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 3:46 PM:Based on this memo, last page (highlighted)
[ http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/GonzalesPolicy.pdf ]
_When_ did AG provide info to WH/OVP on status of FISA, Geneva, and NSA investigations, prompting:
- OVP blocking archivists audit of OVP info
- OVP evidence shredding
- RNC e-mail destruction
- Creation of an illegal e-mail backup system
- Non-use of official e-mails
- Destruction of backup e-mails
Check the AG2007 email files; the workflows; and the information Addington and OVP outside counsel were discussing as FBI were closing in on the Libby issues:
A. What kind of leaks was AG involved in in re the Libby Grand Jury; and other information from Fitzgerald's classified investigation/ grand jury proceedings?
B. Did the AG have any access to non-disclosed Grand Jury proceedings related to Libby, FISA, Geneva, rendition?
C. When did the CIA personnel learn that the AG had tipped off the OVP, and this evidence was destroyed, prompting the CIA to go to the EU with information about the unlawful prisoner abuses in Eastern Europe?
D. Who within the CIA was connected with the OVP to learn that the AG had provided information to the OVP on war crimes investigations, prompting evidence destruction; and how did the civilian cover stories from Abraxas related to CIA personnel learning that the AG did not plan to pursue war crimes issues in re Eastern Europe?
Posted by:
Date: July 24, 2007 3:32 PM
----
Not gonzo...maybe not, but more staff communications to office of VP...staff/or VP himself.
anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 3:51 PM:JakeD: "Yes, urban pirate, we can hold the trial in the barn. I'll sew the costumes, and Uncle Goober can be judge."
I'm sorry, but your uncle is disqualified on the account of a conflict of interest. He's related to and is being recommended by a butt-kissing Bush supporter.
anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 3:57 PM:JakeD: ". . . you are correct in noting that no one has pointed out enough evidence to indict . . ."
I have pointed out no such thing, mentiroso.
There is more than sufficient evidence to indict and convict.
Your lack of understanding of evidence and its significance is pretty astounding for someone claiming to be "Stanford Law."
BJ wrote on July 24, 2007 3:58 PM:OT
Breaking News:
Tom Collinmore (sp?)
Has resigned from a top position in Fred Thompson’s campaign
‘Sources’ (according to CNN) say it is because of difficulties with Fred Thompson’s Campaign mgr…. HIS WIFE!! (who happens to be his 2nd, more than 20 yrs younger than he, and (they say) a Britney Spears wannabe… mini skirts, long blonde hair, etc)
Humorous eh? not even in the campaign officially yet and the shit is beginning to hit the fan for him!
Hope someone at this site and dig up some info.. nothing on google yet, saw it on cnn about 10 mins ago...
jak1 wrote on July 24, 2007 4:01 PM:Loved the part where Chuck Schumer almost made Gonzo cry.
Security Code:
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 4:01 PM:judge
Posted by:
Date: July 24, 2007 3:46 PM
Memo at link permits the _AG_ to comunicate; silent on the _Staff_.
May be true that the Staff _did_ communicate, violating the AG policy; and improperly disclosing information outside DOJ.
TBD
Jess wrote on July 24, 2007 4:01 PM:There was a TV programme showing Gonzales in a past testimony repeatedly saying "for *this* program, Senator". He spoke the truth back then because he referred to one very specific program. This is what Leahy will find when he examined past transcripts "very, very closely."
AG is a smart man, he chooses his words carefully, and I am sure he rehearsed his testimony to make sure he a) won't reveal anything unasked, and b) when they do ask hard questions, his answers will be specific to those questions only. They should have followed up when AG kept emphasizing "_this_ program."
If an amateur on TV could see that, how come the smart senators couldn't?
-- Jess
anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 4:02 PM:JakeD: ". . . I agree with her that Plame was not covert when Novak revealed her identity . . ."
Then you are both wrong.
Or lying.
Given the track record, I vote for lying.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 4:06 PM:GONZALEZ MUST HAVE, BY MEMO APPROVED STAFF COMMUNCIATIONS
There must have been CC copies of e-mail from the AG Staff to OVP, which Gonzalez was reading.
1. Where is the designation letter?
2. When did the AG sign it?
3. How did the AG review whethere the communcations were proper?
4. What review of the CC-email did AG make of AG Staff communications to the OVP?
5. What are the records of the AG opening, accessing, and reviewing DOJ AG Staff e-mails to the OVP?
6. How many of these e-mails were destroyed, sent via RNC, or outside what permitted in Hatch Act?
7. Which of these e-mails was the OVP archivist prohibited from reivewing?
Staff Members "if so designated by the Attorney General" -- means that the AG would have had to be involved _with that decision_ to communicate. Gonzalez has a "blanket approval" but not control over what is going on; and no CC copies of that communiation? Then how can he possibly act as the President's legal advisor, er...AG?
anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 4:08 PM:The panel's ranking Republican, listening to Gonzales's new revelation -- or quasi-revelation, as the case may be -- said simply, "I do not find your testimony credible."
================
See, it isn't only Leahy who thinks Gonzales has committed perjury; Leahy is not the only one.
According to JakeD's reasoning (although not that of a reasonable person), therefore, the charge of perjury has credibility, just because there is someone else who believes the charge.
Of course, there is ample evidence of perjury, not just opinion, that is clear to anyone who isn't blind because their view is obscured by Bush's buttcheeks.
Pete wrote on July 24, 2007 4:08 PM:This is blogging at its finest.
Visually, it's like watching a pack of lions bring down a proud elephant. There comes a point when you know the elephant's not going to make it and that point was reached in Schumer's questioning of Gonzales with regard to Comey's testimony.
I want to remind everyone that it seems likely to me that none of this would be happening if it wasn't for the fine investigative journalism of tpmmuckraker.com that brought to light the attorney firing scandal.
Bless you all!
Just an Observer wrote on July 24, 2007 4:11 PM:The fact that Gonzales says the disagreement with Comey and others was about something beyond the TSP program Bush has confirmed IS NOT NEW. Gonzales made that claim explicitly in his Feb. 6, 2006 testimony. (BTW, he was not under oath.)
Here is what was said then:
"GONZALES: There has not been any serious disagreement -- and I think this is accurate -- there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations which I cannot get into. ...
"I will also say
"SCHUMER: But there was some -- I'm sorry to cut you off -- but there was some dissent within the administration. And Jim Comey did express, at some point -- that's all I asked you -- some reservations.
"GONZALES: The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we're talking about today. They dealt with operational capabilities that we're not talking about today."
Also, when Comey testified this year, he explicitly declined to say what particular program the 2004 disagreement was about. We still do not know for sure. Comey did testify that, after the confrontation with Bush in March 2004, the program in question was modified to conform to DOJ objections.
Most close observers assume that modified program was what Bush confirmed in December 2005 after the New York Times revealed the NSA domestic spying. The TSP -- which I believe was also illegal but apparently not so egregious -- continued after that, until January of 2006.
What is interesting is that both Sens. Feingold and Whitehouse, who as members of the Intelligence Committee say they have been briefed on some details, asserted today that Gonzales' testimony was misleading. The senators did not go so far as to say it was a lie. It is unlikely that just dissembling is actionable. (Gonzales is a dissembler; everyone already knew that.)
But what remains obvious is that some intelligence activities -- so seriously illegal that the whole top echelon of Justice and the FBI was willing to resign over them -- did take place for 2-1/2 years ending in March 2004. And, according to Gonzales' sworn testimony today, congressional leaders meeting in secret went along. What were those activities?
