quote:

FBI Chief Disputes Gonzales On Spying Mueller Describes Internal Debate By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane Washington Post Staff Writer and Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer Friday, July 27, 2007; Page A01 FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III yesterday contradicted the sworn testimony of his boss, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, by telling Congress that a prominent warrantless surveillance program was the subject of a dramatic legal debate within the Bush administration. Mueller's testimony appears to mark the first public confirmation from a Bush administration official that the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program was at issue in an unusual nighttime visit by Gonzales to the hospital bedside of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who was under sedation and recovering from surgery. Mueller's remarks to the House Judiciary Committee differed from testimony earlier in the week from Gonzales, who told a Senate panel that a legal disagreement aired at the hospital did not concern the NSA program. Details of the program, kept secret for four years, were confirmed by President Bush in December 2005, provoking wide controversy on Capitol Hill. "The discussion was on a national -- an NSA program that has been much discussed, yes," Mueller said in response to a question from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.). Mueller told another lawmaker that he had serious reservations about the warrantless wiretapping program. His testimony presents a new problem for the beleaguered attorney general, whose credibility has come under attack from Democrats and some Republicans. They say Gonzales deceived them on a number of issues, including the NSA program and events surrounding the firing last year of nine U.S. attorneys. "He tells the half-truth, the partial truth and anything but the truth," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), as he and three other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee asked the Justice Department yesterday to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether Gonzales lied to Congress about the NSA program. Complicating the administration's predicament, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) yesterday issued subpoenas to White House adviser Karl Rove and a deputy, demanding their testimony by Thursday as part of the panel's long-running investigation into the prosecutor firings and the alleged politicization of Justice Department career personnel jobs. The White House has refused such requests, prompting House lawmakers to move toward criminal contempt citations against a former Bush legal counsel and his current chief of staff. Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said in a statement that Gonzales's testimony and statements about the NSA program have been accurate, but that "confusion is inevitable when complicated classified activities are discussed in a public forum." Gonzales is under fire in particular for his testimony in February 2006 that there had been no "serious disagreement" about the NSA wiretapping program. Gonzales and his aides have since said that he was referring to the monitoring of international communications confirmed by Bush and not to other, undisclosed "intelligence activities" that attracted controversy within the administration. "The disagreement that occurred in March 2004 concerned the legal basis for intelligence activities that have not been publicly disclosed and that remain highly classified," Roehrkasse said. Other officials, including Mueller and several Democratic lawmakers who were briefed on the NSA's activities, have said that the surveillance, or some part of it, was at the heart of the dispute. Mueller declined at the hearing to discuss Gonzales's statements on the topic. "I really can't comment on what Judge Gonzales was thinking or saying," he said. "I can tell you what I understood at the time." FBI Chief Disputes Gonzales On Spying Mueller's testimony is particularly striking in light of his opposition to Gonzales's view of the matter at issue during the 2004 legal dispute. Then-Acting Attorney General James B. Comey sought Mueller's help in ensuring that an FBI security detail did not evict Comey from Ashcroft's hospital room during the visit by Gonzales, then White House counsel, and Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff. Mueller was not present during the hospital visit but testified yesterday that Ashcroft briefed him on the conversation. He repeatedly said he agreed with Comey's version of events, which included testimony that Mueller, Ashcroft, Comey and others were prepared to quit if the program went ahead without changes to render it legal. Bush agreed to make the changes after he met with Mueller and discussed the objections Mueller shared with Comey, according to Comey's account. Mueller conveyed that promise to Comey. Signaling that Democrats intend to keep pursuing the issue, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) wrote to Mueller after yesterday's hearing, requesting notes about the 2004 hospital incident. Mueller testified that he kept records because the episode was "out of the ordinary." FBI officials declined to comment. The request by four senators to appoint a special prosecutor was sent to Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. He has taken charge of matters relating to the U.S. attorney firings and related controversies because Gonzales and numerous other aides are recused. Leahy also raised the possibility this week of asking Justice Inspector General Glenn A. Fine to open a perjury investigation of Gonzales if the attorney general declines to correct testimony that Leahy considers inaccurate. Besides demanding Rove's testimony on the attorney firings, Leahy sent a subpoena to J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy political director. Rove and Jennings appear in Justice Department e-mails discussing steps in the plan to fire the prosecutors. Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?hpid=topnews

You know we've hit rock bottom when I'm compelled to say: Please bring back Ashcroft.

