During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales seemed to be inexplicably upbeat even while he endured hours of grilling and harsh criticism by senators from both parties.
In the wake of his bizarre performance, both the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy and his Republican counterpart, Arlen Spector, have warned Gonzales that he is very close to facing perjury charges.
Compounding their threats, documents were produced yesterday that appear to demonstrate that Gonzales lied under oath about events leading up to his extremely inappropriate late-night visit in March 2004, when was White House counsel, to the hospital room of his predecessor, John Ashcroft, who was recuperating from surgery.
Others in the room have testified that Gonzales, along with Bush’s then-chief of staff Andrew Card, visited Ashcroft, who was heavily sedated, to try to convince him to countermand objections to the president’s illegal wiretapping scheme.
In earlier testimony, Gonzales claimed that no one in the administration objected to the illegal scheme. In fact, according to subsequent testimony, several top officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller, threatened to resign if the scheme continued.
On Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly denied that the purpose of his visit to Ashcroft in his hospital bed was the illegal program, claiming instead that it was another, as yet undisclosed secret program. The newly released documents, as well as statements by people present at a meeting prior to the trip to the hospital, appear to prove that Gonzales is lying.
Alberto Gonzales is following a course remarkably similar to that of John Mitchell, the only previous attorney general to face criminal charges. Like Gonzales, as Pres. Nixon’s A.G., Mitchell okayed the wiretapping of U.S. citizens (most of whom were political enemies of the president) and used security issues as an excuse to restrict civil liberties.
In 1975, Mitchell was found guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy and sentenced to 30 months in prison.
The fact that Gonzales is unconcerned about facing a fate similar to Mitchell’s may itself be circumstantial evidence of a continuing conspiracy to obstruct justice at the White House.
Earlier this year, Gonzales was said to have spent two weeks rehearsing for the appearance before the Senate in which he used phrases like “I don’t recall” dozens of times. Even on Tuesday, his responses were obviously coached and practiced so as to obfuscate … something. He obviously has something to hide. What is it?
At the heart of his matter is a real criminal enterprise to which Pres. Bush has publicly, even proudly, confessed, and for which constitutional scholars say there are solid grounds for impeachment.
In 2005, the New York Times reported that there had been an ongoing scheme by the Bush administration to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). After the leak to the New York Times, the president admitted he had repeatedly violated FISA by eavesdropping on U.S. citizens, which is illegal. To give the program an air of legitimacy, the White House political office spun it as the “terrorist surveillance program” (TSP).
Elizabeth Holzman, who served in the Congress during Watergate, writing in the journal Foreign Policy, said that the president’s repeated violations of FISA are actionable:
The strongest legal argument for impeachment—because it is based on the Watergate precedent—arises out of the fact that President Bush refused for years to seek court approval required under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for a special wiretapping program in the United States. After revelations that President Nixon illegally wiretapped journalists and White House staffers, Congress enacted FISA to prevent future such abuses, making them a federal crime. Illegal wiretapping was one of the grounds for articles of impeachment against Nixon.
Perhaps the reason Gonzales is so relaxed about perjuring himself is that he is doing what he has been instructed to do: Keep the attention of Congress and the American public on himself as a dodge to to deflect interest away from Pres. Bush’s real impeachable offenses — his repeated violations of the surveillance act.
If so, there is a strong likelihood that Gonzales’ silence has been bought — as Scooter Libby’s was — with the foreknowledge that Bush will pardon him before he spends a minute in jail.
Is Gonzales’ Perjury a Red Herring to Keep Focus off Bush’s Impeachable FISA Violations?…
The most bizarre aspect to AG Alberto Gonzales’ Senate testimony on Tuesday was the serenity with which he faced allegations of perjury. It is possible Gonzales’ job now is to keep the focus on himself and away from Bush’s impeachable FISA violation…
If Bush broke the law, he should be charged. What’s the hold up?
As we say in Hazleton, Pennsylvania: “Illegal is illegal” and what part of “illegal” doesn’t (the President) understand.
Skyreader7 said “If Bush broke the law, he should be charged. What’s the hold up?”
Easy answer, Obstructionist Republicans with no respect for the law or the will of the people.
RED HERRING is the subject for comment! My comment is Yes, Yes, yes!
Thanks for bringing this up.
Doubt you will print this, but you liberals have way too much time on your hands. Maybe you should adjust your meds instead of worrying about what Gonzalez said or did not say. No matter what you wish for the country is not going to allow any impeachment and the President can fire any Prosecutor at any time for any reason, ala Clint (fired all 92 including one investigating him).
Well, Randy, liberals believe in freedom of speech, and so, even though we disagree with you, we still allow you to speak your mind. Even when it’s contemptous. “Adjust your meds”? That’s really raising the level of political discourse there.