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 4:13 PM:Bless you too, Pete. If Gonzales is still the Attorney General this time next year, will you then agree that this wasn't the tipping point?
Just an Observer wrote on July 24, 2007 4:15 PM:Correction: The TSP continued until January of 2007 .
CX wrote on July 24, 2007 4:15 PM:I suspect Jake still believes the canard about WMDs in Iraq too.
Come on Jake, be brave and admit it.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 4:17 PM:Just an Observer:
I hope you are not asking for classified information to be released which could kill innocent Americans during this time of war . . .
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 4:24 PM:CX:
I have never been to Iraq. I can only rely on information such as the Duelfer Report which indeed documented some WMD -- just not the stockpiles every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had -- and could not rule out that other WMD had not been taken to Syria, for instance:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
mbbsdphil wrote on July 24, 2007 4:26 PM:Fredo may indeed be implying that there existed other intelligence activities as a dodge to avoid admitting he lied to Congress or committed perjury.
He said that there were no significant disagreements concerning "the program whose existence the president confirmed" when, in fact, the entire top echelon of the DOJ threatened to resign over the WH's intention to pursue "a program" that the DOJ had rejected as constitutionally invalid. (That would be consistent behavior for one of Bush's most loyal and unquestioning lapdogs.)
But the alternative to Gonzales having lied to Cognress or committed perjury (both felonies) is not there might be only a "second" program. There might be many; if so, even Bush's corrupted DOJ might not be aware of them all.
Scott L wrote on July 24, 2007 4:30 PM:I belive there would be much less damage to this country if a dirty weapon was used on us than the perment damage this president and his crew have done.
Just an Observer wrote on July 24, 2007 4:30 PM:Jake D,
Calling information about lawbreaking "classified" for purposes of covering up the lawbreaking is itself an illegal misuse of classification process.
BTW, as far as I know Gonzales does not possess the authority to declassify anything. Yet that did not stop him from making the self-serving revelation today about the classified meeting on March 10, 2004. He is basically implicating the other participants to try to avert a deeper investigation.
Not that I care so much about his self-servingness. I am equally concerned about the complicity of all participants, in both branches and in both parties. There is nothing in the Constitution or statute that allows eight legislators, meeting in secret with a few executive-branch officials, to authorize the President to break the law.
anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 4:34 PM:JakeD: "I hope you are not asking for classified information to be released which could kill innocent Americans during this time of war . . ."
Why do you care?
You don't care when Bush and people in his administration do it.
Nor do you care that innocent Americans are being killed as the result of Bush administration dishonesty and incompetence.
"If Gonzales is still the Attorney General this time next year, will you then agree that this wasn't the tipping point?"
Since Gonzales being ousted or not is not the only measure of "tipping", I hardly think he/she should agree to this.
There are many favorable outcomes from showing Gonzales to be an incompetent AG as well as a perjurer and to show his boss as someone who not only tolerates, but celebrates perjury and incompetence.
jak1 wrote on July 24, 2007 4:38 PM:Why didn't Schumer just refer back to when Gonzo testified that the secret program in question, was the one expireing the very next day.
Would't that testimony clear that up? Can someone help me with this? I see if I can find it, it was earlier on one of the video clips.
anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 4:39 PM:"No charges for doctor in Katrina hospital deaths"
Not Fitzmas for the wingers.
Too bad, so sad.
Maybe next year.
We've got Libby, the gift that keeps giving, and you've got nothing.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 4:40 PM:I would, of course, care IF Bush and people in his administration released classified information which could kill innocent Americans during this time of war -- just like I would support impeachment if Bush planted explosives at the WTC -- if you are referring to Valerie Plame, please, she was not covert at the time and who was at risk anyways?
jak1 wrote on July 24, 2007 4:47 PM:In the "Gonzales: I Only Visited Ashcroft's Hospital Bed Because Congress Wanted It" post Gonzo, under questioning by Orrin Hatch, Gonzo left no doubt which program had a problem with.
It's at :46 seconds left in the video clip.
jak1 wrote on July 24, 2007 4:48 PM:In the "Gonzales: I Only Visited Ashcroft's Hospital Bed Because Congress Wanted It" post Gonzo, under questioning by Orrin Hatch, Gonzo left no doubt which program Comey had a problem with.
It's at :46 seconds left in the video clip.
... wrote on July 24, 2007 4:51 PM:Jake D,
http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/03/16/cia-director-hayden-valerie-plame-was-covert-agent/
Read it.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 4:53 PM:Jake, I'm just asking for the classified information that the Bush administration is hiding to keep from going to prison en masse.
It will come out someday. Probably sooner than later.
By then you will have cashed your paychecks for disrupting these comments.
Don't spend it all in one place.
Austin Cooper wrote on July 24, 2007 4:54 PM:Gonzales is a liar, and a punk. He should be impeached.
I don't think there's room or time for further hair-splitting. A ten-year old, blind Chimpanzee could do a better job serving as the AG.
Come to think of it, it could serve as President and there would be little noticable difference -- I mean, they'd both throw their feces in everyone's faces.
stillreading wrote on July 24, 2007 4:56 PM:One other thing. If I had an employee who weaseled about a previous, er, inconsistency in something he'd told me, and had a history of telling, um, things that didn't add up, and he explained away the inconsistency by saying that it was all about "consoling an extremely distraught young woman" etc., that guy would be out in the unemployment line in a heartbeat.
That really made my oatmeal hit the wall.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 4:58 PM:...
You'll excuse me if I don't necessarily believe hearsay from Rep. Waxman.
Austin Cooper wrote on July 24, 2007 5:01 PM:Why do people continue to feed Jakey?
Do you understand this is a substitute for (or an aid to) masturbation for him/her?
There's certainly no substance to argue with. Ignore It.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 5:06 PM:Oh, and there's high-brow "substance" to calling the Attorney General of the United States "a liar, and a punk" and endorsing a ten-year old, blind Chimpanzee for the position, or even better, as President?
Austin Cooper wrote on July 24, 2007 5:19 PM:Ackerman and Kiel note that Gonzales left the Senate having raised a question as to "whether the Bush administration has pursued a second secret, internally controversial intelligence program of dubious legality".
Did anyone else, in listening to Comey's testimony, come away with the perception that there *was* a second program?
I say that based on some of Comey's responses to questions as to Card and Gonzales' urgent need to get around him, and some general speculation in the days after.
p winslow wrote on July 24, 2007 5:31 PM:Austin, you're right. jake's purpose is the same as gonzo's. Take the discussion away from what we ALL ARE WATCHING AND AND ARE AWARE OF. A gang of criminals marching under the PNAC bannner stole the government in 2000 and lied us into an endless war while they plundered the treasury. Truth crushed to earth will rise again(and again). To all the jakes(all 25%) just keep watching and waiting. Your time is up and you know it.
P J Evans wrote on July 24, 2007 5:38 PM:Wazman's Opening Statement, March 16, 2007
[snip to page 2]
I have been advised by the CIA that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose
the full nature, scope, and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.
But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.
During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.
Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited fiom disclosure under Executive Order 12958.
At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14,2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.
This was classified information.
[snip]
Hearsay? Yeah, right.
thomas wrote on July 24, 2007 5:46 PM:I've said it before, here it comes again
Bush wil not fire
Gonzo will not retire
all know he's a liar
but who will they hire.
the shrub needs this POS to cover his ass. If someone else takes over the Justice Dept the Senate will only approve a candidate with some independence. Cheney/Bush can't have that.
