See Original Story
Documents indicate eight congressional leaders were briefed about the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program on the eve of its expiration in 2004, contradicting sworn Senate testimony this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The documents underscore questions about Gonzales' credibility as senators consider whether a perjury investigation should be opened into conflicting accounts about the program and a dramatic March 2004 confrontation leading up to its potentially illegal reauthorization.
Gonzales, who was then serving as counsel to Bush, testified that the White House Situation Room briefing sought to inform congressional leaders about the pending expiration of the unidentified program and Justice Department objections to renew it. Those objections were led by then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey, who questioned the program's legality.
"The dissent related to other intelligence activities," Gonzales testified at Tuesday's hearing. "The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program."
"Not the TSP?" responded Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. "Come on. If you say it's about other, that implies not. Now say it or not."
"It was not," Gonzales answered. "It was about other intelligence activities."
Documents indicate eight congressional leaders were briefed about the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program on the eve of its expiration in 2004, contradicting sworn Senate testimony this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The documents underscore questions about Gonzales' credibility as senators consider whether a perjury investigation should be opened into conflicting accounts about the program and a dramatic March 2004 confrontation leading up to its potentially illegal reauthorization.
Gonzales, who was then serving as counsel to Bush, testified that the White House Situation Room briefing sought to inform congressional leaders about the pending expiration of the unidentified program and Justice Department objections to renew it. Those objections were led by then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey, who questioned the program's legality.
"The dissent related to other intelligence activities," Gonzales testified at Tuesday's hearing. "The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program."
"Not the TSP?" responded Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. "Come on. If you say it's about other, that implies not. Now say it or not."
"It was not," Gonzales answered. "It was about other intelligence activities."
A four-page memo from the national intelligence director's office says the White House briefing with the eight lawmakers on March 10, 2004, was about the terror surveillance program, or TSP.
The memo, dated May 17, 2006, and addressed to then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, details "the classification of the dates, locations, and names of members of Congress who attended briefings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program," wrote then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte.
It shows that the briefing in March 2004 was attended by the Republican and Democratic House and Senate leaders and leading members of both chambers' intelligence committees, as Gonzales testified.
Schumer called the memo evidence that Gonzales was not truthful in his testimony.
"It seemed clear to just about everyone on the committee that the attorney general was deceiving us when he said the dissent was about other intelligence activities and this memo is even more evidence that helps confirm our suspicions," Schumer said.
The memo, dated May 17, 2006, and addressed to then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, details "the classification of the dates, locations, and names of members of Congress who attended briefings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program," wrote then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte.
It shows that the briefing in March 2004 was attended by the Republican and Democratic House and Senate leaders and leading members of both chambers' intelligence committees, as Gonzales testified.
Schumer called the memo evidence that Gonzales was not truthful in his testimony.
"It seemed clear to just about everyone on the committee that the attorney general was deceiving us when he said the dissent was about other intelligence activities and this memo is even more evidence that helps confirm our suspicions," Schumer said.
Senator Leahy made it clear that if it turns out there were inaccuracies in Gonzales testimony he would would refer the matter to the Inspector General and the appropriate action would be taken.
Should this Attorney General be charged with anything?
Should this Attorney General be charged with anything?
14 comments:
No wonder Gonzales and Bush are so tight. They have the same mental prowess, which leads to a scary outlook.
larry what is scary is we want or can't do anything about it.
Ironic isn't it? The Attorney General committing perjury!
Amazing bush has attracted so many like minded people.
How disgusting for us that nothing is being done to take hold of the situation. It's as if the whole of government has been enabling his thought process and likes what they have seen. Otherwise, they wouldn't still be giving the administration whatever they want.
I believe the small arguments are only for the publics sake. They all simply want to be re-elected so they continue on this road.
Our country deserves better and needs people who will actually "work" for the people, not for themselves. It's obvious by how long most of these people have been in government that they need to move on and become lobbyists or something. ; (
You do remember that Gonzo was the guy that got Bush out of trouble during his coke phase, right?
Gonzo was never qualified to be Attorney General, but he is the one guy Bush will stick with to the bitter end.
Suzie-Q (S-Q), this is really getting crazy.
Coffee Messiah, now Republicans should see just how corrupted their party is.
kip152 I don't know if Bush will be able to keep this man in his Administration.
bare minimum, he committed perjury. But this goes much, much deeper.
I wasn't all about people harping on Gonzalez in the beginning, but it turns out he was lying? Seriously, does anyone in the Bush administration tell the truth?
I've frequently argued that Gonzo is still acting like he's the White House Counsel. On that alone he should be removed from office.
DivaJood, this guy is trying to cover for our President and that's the bottom line.
David Caspian there oaths are not to America but to Bush.
FunkyTown Fighter I concur and just maybe he might this time.
Kvatch you are right, He's working for the President not on behalf of America.
It's way past time that "Electrode Al" was dealt with.
He's a despicable little punk who has no respect for the Constitution or the citizen. He belongs in one of those Texas torture chambers he so gleefully helped to set up.
JollyRoger, you want see me crying he he ends up there.
In answer to your question, LT:
"Should this Attorney General be charged with anything?"
My answer is yes, anything and everything.
I'm with you on that Snave.
Post a Comment