Also, it is custom at the start of his term for the president’s attorneys to submit their resignations. Clinton accepted them, as did Bush. Additionally, just because Clinton may have abused his power doesn’t mean Bush can. Keep that in mind.
As for Gonzales, it is an interesting theory that he is just a red herring to distract us all from the illegal wiretapping. If that’s the truth, then we shouldn’t let Bush and Gonzales succeed. Congress should be able to focus on two scandals at a time.
It’s a disappointment that the Senate Judiciary Committee this year has only seemed to be focusing on the Gonzales scandal, rather than the more serious constitutional crisis posed by the President’s warrantless wiretapping program. Chairman Leahy should be able (and brave) to hold multiple hearings on numerous topics. For the American people and for the future of our country, it’s a shame that that hasn’t happened.
Geez, Randy, listen to Rush much? You have completely bought into the rightwing spin, even though it is doesn’t make sense if you think about it for two minutes. Too bad there aren’t meds for what plagues dittoheads.
US Attorneys are political appointees. That means that Democratic presidents appoint Democratic USAs, and Republican presidents appoint Republican USAs. So Brett is correct: every president fires all the USAs when he takes office, IF the previous president was from the opposing party. George W. Bush fired all of Clinton’s USAs in 2001. Clinton fired all of Daddy Bush’s USAs. Reagan fired all of Carter’s; Carter fired all of Ford’s. Nixon fired all of Johnson’s. See how it works?
What is shockingly different here is that no president has ever fired more than one USA at a time and no president has ever fired a USA for no apparent reason — much less eight or nine of them at once. And no president has ever tried to hide the reasons he fired a USA — until now.
Obviously, Bush is hiding criminal activity related to these firings — apparently involving a massive voter fraud operation that was run out of the White House political office in 2004, just for starters.
If he has nothing to hide, why doesn’t he just say why he fired them?
it’s a good point, making Gonzales the red herring
why? to buy time, they need time to implement their unknown plans
so….
the question just might be
do they need to time to attack Iran then declare Martial Law here at home?
wait for their ‘own’ dreaded attack here to materialize?
so why is Gonzalez smiling?
Maybe they’ve done it… bought enough time to implement something and therefore they’re all like…. White House plans on schedule, check
that’s a very chilling thought
folks, if what some are saying and Martial Law is declared in the US like in the time of Lincoln, THERE IS NO MORE GOVERMNET and with that no oversight
no one in their right mind thinks Gonzo is that cavalier, he’s utterly in lock step with whatever The President (soon to be Impeached President) says
sends chills down the body politic
it is correct to say see how calm and collected that man is
so… question to the Senate panel
if your witness is buying time for an action that is against the country of the US, and that in itself proposes a massive threat to the functioning of the nation, shouldn’t you then EXPEDITE your preceedings
the White House is BANKING on civility and due process
they are surely not expecting Expediency
FIRE THE BUM, SEND HIM TO THE JUDGE, CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
Let’s see, the people don’t want impeachment? Clinton was impeached for a very minor offense with an approval rating, I believe, in the high 60s. Do you really think the 70% of Americans who disapprove of the job Bush is doing will be troubled by Congress holding him accountable for his crimes, some of which he has already admitted?
bruiser- Americans WILL be troubled by the Senate trial with Republicans voting to NOT hold Bush accountable for his high crimes. That is the reason Conyers says that Pelosi will not pursue impeachment. Personally, I think it is a mistake. The only way to really defeat the corporatist-controlled Republicans is to impeach and let the nation come face to face with the truth.
The mere fact that this can go on shows we have a severly broken system of checks and balances , not to mention justice .
In violating FISA, just who’s phone calls, emails, etc., is Bushco listening to?
-Phone calls from outside and into the US.
Which leads to:
-Phone calls from inside to outside the US.
Which leads to:
-Phone calls from inside to inside the US.
Once his foot is in the door, can there be any doubt that Bushco was also tapping domestic calls without a warrant in violation of the 4th Amendment? As a model of the possible range of the wiretapping, recall that the convicted but later pardoned felon, John Poindexter, while in his neocon sinecure at the Pentagon (subsequently moved to NSA) developed a broad listening program that includes domestic spying. Such domestic phonetaps could include in their wide sweep, say, planning by the 2004 Kerry presidential campaign; or, discussions by Democratic congresspersons opposed to Bushco policies; or opposing legal counsel in a lawsuit.
Here’s a possible indication of the illegal uses: when John Bolton was under consideration for the position of UN ambassador (to which he was later elevated for a time by a recess appointment), recall that he was reported in the press as going over to the National Security Agency to review logs of messages that Secretary of State Powell had made. Because the sweep of calls may include even internal domestic calls, might Mr Bolton, for example, also been interested in what Powell was saying about Bolton’s appointment? Who knows? The possibilities are scary. Once the Congress opens this Pandora’s box, the illegality could be huge.