PJ White wrote on July 24, 2007 5:53 PM:Why isn't Gonzo shaking in his shoes? He has already been guaranteed a Get Out of Jail Free Card. Even if every word that ever comes out of his mouth for the rest of his life is a lie, he will never suffer the consequences.
William Ockham wrote on July 24, 2007 5:53 PM:Here's the key to understanding this whole "other intelligence activities" dodge. For brevity's sake I'm going to leave out data traffic and just talk about voice traffic (phone calls). The program works like this. The NSA is collecting call data (phone numbers, time of call, length of call, etc.) on as much domestic traffic as possible. They are looking for matches with phone numbers belong to terrorism suspects. When they find one, they add the phone number on the other end of the call to their database.
When one of the numbers on the list makes an international call, they record the call itself. They can't get a FISA warrant for the recording because they don't have anything resembling probable cause, except the illegally collected call record data.
Gonzales is trying to pretend that the "TSP" only refers to the stuff in my last paragraph. The hospital room visit was to get the AG signature required by the phone companies to continue allowing the recording of the call data. It's patently absurd to claim that this is two separate programs since the "TSP" wouldn't exist without the other part.
OhSnap! wrote on July 24, 2007 5:56 PM:Wowzers.
AG Gonzalez was at his finest today, no? Aside from a blunt, "Oh, you committed perjury," this was about as pointed as it could get. You could almost taste the bile the Senators (sans Hatchet and Kyl-lo) were bringing forth.
JakeD -- What about today's Whitehouse questions? Gonna snark out a brilliant over him today? Or DiFi? I found their questioning (among others) to be in excellent form today.
No comments today on ThinkProgress, either. Hmm...
Again, I don't really know what will be the outcome of this Committee hearing. One could hope and wish for AG to be held accountable for gross incompetency (at the minimum) and dereliction in his duties. But I also didn't think Bush would be re-elected in 2004...
Comment: I was reading today's WaPo coverage on this, co-written by Dan Eggen and William Branigin "Gonzalez Denies Pressuring Ashcroft". WaPo shock! No mention in the article about Fredo's clarification by his peeps to Eggen regarding his previous testimony.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072400207.html?hpid=topnews
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 6:08 PM:P J Evans (not to be confused with PJ White):
The very definition of "hearsay" is an out-of-court (or, in this case, out-of-Congress) statement offered for the truth of said statement. As you note, WAXMAN was relating what he says Hayden "cleared" -- note that even Waxman was not under oath -- historically, the rule against hearsay is aimed at prohibiting the use of a person's assertion, as equivalent to testimony to the fact asserted, unless the assertor is brought to testify in court on the stand where he may be placed under oath and cross-examined.
CIA to this day refuses to confirm or deny Valerie Plame's status. Look, I have no doubt that Ms. Plame was "covert" at one point in time, but whether she was covered under the IIPA at the time of Novak's disclosure is another question entirely and still in doubt. Fitzgerald didn't charge Armitage with violating that law, did he? It could very well have been part of an intelligence "turf war" between Langley and the Pentagon / White House, and no such law was violated.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 6:12 PM:OhSnap!
Read all the Gonzales threads, and feel free to comment therein on anything you consider a "snark" : )
ralph489 wrote on July 24, 2007 6:12 PM:An interesting sidebar: I happened to tune in to Fox News, and they happened to place the caption under Arlen Specter at 3:03 p.m., that labelled him "Sen. Arlen Specter (D)". This is a rather convenient typo which happens to imply that only Dems think Gonzo is incompetent.
Dee Loralei wrote on July 24, 2007 6:14 PM:Heck the Senators need look no further than todays testimony for perjury. Schumer was asking what he had in his hand in Ashcrofts hospital room, what piece of paper. It was about the TSA (NSA Warrantless Spying).
Later Gonzo said : No Comey was talking about not signing on to other intelligence activities and that's why we went to Ashcroft's hospital room. It was about those other activities.
Right there and within like 10 minutes of each other.
Impeach this idiot NOW!!!
Security code: Boat, as in this boat is sinking fast. Or this boat has hit an iceberg of the SJC.
David Derbes wrote on July 24, 2007 6:14 PM:No, JohnW1141, I am not Victoria Toensing (although I agree with her that Plame was not covert when Novak revealed her identity ; )
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 24, 2007 3:23 PM
CIA disagrees with you, as cited by Patrick Fitzgerald before Judge Walton during the penalty phase of the Libby trial.
Given a disagreement between you and CIA, her employers, why is your claim credible?
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 6:26 PM:Then why didn't Mr. Fitzgerald indict Richard Armitage for leaking such a "covert" agent as super-spy Valerie Plame? Maybe because it was an open secret that she worked at CIA ever since the twins were born? As I stated above, CIA refuses to confirm or deny either way.
God wrote on July 24, 2007 6:27 PM:Jake,
I hadn't the misfortune of seeing any of your posts for several days. Terefore, I thought you'd done us all a favor and cur off your hands so you couldn't post any longer or perhaps killed yourself, but instead, to the annoyance of all you contact you have returned like a bad case of the clap. I'm very disappointed.
Jehovah
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 6:31 PM:God:
I would have thought You were omniscient (or could at least avoid typos ; )
daCascadian wrote on July 24, 2007 6:32 PM:Ackerman and Kiel >"...whether the Bush administration has pursued a second secret, internally controversial intelligence program of dubious legality..."
Oh come on, get off it
There are MULTIPLE (as in more than two, way more than two) secret, intelligence program(s) of dubious legality so quit with the faux-shock and address the real world
Anyone that believes otherwise is adrift from reality; these people & their supporters (The Powers That Be) are criminals plain and simple
"Every once in a while, you've got to do something hard, do something you're not comfortable with. A person needs a gut check." - Corporal Chad Ritchie, U.S.M.C.
RW wrote on July 24, 2007 6:59 PM:dm asks the obvious question, what is Gonzales hiding from TSP 1 that is so frightful that he will take the sword and distract the eyes of the country away from it? The answer in general is the quest of the architect to divine a permanent GOP-Bushie majority where every asset of the government was used to that goal, the TSP cannot be the only area where the Bushie-WH did not have politics trump policy....they were one in the same. The spying was not on terrorists or dissent it was on political enemies...no different than Nixon.
tekel wrote on July 24, 2007 7:12 PM:ha ha ha, you said "echelon." Was that an intended double-entendre, or just blind luck?
Of course everyone knows that "echelon" is one codename for the ubiquitous NSA wiretap and internet tracking database. Cf. Carnivore, TIA, Poindexter.
How did the song go? "I always feel like/ somebody's watching meeeeeee...." Turns out that's because the NSA has been watching everyone.
parrot wrote on July 24, 2007 7:32 PM:It truly is interesting how AG AG seems to think that he can counter his own sworn testimony in the press by delegating others to speak on his behalf secretly with journalists...it seems to be obstruction on its face.
I'm beginning to like the idea of forcing Cheney and Busholini to testify under oath at Gonzalez's impeachment hearing.
Mary wrote on July 24, 2007 7:37 PM:From Patrick Fitzgerald's court filings:
"It was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (the Intelligence Identities Protection Act) as a COVERT agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press."
Ignore the ignorant troll, folks. Not even worth your time responding to.
exGOP wrote on July 24, 2007 7:51 PM:Mary's right, folks. Evidence presented under oath indicates covert status. No countervailing evidence was offered. Case closed.
The troll is either ignorant or dishonest. The jury is still out on that one although the evidence is mounting in favor of dishonesty. Hard to imagine anyone as passionate about the case as this troll would have missed this detail. We'll just have to wait and see if troll will acknowledge it now.
JNagarya wrote on July 24, 2007 7:51 PM:"Gonzales today offered a surprising explanation of his consistency and veracity: he repeatedly suggested there's a different intelligence program, other than the TSP, that Justice Department officials found legally dubious in 2004. If Gonzales is telling the truth, he just disclosed the existence of a previously unknown intelligence program. If not, the embattled attorney general could be in some serious legal jeopardy."
This is not a new question -- except among "professional" "journalists" who from the first instance of this question-answer jumped to the group-think conclusion that he was talking about the same program as the Judiciary Committee. And that despite the fact that Comey also made similar reference to "another" program.
After Gonzales' prior testimony on this issue, I raised the question, based upon the most prominent exchange on the issue -- that in February, when Schumer asked about the "Terrorist Surveillance Program".
Gonzales responded that the controversy was not about that, but rather about a different program, which he said he wouldn't talk about. Comey later said the equivalent.
I know it is difficult to do, "professional" "journalists," but for a moment put aside the presumption that Gonzales lied on that point. Assume for the moment that in that instance he was telling the truth. What, then, would that mean? It would mean there was not only the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" being operated outside Congressional oversight; but also that another, second program was also being run outside both Congress' knowledge and oversight. It would be that second one about which Gonzales indicated there was controversy.
Now go back and compare that with Comey's responses to the same question/s.
It he told the truth on that point, and there is in fact another, second program -- the one about which there was controversy -- then matters are even worse than they would be with only the one illegal wiretapping program.
Instead of playing "gotcha!" with small potatoes Gonzales, look at the details in that particular answer -- from both Gonzales and Comey -- and look beyond Gonzales to those for whom he is simply a "Yes" man; for whom his only job is to say, "Yes." By that means there is the possibility of going through the wall he is intended to be to those who are hiding behind that wall.
And while you "professional" "journalists" are newly reacquainted with suspension of judgment, assume Gonzales is telling the truth at least a few instances when he "doesn't recall" and "doesn't know". Sen. Whitehouse asked him about a memo he signed which radically broadened the number of connections between DOJ and White House staffers (practically down to and including janitors) -- specifically, what a particular paragraph meant. Gonzales answered, "I don't know."
Well, we do know that Cheney lawyer Addington translates Cheney's off-the-wall theories into (pseudo-)law; and that those documents are then given to Gonzales for "review" and signing. It's quite plausible he wouldn't know what a paragraph he didn't write meant. Why would he bother to even read it -- his job is to approve everything which comes his way from the White House.
(Is he lying about some things? Certainly: there is no question he knows who named the AGs to be fired. And it wasn't his subordinates at the DOJ; his job is to maintain deniability about those issues; but he certainly knows who chose which AGs would be on tha list.)
BVD wrote on July 24, 2007 7:53 PM:Jake - So what you're saying is that it's okay for individuals or administrations to out CIA agents if they decide on their own that it's okay. It's up to them to decide for themselves. Right?
Doug wrote on July 24, 2007 7:58 PM:The reluctance (terror?) of the administration at the thought of Gonzales leaving the AG is probably a mix of what Thomas said @ 6:46PM and RW at 6:59PM. If an honest lawyer became the head of the Department of Justice, the present administration wouldn't last through the year.
JNagarya wrote on July 24, 2007 8:30 PM:Warning troll feeding - Jake D: Armitage wasn't charged because Libby LIED and OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. The prosecuting attorney, because of those lies, was unable to trace exactly how the leak was made. Oh, and since when is moral relativism popular with right-wing Bush/Cheney apologists? I quote: Jake D at 4:40PM "...and besides who was at risk anyways?" (anyways???)
Of course, if Gonzales is indicted for perjury, he should resign or be impeached.
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 24, 2007 2:37 PM
If Gonzles is telling the truth in at least most of his "I don't know" and "I don't recall," even as concerns the actions of his own staff, right under his nose, then he should resign -- preferably, be fired -- for being extraordinarily incompetent. Or -- perhaps you'll find it more "polite" -- unquestionably not qualified for the job of AG.
As noted in another post, I've been objective about this all along -- asking if there were in fact more than one program (a "program" described, alternatively, as "intellignce activities"); more than the illegal "Terrorist Surveillance Program" -- it is illegal to wiretap without a warrant, and FISA is no impediment to both wiretapping, and doing so legally under warrant.
If Gonzales is telling the truth, then the "other" "intellgence activities" -- the other program about which there _was_ apparently extreme controversy, and the unconscionable end-run effort to coerce Ashcroft into helping give it the appearance of legality by illegal means -- is apparently even more illegal than the TSP.
Gonazles, like you, "Jake," clearly believes our Constitution and laws are a joke -- an impediment to be circumvented and subverted. He has mangaged, however, to escalate the issue from evasion to possible perjury; and if he's telling the truth -- that there is a second program even more illegal than the TSP -- then he is in even more serious trouble than perjury would be.
And so are those for whom he is an "I don't need to know anything" yes-man/puppet. He doesn't serve only "at the pleasure of the president"; that he can be impeached and removed means he also serves at the pleasure of We the people -- our pleasure superceding in weight that of employee Bushit.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 8:50 PM:I just figured out how to keep reading TPM and avoid the morass that Jake D tries to create. I now read Muckracker and if I see Jake D leads off the comments, I just don't read the comments. Period. I can glance and see his initials and know that the discussion is not worth joining or reading. Josh continues to get my clicks and Jake continues to not get an audience from these eyeballs. So I won't even know the response to these comments but I did get the Muckracker story on Gonzales and perjury. I can makes comments on another site.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 8:50 PM:drmoore
I just figured out how to keep reading TPM and avoid the morass that Jake D tries to create. I now read Muckracker and if I see Jake D leads off the comments, I just don't read the comments. Period. I can glance and see his initials and know that the discussion is not worth joining or reading. Josh continues to get my clicks and Jake continues to not get an audience from these eyeballs. So I won't even know the response to these comments but I did get the Muckracker story on Gonzales and perjury. I can makes comments at someone else's another site.
anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 9:35 PM:drmoore
JakeD: "if you are referring to Valerie Plame, please, she was not covert at the time and who was at risk anyways?"
You are lying again.
She was covert and all of her previous pro-American contacts, people who helped the US surreptitiously, would be in danger of losing their lives to the people who they spied on or whose organizations they spied on.
anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 9:38 PM:JakeD: "Then why didn't Mr. Fitzgerald indict Richard Armitage for leaking such a "covert" agent as super-spy Valerie Plame?"
This has been discussed scores of times and answered.
"As I stated above, CIA refuses to confirm or deny either way."
If that is so, then you cannot conclude she was not covert as a matter of fact.
Which means you have just admitted to lying.
Rick wrote on July 24, 2007 9:42 PM:Gonzales has confirmed that no DOJ offical placed the names on list. The question is did the White House or the Republican Party?
sd wrote on July 24, 2007 9:49 PM:And then to think that the most sensible explanation for the “two programs” shtick is simply that within the NSA collection is separated from analysis. So there are probably different people working under different codename programs.
