On Jul 30, 7:54 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

In 2006, Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary
Committee about the Bush administration's controversial terrorist
surveillance program (TSP), announcing that "There has not been any
serious disagreement about the program that the president has
confirmed."http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/24/gonzales-contradiction-spying/

Well sure - unless you count half of the Justice Department
threatening to resign over it.http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/27/a-mass-resignation-at-the-justice...

It turns out that in 2004, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales
attempted to reauthorize the TSP in a most unusual manner - he
bypassed the acting attorney general James Comey and went straight to
the hospital bedside of a near-comatose John Ashcroft, who was
recovering from emergency gall bladder surgery.

So last week Gonzales again testified before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, and this time he was asked why his previous statements
about the lack of disagreement seemed to be, um, incorrect.

Gonzales replied that, oh yes, there was some disagreement after all,
but...

GONZALES:

The disagreement that occurred was about other intelligence activities
and the reason for the visit to the hospital was about other
intelligence activities.

It was not about the terrorist surveillance program that the president
announced to the American people.

Okay, so let's get this straight.

* First Gonzales testified that there was no disagreement over the
TSP.

* Then deputy attorney general James Comey testified that Gonzales
was lying, in fact there was disagreement, and as many as 30 Justice
Department officials almost resigned over it.

* Then Gonzales testified that when he said there was no
disagreement, he was talking about "other intelligence activities" -
and he'd gone to see Ashcroft to talk about these "other intelligence
activities," not about the TSP.

Now check out this conversation between FBI director Robert Mueller
and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee last week:http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-26-gonzales_N.htm?csp=34

In the hearing before the House Judiciary committee Thursday, Mueller
elaborated on the dispute in 2004 over the surveillance program that
occurred in a hospital room where then Attorney General John Ashcroft
was recovering from a gall bladder operation.

Mueller was not in the room when Gonzales, then White House legal
counsel, and White House chief of staff Andy Card arrived and talked
to the ailing attorney general.

Mueller testified that he arrived shortly after they left, and spoke
with Ashcroft.

"Did you have an understanding that the conversation was on TSP?"
asked Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. TSP stands for terrorist
surveillance program.

"I had an understanding the discussion was on a NSA program, yes,"
Mueller answered.

Jackson asked again:

"We use 'TSP,' we use 'warrantless wiretapping,' so would I be
comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the
discussion?"

"The discussion was on a national NSA program that has been much
discussed, yes," Mueller responded.

So let's get this straight again.

* First Gonzales testified that there was no disagreement over the
TSP.

* Then deputy attorney general James Comey testified that Gonzales
was lying, in fact there was disagreement, and as many as 30 Justice
Department officials almost resigned over it.

* Then Gonzales testified that when he said there was no
disagreement, he was talking about "other intelligence activities" -
and he'd gone to see Ashcroft to talk about these "other intelligence
activities," not about the TSP.

* Then FBI director Robert Mueller testified that Gonzales was
lying, in fact he certainly did go to Ashcroft to talk about the TSP.

* Oh yes, and by the way, the Associated Press just uncovered some
documents that prove Gonzales was definitely lying under oath.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/congress_gonzal...

So there you have it - the Attorney General is apparently a great big
liar, and not only that, he's willing to lie under oath.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the chief law enforcement officer
of the United States supposed to avoid blatantly committing perjury?

By EarlG
Democratic Undergroundhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/

Harry

Leahy is lowering the BOOM on Gonezales as we speak.

Either he "clarifies" his statements (impossible) or else
he WILL be subject to perjury investigation.

But there can be no "clarification" because of the
direct contradictions with his own testimony and with
that of others. In addition, the appearance of
Mr. Rove is also pending (probably after court
action forces him to appear).

Gonezales is doomed and even now Bush is preparing
for the inevitable. But BUSH is in a quandary too,
because much of the stuff he's been doing
will get exposed as the "dirty laundry" is
washed and HUNG UP TO DRY.

Out in the sunlight, Bush and his crew shrivel
to pathetic little things, shrunken and
stumbling in the blinding light, the
dissembler Gonzales, the pretender
Rice, the braggart Rumsfield,
the power luster Chaney - so unlike
the dark corners of secrecy where they
could appear to be fighting the war
on terror, heroic "patriots" tragically
"misunderstood" by the populace
as they pursue their "war" ($$$)
on "terror".

One slight problem for Gonezales - by the time his perjury
trial and appeals are over, BUSH will NO LONGER be
"president" and there will be NO PARDON.

No more SMIRK on Gonezales' face, eh?

Citizen Jimserac- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -