Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Democrats Call for Special Counsel to Investigate Gonzales

Posted by Guest Blogger at 5:32 AM on July 26, 2007.


Faiz Shakir: A new document released by the AP makes a clear case against Gonzales for perjury.
Gonzales is a Liar

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Video in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Faiz Shakir, originally appeared on Think Progress

The AP reports that a four-page memo sent by then-National Intelligence Director John Negroponte in May 2006 confirms that a March 2004 White House intelligence briefing for top congressional leaders was on "the Terrorist Surveillance Program."

Click for larger version
(click for larger version)

The revelation is significant because just yesterday Alberto Gonzales testified that the White house briefing was about "other intelligence activities."

"The dissent related to other intelligence activities," Gonzales testified at Tuesday's hearing. "The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program."

"Not the TSP?" responded Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. "Come on. If you say it's about other, that implies not. Now say it or not."

"It was not," Gonzales answered. "It was about other intelligence activities."

ThinkProgress obtained the document, which confirms the accounts of Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) and Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV), who claimed the briefings they received were about the administration's NSA domestic surveillance program. Negroponte lists all the lawmakers who attended "briefings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program," including the eight lawmakers who attended the March 10, 2004 meeting.

Gonzales' misleading response appears to be an effort to resolve discrepancies with his earlier statements. In Feb. 2006, Gonzales testified that "there has not been any serious disagreement" about the warrantless spying program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA). Testimony by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey proved there were indeed serious disagreements when the administration tried to seek legal approval for the spying program in 2004.

Instead of settling the contradictions in his testimony, Gonzales is simply compounding his problems by continuing to mislead Congress. MSNBC's David Shuster reported tonight that "this is a really, really big deal and a big problem for Gonzales. ... The legal expert I talked to tonight said this is a clear case of perjury." Watch it:

Read the full memo HERE.

UPDATE: Commenter burro notes that the "bupkis" is rapidly increasing.

UPDATE: Democrats Urge Perjury Probe of Gonzales Read the story here

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats called for a perjury investigation against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Thursday and subpoenaed top presidential aide Karl Rove in a deepening political and legal clash with the Bush administration.

"It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements," four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement.

They dispatched the letter shortly before Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., announced the subpoena of Rove, the president's top political strategist, in remarks on the Senate floor.

"We have now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States Attorneys last year," said Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In response, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, "Every day congressional Democrats prove that they're more interested in headlines than doing the business Americans want them to do. And Americans are now taking notice that this Congress, under Democratic leadership, is failing to tackle important issues," he said.

Gonzales is at the center of the U.S. attorney controversy, but the call for a perjury probe involved alleged conflicts between testimony he gave the Judiciary Committee in two appearances, one last year and the other this week. The issue revolves around whether there was internal administration dissent over the president's warrantless wiretapping program.

As for the firing of the prosecutors, e-mails released by the Justice Department show Gonzales' aides conferred with Rove on the matter.

Leahy also said he was issuing a subpoena for J. Scott Jennings, a White House political aide.

"For over four months, I have exhausted every avenue seeking the voluntary cooperation of Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings, but to no avail," the Vermont lawmaker said. "They and the White House have stonewalled every request. Indeed, the White House is choosing to withhold documents and is instructing witnesses who are former officials to refuse to answer questions and provide

Digg!

Tagged as: gonzales, attorney firings, domestic spying, perjury

Faiz Shakir is the Research Director at the Center for American Progress and serves as Editor of ThinkProgress.org and The Progress Report.


McCain-Palin Rally Attendees Say Incredible, Ridiculous Things
File this one under the "give 'em enough rope" column.
Post by Seth Colter Walls. October 10, 2008.
Donna Brazile: "I'm Not Going to the Back of the Bus!"
An impassioned speech on racial politics from last week's New Yorker festival.
Post by ZP Heller. October 10, 2008.
John Cusack Tackles War Profiteers Today on Meet the Bloggers
Today at 1pm ET/10am PT.
Post by ZP Heller. October 10, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Isn't it bad enough
Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming on Jul 26, 2007 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that we have an AG who lies under oath without remorse? Must we have an AG who tells incredibly stupid, transparent lies? Couldn't he at least *pretend* to be smart enough to come up with something marginally plausible?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Isn't it bad enough Posted by: blitzmesser
and
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jul 26, 2007 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet another test for the Democrats.

Are they going to stand up for rule of law and our system of government and put his ass in jail for lying to congress time and again... or are they going to continue to strain themselves (and credibility) by finding new ways to NOT say Gonzales outright lied to them numerous times.

I'm sure they won't many of them go too far to point out that if Bush wants to keep someone so dishonest and woefully and obviously inept in his position, then it says alot about him and his presidency and anyone who supports his retention of Gonzales.

but we all know why Bush is keeping him around.. he is a great foil... and he is willing to take one for the team and lie his head off to anyone, anywhere, at any time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOW WHAT COACH?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 26, 2007 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the country is being run by liars and they happen to be the same people who write the laws to protect themselves. Nobody can touch them. And I dont' believe it. No one is untouchable. Or they shouldn't be. If one of them falls they all come down. While that's very scary, that's what has to happen. People like Harriet Meiers should not need the amount of protection she gets. Bush covering her butt? Why?
ditto:Tony Snow. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NOW WHAT COACH? Posted by: blitzmesser
"Ooooh what a Tangled Web we Weave..."
Posted by: ~Fiona~ on Jul 26, 2007 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...When first we practice to Decieve..."

It seems the practice of lying about lies has finally become so convoluted that it is no longer possible to cover the mountain of lies with even more of them.

Hopefully the clock is ticking down to "Judgement Day" for the Brainless Toadie worm "Gordo" and friends...

"Tick, tick, tick, tick..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» But Anna... Posted by: ~Fiona~
» Lookie Anna... See... Posted by: ~Fiona~
» RE: Lookie Anna... See... Posted by: VZEQICVA
Looks like I picked a bad lifetime to not be a drug addict...
Posted by: sphoenix on Jul 26, 2007 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm starting to think that being addicted to heroin might not be so bad...Heck, I'd rather have a false reality of my own manufacture than have to keep putting up with all of this BS.

Wait...LSD is sounding real good right now...and maybe I will be lucky enough to not have to come back to this. I need a new reality...this one sucks!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stuffed cheeks
Posted by: blitzmesser on Jul 26, 2007 7:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever I see the Gonz, I feel a strong dislike. What does he have in his cheeks? Why does he look so well fed and sassy, when he should be looking concerned? Can't he even fake it?
Actually I think he generally looks rather stupid. If people were judged on the illusion of intelligence in their looks, I would give him a 40% or less (out of 200)
Whereas I would give 200% (out of 200)to someone like Bertrand Russell. Goodbye Bertrand... but where are you when we need you!

Why are so many of our politicans such dimwits? Why are they attracted to such a field? Makes one wonder......
In the case of our president... the less gray***** the better his chances. He is justy oblivious to criticism. Can't understand it...
The Dynasty of the Turds. .. sorry I meant.. Tur*s
But for how long?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]