One is a bunch of link analysis people going trough call records selecting phone numbers based on more suspicious than average phone bills. They are teamed up with others like analysts and translators who listen in on the calls of the phone numbers the former people targeted. Thats the analysis part. The other is a bunch of nerds hooking up fiber between major carriers(Risen), Internet backbone providers (Klein), call records databases (Risen (“one phone number than moving outward”), ACLU (look for “daytona”) ... confirmed much later by USA today).... and fort Meade. Thats the collection part.
The first need warrants for whatever they do with communication that is likely American. I suspect these are the people that are now using FISA in “an innovative way”. That may include getting a warrants not for individuals but for less than clearly defined groups. Just speculating. The reason they did`t get warrants before is most likely because a warrant, even a FISA one, requires a named target, just not a phone number. And link analysis only give numbers, not what they are used for. If you listen carefully the “getting warrants takes too much time” talk is always followed by an explanation of how much work it is to get the “reasonable suspicious/probable cause” argument clear *within DOJ*. Without a name I bet that very hard indeed. I have yet to hear someone call the FISC judges slow.
The reason potentially smart people argue for this warrantless targetting of US phone numbers may have something to with a fear of rather anynymous pay phones, calling cards and pre-payed cell phones.
The second group, the collectors, need legislation for what the do. Possibly once they get to wired communication on US soil... or so FISA “modernization” proponents argue. (Satcom and underseas cables have been the NSA`s bread and butter for many many decades) They couldn`t just stick to the legal FBI scale CALEA infrastructure. The bounty of data that is likely to belong to people without US constitutional protection is simply to rich. Say everyone using non US phone numbers and IP addresses. The NSA doesn`t snoop on individual people or phones it snoops wholesale on countries, telephone *networks*, governments, armies. Only after collecting as much as possible it will start looking for juicy bits. I would guess that large scale collection from carriers is what the “FISA modernization” is about. From one of the things Risen wrote it sounds like this collection is controversial. IIRC:”there was a lot of talk about switches [within DOJ]”.
Of course the warrantless snooping can`t have many doj supporters either... But I could see Gonzo justifying his silly testimony to himself with the idea that either the analysis or the collectionis less controversial with the DOJ folk he talked to.
IIRC the only thing bush confirmed is that calls are analyzed from numbers probably targeted because of more suspicious than average phone bills. I got the impression from Bush, NYT and other sources that all the silly “we cant talk about what we are front paging/press conferencing about because of sources/methods” talk was an excuse for talking as little as possible about the collection part. Maybe that can be justified because this collection is so useful for industrial scale snooping on communication presumed to be foreign->foreign.
JD21 wrote on July 24, 2007 10:57 PM:My gosh Gonzales was really sad today. This guy is a joke. What's much more pathetic though, is that Republicans are putting up with this in their party. And that it's far from the first time. Remember how they rallied around Rumsfeld for so long even after it was clear for so long he was falling down on the job with our boys dying as a result? Or how they tried to cover up Foley to save his seat and themselves from the fallout of the negative publicity of the truth would bring? Or how Bush told that dope Brownie he was doing a "heckuva job"? This is beyond partisan. What the Republicans have become is just sad for America.
mespo727272 wrote on July 24, 2007 11:04 PM:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/washington/25gonzales.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Gonzalez has set his word against Jim Comey. Comey, a true hero in this mess,should be glad. No one watching that perjurious spectacle could ever believe Gonzalez, and Comey's testimony was beyond reproach. Tell the fat lady to get the honey and lemon ready, it's over for this sad excuse for a lawyer much less the Attorney General of the United States.
mespo727272 wrote on July 24, 2007 11:05 PM:Gonzalez has set his word against Jim Comey. Comey, a true hero in this mess,should be glad. No one watching that perjurious spectacle could ever believe Gonzalez, and Comey's testimony was beyond reproach. Tell the fat lady to get the honey and lemon ready, it's over for this sad excuse for a lawyer much less the Attorney General of the United States.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 11:41 PM:"...BTW, as far as I know Gonzales does not possess the authority to declassify anything..."
BillWilliam wrote on July 24, 2007 11:46 PM:Posted by: Just an Observer
Date: July 24, 2007 4:30 PM
========================================
I recognize this is a minor point, but if memory serves most agency heads possess what is called "original classification authority" and based on that authority can declassify anything they have previously classified, unless otherwise forbidden by law. Exceptions include information about intelligence sources and methods and some classes of information regarding nuclear programs.
Why is congress wasting it's time on the little fish when they should be impeaching Bush and Cheney. This thing with Gonzalez is wasting time when congress should be going after the big criminals.
Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 12:13 AM:I firmly believe that all republicans were created . Yes, God went to a garbage dump and removed one piece of Garbage and created the Nazi republican party and all of its followers, just think, all of that Trash from one piece of Garbage!
Uncle_Meat wrote on July 25, 2007 12:14 AM:Jake, you have to be tired after today...
This is all I have heard from you:
Dodge, dodge, deflect... disinfo, disinfo... attack with sword of bullshit... retreat.. change subject!! dodge, dodge.. obfuscate..
And I even broke my rule of responding to you, AND I spell checked just so you wouldn't use that lame-ass attack.
Don't spend all that hard earned money in one place...
Jay Prestenback wrote on July 25, 2007 12:16 AM:I firmly believe that all Nazi republicans were created . Yes, God went a garbage dump and removed one piece of Garbage and created the Nazi republican party and all of its followers, just think, all of that Trash from one piece of Garbage!
Jay Prestenback wrote on July 25, 2007 12:20 AM:IMPEACHMENT NOW !
Jay Prestenback wrote on July 25, 2007 12:21 AM:1-866-220-0044
These numbers below are all toll FREE and you can call Congress anytime of the day, Impeach this lawless group that places themselves above the law!
Toll-free numbers you can use to call your own members of Congress right now, this number is the Capitol operator, just ask to be connected to any congressional office 800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803, 877-851-6437 866-340-9281.
IMPEACHMENT NOW !
Jay Prestenback wrote on July 25, 2007 12:21 AM:1-866-220-0044
These numbers below are all toll FREE and you can call Congress anytime of the day, Impeach this lawless group that places themselves above the law!
Toll-free numbers you can use to call your own members of Congress right now, this number is the Capitol operator, just ask to be connected to any congressional office 800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803, 877-851-6437 866-340-9281.
IMPEACHMENT NOW !
theWalrus wrote on July 25, 2007 1:08 AM:1-866-220-0044
These numbers below are all toll FREE and you can call Congress anytime of the day, Impeach this lawless group that places themselves above the law!
Toll-free numbers you can use to call your own members of Congress right now, this number is the Capitol operator, just ask to be connected to any congressional office 800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803, 877-851-6437 866-340-9281.
JakeD stammered: "CIA to this day refuses to confirm or deny Valerie Plame's status."
That is simply a lie. Back in March CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden confirmed that Ms. Plame was indeed a covert employee of the CIA at the time.
chuck wrote on July 25, 2007 1:42 AM:No, JohnW1141, I am not Victoria Toensing (although I agree with her that Plame was not covert when Novak revealed her identity
Unfortunately for you (and for Libby), the CIA vehemently disagrees.
Codeword "much," as in: "How much of this water is Jake willing to carry?"
Patriot wrote on July 25, 2007 1:54 AM:I think if you will check the constitution the only un pardonerable offense is Impeachement. Otherwise the President could pardon the VP. Remember Nixon resigned then he was pardoned by Ford. Had he been Impeached he could not have been pardoned. I vote to Rep. Conyers to begin House Impeachment Hearings for Vice President Cheney.
Jeanette wrote on July 25, 2007 4:01 AM:I've got one thing to say. RON PAUL in 2008!
Daniel Washington wrote on July 25, 2007 9:09 AM:Impeach Bush & Chaney Now!
Daniel Washington wrote on July 25, 2007 9:10 AM:Let's get the "Rats" Out Now!
Impeach Bush & Chaney Now!
Daniel Washington wrote on July 25, 2007 9:11 AM:Let's get the "Rats" Out Now!
Impeach Bush & Chaney Now!
Daniel Washington wrote on July 25, 2007 9:13 AM:Let's get the "Rats" Out Now!
Impeach Bush & Chaney Now!
MAX F.O. GUTIERREZ wrote on July 25, 2007 9:39 AM:Let's get the "Rats" Out Now!
THE 'NAIVETE'OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS ASTOUNDING. PERHAPS IT IS 'A PRETENSE NAIVETE'-THAT THERE ARE THOSE WHO CONTINUE TO 'BURY THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND/ AS IT WERE'-AS TO WHO THE REAL 'PERPETRATORS' OF LIES AND DECEPTION ARE---BUSH, CHENEY AND ROVE, WHEN IT COMES TO THE ISSUE OF 'ALBERTO GONZALES', YOU CAN LOOK TO THESE THRE INDIVIDUALS TO TRULY 'SEE' WHERE ALL THESE 'LIES' ARE EMANATING FROM/ REMEMBER-THE ATTORNEY GENERL 'SERVES AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT'-WHAT HE 'SERVES-UP' IS UP TO THOSE 'THREE KEY PEOPLE'.
Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 12:29 PM:WAKE UP PEOPLE-AND 'SMELL THE COFFEE'OR/ 'THE REAL RATS'-WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.
The lack of actual pressure by Democrats is once again proof that Nancy Pelosi supports the Bush administration. I have never seen a group of more cowardly, spineless, non-patriotic slime than those serving in congress at this time.
Jay Prestenback wrote on July 25, 2007 1:36 PM:Lets face it, this country has been sold due to an absentee congress and a fear of media reqrisal.
No one is defending or upholding the constitution at this time.
Way to betray the country congress!
Nazi's want a war, give their kids a chance at MORTAL COMBAT! Call and demand a DRAFT!!!
Toll-free numbers you can use to call your own members of Congress right now, this number is the Capitol operator, just ask to be connected to any congressional office 800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803, 877-851-6437 866-340-9281. 100 Our agenda # 866-699-9243
They use our roads, but hate paying Taxes! They Depend on our Military to keep that 8% that owns 90% of the wealth here in America safe from Invasion by foreign Forces ,but they hate to pay taxes! They depend on CIA, FBI, State Police and local police , but they hate paying Taxes! They use our Bridges , but they hate paying one cent in taxes! They use our utilities and the maintenance but they hate paying taxes! They Support Giving 2.5 Billion to so called Faith Based SOCIAL PROGRAMS to Christian Nazi republican terrorist Preachers like Pat Robotson and Dead ass Jerry Fartwell but, they refuse healthcare to the destitute and call it Socialism! They hate abortion but despise the children after birth refusing the basic necessaties of life FOOD ,CLOTHING and HEALtH CARE calling it Socialism! They Hate Social Security but, they support Jews in Israel that already have UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE! WE THE PEOPLE have paid for ISRAELS existence since 1947 but, Nazi KKKhristian republican Terrorist continue to provide Israel with Foreign Aid in the TRILLIONS since 1947 only to have them loan OUR GIFT MONEY BACK with interest attached, therefore adding a new burden for WE THE PEOPLE to contend with!. They give Pakistan billions each year and call the poverty stricken working poor LAZY! Seems to me that this is too long to cover at this time, however, where in God's name do they find the nerve to call themselves AMERICANS??? Fact of the matter is they exhibit a deep hatred for America and Americas working Class!Placing themselves on that supreme pedestal of wealth while looking down on the Middle Class and Working Poor, pitting each group as pawns to do battle within and without American society as they lie Cheat and STEAL America and Americans blind! This war was created on a lie in order to launder MONEY that shall come back into the pockets of GREEDY NAZI BASTARDS< look at the GAS price at the pump, we are paying for that WAR with the increased prices! LOOK at gas prices before during and after that first so called GULF WAR! WE PAID FOR IT !
If you're having trouble getting through:Demand a DRAFT IMMEDIATELY!
877-851-6437
800-828-0498
866-338-1015
866-340-9281
800-614-2803
Jay Prestenback wrote on July 25, 2007 1:38 PM:Nazi's want a war, give their kids a chance at MORTAL COMBAT! Call and demand a DRAFT!!!
Toll-free numbers you can use to call your own members of Congress right now, this number is the Capitol operator, just ask to be connected to any congressional office 800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803, 877-851-6437 866-340-9281. 100 Our agenda # 866-699-9243
They use our roads, but hate paying Taxes! They Depend on our Military to keep that 18% that owns 92% of the wealth here in America safe from Invasion by foreign Forces ,but they hate to pay taxes! They depend on CIA, FBI, State Police and local police , but they hate paying Taxes! They use our Bridges , but they hate paying one cent in taxes! They use our utilities and the maintenance but they hate paying taxes! They Support Giving 2.5 Billion to so called Faith Based SOCIAL PROGRAMS to Christian Nazi republican terrorist Preachers like Pat Robotson and Dead ass Jerry Fartwell but, they refuse healthcare to the destitute and call it Socialism! They hate abortion but despise the children after birth refusing the basic necessaties of life FOOD ,CLOTHING and HEALtH CARE calling it Socialism! They Hate Social Security but, they support Jews in Israel that already have UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE! WE THE PEOPLE have paid for ISRAELS existence since 1947 but, Nazi KKKhristian republican Terrorist continue to provide Israel with Foreign Aid in the TRILLIONS since 1947 only to have them loan OUR GIFT MONEY BACK with interest attached, therefore adding a new burden for WE THE PEOPLE to contend with!. They give Pakistan billions each year and call the poverty stricken working poor LAZY! Seems to me that this is too long to cover at this time, however, where in God's name do they find the nerve to call themselves AMERICANS??? Fact of the matter is they exhibit a deep hatred for America and Americas working Class!Placing themselves on that supreme pedestal of wealth while looking down on the Middle Class and Working Poor, pitting each group as pawns to do battle within and without American society as they lie Cheat and STEAL America and Americans blind! This war was created on a lie in order to launder MONEY that shall come back into the pockets of GREEDY NAZI BASTARDS< look at the GAS price at the pump, we are paying for that WAR with the increased prices! LOOK at gas prices before during and after that first so called GULF WAR! WE PAID FOR IT !
If you're having trouble getting through:Demand a DRAFT IMMEDIATELY!
877-851-6437
800-828-0498
866-338-1015
866-340-9281
800-614-2803
Jay Prestenback wrote on July 25, 2007 1:39 PM:Nazi's want a war, give their kids a chance at MORTAL COMBAT! Call and demand a DRAFT!!!
Toll-free numbers you can use to call your own members of Congress right now, this number is the Capitol operator, just ask to be connected to any congressional office 800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803, 877-851-6437 866-340-9281. 100 Our agenda # 866-699-9243
They use our roads, but hate paying Taxes! They Depend on our Military to keep that 18% that owns 92% of the wealth here in America safe from Invasion by foreign Forces ,but they hate to pay taxes! They depend on CIA, FBI, State Police and local police , but they hate paying Taxes! They use our Bridges , but they hate paying one cent in taxes! They use our utilities and the maintenance but they hate paying taxes! They Support Giving 2.5 Billion to so called Faith Based SOCIAL PROGRAMS to Christian Nazi republican terrorist Preachers like Pat Robotson and Dead ass Jerry Fartwell but, they refuse healthcare to the destitute and call it Socialism! They hate abortion but despise the children after birth refusing the basic necessaties of life FOOD ,CLOTHING and HEALtH CARE calling it Socialism! They Hate Social Security but, they support Jews in Israel that already have UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE! WE THE PEOPLE have paid for ISRAELS existence since 1947 but, Nazi KKKhristian republican Terrorist continue to provide Israel with Foreign Aid in the TRILLIONS since 1947 only to have them loan OUR GIFT MONEY BACK with interest attached, therefore adding a new burden for WE THE PEOPLE to contend with!. They give Pakistan billions each year and call the poverty stricken working poor LAZY! Seems to me that this is too long to cover at this time, however, where in God's name do they find the nerve to call themselves AMERICANS??? Fact of the matter is they exhibit a deep hatred for America and Americas working Class!Placing themselves on that supreme pedestal of wealth while looking down on the Middle Class and Working Poor, pitting each group as pawns to do battle within and without American society as they lie Cheat and STEAL America and Americans blind! This war was created on a lie in order to launder MONEY that shall come back into the pockets of GREEDY NAZI BASTARDS< look at the GAS price at the pump, we are paying for that WAR with the increased prices! LOOK at gas prices before during and after that first so called GULF WAR! WE PAID FOR IT !
If you're having trouble getting through:Demand a DRAFT IMMEDIATELY!
877-851-6437
800-828-0498
866-338-1015
866-340-9281
800-614-2803
Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 3:32 PM:Daniel Washington and Jay Prestenback:
If you are going to simply post the same thing over and over, could you at least include the word "Jake" somewhere in there?
sean wrote on July 25, 2007 4:15 PM:Screw a classified setting. That's where they get in a room and the administration makes veiled threats to get the commitee to back off. They know he lied, in fact they know that everything this administration has done since Bush's selection in 2000 is all based on lies. These Senators sit around and feign idignation at Albertos lies, as if they have never lied to the people themselves. They should stop pussyfooting around, declare a vote of no confidence and arrest Alberto Gonzalez, try him and convict him with no possibilty to have his sentence commuted or pardoned. Then start on the rest of them, straight to the top.
Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 4:45 PM:Re: Jake D "Just an Observer:
I hope you are not asking for classified information to be released which could kill innocent Americans during this time of war . . ."
No were asking for the release of classified information that documents goverment activities that have already led to the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Crimes against the constitution should not be classified. Illegal activities by our government should not be classified. If the governments ways and means are illegal, they should be shared in the light of day so we can rectify the abuses of government.
sean wrote on July 25, 2007 4:45 PM:Re: Jake D "Just an Observer:
I hope you are not asking for classified information to be released which could kill innocent Americans during this time of war . . ."
No were asking for the release of classified information that documents goverment activities that have already led to the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Crimes against the constitution should not be classified. Illegal activities by our government should not be classified. If the governments ways and means are illegal, they should be shared in the light of day so we can rectify the abuses of government.
Saynewkleeyerstupid wrote on July 25, 2007 8:08 PM:Is it just me, or does JakeD seem to condone lying if one is not under oath? He's obvious scuba diving in the kool-aid daily.
Saynewkleeyerstupid
Jay Prestenback wrote on July 25, 2007 10:36 PM:Jake D take a flying at the moon!
Anonymouse wrote on July 26, 2007 4:46 AM:I think it's rather clear that the AG is hanging his distinction on "what the President has made public," clearly implying that there are "other intelligence activities" that were so egregious, so far afield of the law and the Constitution that 30 Justice Dept attorneys were prepared to resign, rather than agree to. Those "other activities" are what the committee should focus on now.
ed kriner wrote on July 26, 2007 11:22 AM:Yeah, so what? Every member of the Bush Adminbistration has lied, continues to lie, and will lie into the future. So what? Conyers is afraid of Fox and so it goes on and on. Specter? A Joke! Schumer? Ask him about PNAC.
Gutless democrats!
Sad wrote on July 30, 2007 8:34 PM:http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/onl8ne-prescription-tramadol.html onl8ne prescription tramadol [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/onl8ne-prescription-tramadol.html]onl8ne prescription tramadol[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/buy-olnine-tramadol.html buy olnine tramadol [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/buy-olnine-tramadol.html]buy olnine tramadol[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/onlien-prescription-tramadol.html onlien prescription tramadol [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/onlien-prescription-tramadol.html]onlien prescription tramadol[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/trzmadol-online.html trzmadol online [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/trzmadol-online.html]trzmadol online[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/tramadkl-online.html tramadkl online [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/tramadkl-online.html]tramadkl online[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/tramadool-online.html tramadool online [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/tramadool-online.html]tramadool online[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/online-precription-tramadol.html online precription tramadol [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/online-precription-tramadol.html]online precription tramadol[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/5ramadol-online.html 5ramadol online [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/5ramadol-online.html]5ramadol online[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/tramadol-onlinee.html tramadol onlinee [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/tramadol-onlinee.html]tramadol onlinee[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/tramaol-online.html tramaol online [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/tramaol-online.html]tramaol online[/url]
Sad wrote on July 30, 2007 8:35 PM:http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/onl8ne-prescription-tramadol.html onl8ne prescription tramadol [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/onl8ne-prescription-tramadol.html]onl8ne prescription tramadol[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/buy-olnine-tramadol.html buy olnine tramadol [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/buy-olnine-tramadol.html]buy olnine tramadol[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/onlien-prescription-tramadol.html onlien prescription tramadol [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/onlien-prescription-tramadol.html]onlien prescription tramadol[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/trzmadol-online.html trzmadol online [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/trzmadol-online.html]trzmadol online[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/tramadkl-online.html tramadkl online [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/tramadkl-online.html]tramadkl online[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/tramadool-online.html tramadool online [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/tramadool-online.html]tramadool online[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/online-precription-tramadol.html online precription tramadol [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/online-precription-tramadol.html]online precription tramadol[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/5ramadol-online.html 5ramadol online [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/5ramadol-online.html]5ramadol online[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/tramadol-onlinee.html tramadol onlinee [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/tramadol-onlinee.html]tramadol onlinee[/url]http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/tramaol-online.html tramaol online [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/jhdfjgdu956/tramaol-online.html]tramaol online[/url]
Crazy wrote on August 1, 2007 9:16 AM:http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galmington-car-sales-taunton.html galmington car sales taunton [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galmington-car-sales-taunton.html]galmington car sales taunton[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallinium.html gallinium [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallinium.html]gallinium[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallahers-group.html gallahers group [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallahers-group.html]gallahers group[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/maganicwarsfinal.html maganicwarsfinal [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/maganicwarsfinal.html]maganicwarsfinal[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gale-infotrack.html gale infotrack [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gale-infotrack.html]gale infotrack[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/kyndal-spirits.html kyndal spirits [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/kyndal-spirits.html]kyndal spirits[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/maggiesotterouk.html maggiesotterouk [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/maggiesotterouk.html]maggiesotterouk[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallowgate-productions-ant-dec.html gallowgate productions ant dec [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallowgate-productions-ant-dec.html]gallowgate productions ant dec[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galletto-westlake.html galletto westlake [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galletto-westlake.html]galletto westlake[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galvanoplastically.html galvanoplastically [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galvanoplastically.html]galvanoplastically[/url]
Crazy wrote on August 1, 2007 9:17 AM:http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galmington-car-sales-taunton.html galmington car sales taunton [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galmington-car-sales-taunton.html]galmington car sales taunton[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallinium.html gallinium [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallinium.html]gallinium[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallahers-group.html gallahers group [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallahers-group.html]gallahers group[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/maganicwarsfinal.html maganicwarsfinal [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/maganicwarsfinal.html]maganicwarsfinal[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gale-infotrack.html gale infotrack [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gale-infotrack.html]gale infotrack[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/kyndal-spirits.html kyndal spirits [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/kyndal-spirits.html]kyndal spirits[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/maggiesotterouk.html maggiesotterouk [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/maggiesotterouk.html]maggiesotterouk[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallowgate-productions-ant-dec.html gallowgate productions ant dec [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallowgate-productions-ant-dec.html]gallowgate productions ant dec[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galletto-westlake.html galletto westlake [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galletto-westlake.html]galletto westlake[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galvanoplastically.html galvanoplastically [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galvanoplastically.html]galvanoplastically[/url]
Faggot wrote on August 1, 2007 9:18 AM:http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galerina-venenata.html galerina venenata [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galerina-venenata.html]galerina venenata[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/kymco-xciting-250-reviews.html kymco xciting 250 reviews [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/kymco-xciting-250-reviews.html]kymco xciting 250 reviews[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/maggetti-elam.html maggetti elam [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/maggetti-elam.html]maggetti elam[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/kyndal-nagy.html kyndal nagy [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/kyndal-nagy.html]kyndal nagy[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallbladder-removel.html gallbladder removel [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallbladder-removel.html]gallbladder removel[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/mag-xj910.html mag xj910 [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/mag-xj910.html]mag xj910[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galmington-cars.html galmington cars [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galmington-cars.html]galmington cars[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallantmon-pics.html gallantmon pics [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallantmon-pics.html]gallantmon pics[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galsses-guide.html galsses guide [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galsses-guide.html]galsses guide[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/kyms-hideaway.html kyms hideaway [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/kyms-hideaway.html]kyms hideaway[/url]
Faggot wrote on August 1, 2007 9:19 AM:http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galerina-venenata.html galerina venenata [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galerina-venenata.html]galerina venenata[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/kymco-xciting-250-reviews.html kymco xciting 250 reviews [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/kymco-xciting-250-reviews.html]kymco xciting 250 reviews[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/maggetti-elam.html maggetti elam [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/maggetti-elam.html]maggetti elam[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/kyndal-nagy.html kyndal nagy [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/kyndal-nagy.html]kyndal nagy[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallbladder-removel.html gallbladder removel [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallbladder-removel.html]gallbladder removel[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/mag-xj910.html mag xj910 [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/mag-xj910.html]mag xj910[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galmington-cars.html galmington cars [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galmington-cars.html]galmington cars[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallantmon-pics.html gallantmon pics [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/gallantmon-pics.html]gallantmon pics[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galsses-guide.html galsses guide [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/galsses-guide.html]galsses guide[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/kyms-hideaway.html kyms hideaway [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teterev984/kyms-hideaway.html]kyms hideaway[/url]
Arnold wrote on August 4, 2007 2:52 AM:http://pofygu.lviv.name/buy-vizgra.html buy vizgra [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/buy-vizgra.html]buy vizgra[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/vviagra.html vviagra [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/vviagra.html]vviagra[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/bu-yviagra.html bu yviagra [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/bu-yviagra.html]bu yviagra[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/vaigra.html vaigra [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/vaigra.html]vaigra[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/buy-viagra-cheap.html buy viagra cheap [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/buy-viagra-cheap.html]buy viagra cheap[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/index.html index [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/index.html]index[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/viag5a.html viag5a [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/viag5a.html]viag5a[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/orde5-viagra.html orde5 viagra [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/orde5-viagra.html]orde5 viagra[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/o5der-viagra.html o5der viagra [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/o5der-viagra.html]o5der viagra[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/orde-viagra.html orde viagra [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/orde-viagra.html]orde viagra[/url]
Arnold wrote on August 4, 2007 2:53 AM:http://pofygu.lviv.name/buy-vizgra.html buy vizgra [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/buy-vizgra.html]buy vizgra[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/vviagra.html vviagra [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/vviagra.html]vviagra[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/bu-yviagra.html bu yviagra [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/bu-yviagra.html]bu yviagra[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/vaigra.html vaigra [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/vaigra.html]vaigra[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/buy-viagra-cheap.html buy viagra cheap [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/buy-viagra-cheap.html]buy viagra cheap[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/index.html index [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/index.html]index[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/viag5a.html viag5a [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/viag5a.html]viag5a[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/orde5-viagra.html orde5 viagra [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/orde5-viagra.html]orde5 viagra[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/o5der-viagra.html o5der viagra [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/o5der-viagra.html]o5der viagra[/url]http://pofygu.lviv.name/orde-viagra.html orde viagra [url=http://pofygu.lviv.name/orde-viagra.html]orde viagra[/url]
Sad wrote on August 4, 2007 4:10 PM:http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/clenbuterol-steroid.html clenbuterol steroid [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/clenbuterol-steroid.html]clenbuterol steroid[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/craighlist-new-york.html craighlist new york [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/craighlist-new-york.html]craighlist new york[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/creepy-college-ellicott-city.html creepy college ellicott city [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/creepy-college-ellicott-city.html]creepy college ellicott city[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/xanax-online.html xanax online [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/xanax-online.html]xanax online[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/polliepocket-games.html polliepocket games [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/polliepocket-games.html]polliepocket games[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/corona-beer-commercials.html corona beer commercials [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/corona-beer-commercials.html]corona beer commercials[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/kensington-turboball-driver.html kensington turboball driver [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/kensington-turboball-driver.html]kensington turboball driver[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/chef-cargo-pants.html chef cargo pants [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/chef-cargo-pants.html]chef cargo pants[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/lauson-gas-engines.html lauson gas engines [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/lauson-gas-engines.html]lauson gas engines[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/pyrat-rum.html pyrat rum [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/pyrat-rum.html]pyrat rum[/url]
Sad wrote on August 4, 2007 4:11 PM:http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/clenbuterol-steroid.html clenbuterol steroid [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/clenbuterol-steroid.html]clenbuterol steroid[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/craighlist-new-york.html craighlist new york [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/craighlist-new-york.html]craighlist new york[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/creepy-college-ellicott-city.html creepy college ellicott city [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/creepy-college-ellicott-city.html]creepy college ellicott city[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/xanax-online.html xanax online [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/xanax-online.html]xanax online[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/polliepocket-games.html polliepocket games [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/polliepocket-games.html]polliepocket games[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/corona-beer-commercials.html corona beer commercials [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/corona-beer-commercials.html]corona beer commercials[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/kensington-turboball-driver.html kensington turboball driver [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/kensington-turboball-driver.html]kensington turboball driver[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/chef-cargo-pants.html chef cargo pants [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/chef-cargo-pants.html]chef cargo pants[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/lauson-gas-engines.html lauson gas engines [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/lauson-gas-engines.html]lauson gas engines[/url]http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/pyrat-rum.html pyrat rum [url=http://hometown.aol.com/fana095/pyrat-rum.html]pyrat rum[/url]
Loy wrote on August 7, 2007 8:13 AM:http://hometown.aol.com/jjsdfhw945/gahlberg-gallery.html gah