___________________
Retro ...

Lawyers lying... what is the world coming to?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider You know we've hit rock bottom when I'm compelled to say: Please bring back Ashcroft.

Same.

The current set of punks make Ashcroft look like the best possible Attorney General in history.


MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

there was another program. one far more secret and far more controversial.

i've been telling you guys from the last thread about that night. there's something about these programs that is just not being made public.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo there was another program. one far more secret and far more controversial. i've been telling you guys from the last thread about that night. there's something about these programs that is just not being made public.

And you know that because you have knowledge of this super-duper secret program how again?

Or is that the only logical answer to be given shy of outright lying? Because to think of our dear AG blatantly lying to Congress is just unfathomable?

But that's not even a logical conclusion to draw, because his testimony of this program discussed at Ashcroft's hospital bed was NOT the same program that Mueller is referring to DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS Gonzales' own testimony to Congress on June 5, 2007. He states then:

quote:

QUESTION: Mr. Attorney General, last month, Jim Comey testified about a visit you and Andy Card made to John Ashcroft’s hospital bed. Can you tell us your side of the story? Why were you there? And did Mr. Comey testify truthfully about it? Did he remember it correctly? GONZALES: Mr. Comey’s testimony related to a highly classified program which the president confirmed to the American people sometime ago. And, because it’s a highly classified program, I’m not going to comment on his testimony.

You see, back in June he was confirming that this was the same program Mueller was talking about - the same program that was "confirmed to the American people sometime ago" by Bush.

But that's not what Gonzo said 3 days ago now, was it? Nope, he said this:

quote:

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.

Now that's what you call a slight little, uhh, big fat fucking no-no. That's a direct contradiction, so whether or not there is another program involved (and there very well may be) is irrelevant. The problem lies into Gonzales conflicting testimony not just with Mueller, but with himself.

But let's be sure it's not just our FBI director Mueller and Gonzo where we see the contradiction. Members of the "Gang of Eight" - those 8 congressional members who were briefed on the program are also contradicting Gonzales too.

John Rockefeller, who at the time was the ranking minority member of SSCI:

quote:

But it's not just Mr. Comey's word against Mr. Gonzales's when it comes to aspects of this matter. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), who was ranking minority member on the Senate intelligence committee in 2004, told The Post's Dan Eggen and William Branigin that he was surprised by Mr. Gonzales's description of a meeting earlier on March 10, 2004, involving top lawmakers on the intelligence committees. Mr. Gonzales testified that there was consensus among lawmakers of both parties that the intelligence program in question should not be allowed to lapse and that Mr. Ashcroft should be informed about that consensus. Mr. Rockefeller told The Post that there was no such agreement. Mr. Gonzales is "once again . . . making something up to protect himself," said Mr. Rockefeller, who is now chairman of the Senate intelligence committee. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7072401962.html

Tom Daschle:

quote:

Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader who received briefings on the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance programs, says Alberto Gonzales isn't telling the truth about what Senate and House leaders were told in March 2004 about the program's utility and legality. In testimony today to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales attempted to give "context" for his infamous hospital trip to a convalescent John Ashcroft on March 10, 2004, after acting attorney general James Comey refused to authorize the surveillance program. It was only after a briefing for the so-called "Gang of Eight" bipartisan congressional leaders demanded that the program continue, Gonzales said, that he and then-White House chief of staff went to "inform" Ashcroft of the Gang's wishes. Daschle was one of that Gang of Eight. In a statement e-mailed to TPMmuckraker, he all but calls Gonzales a liar. quote: "I have no recollection of such a meeting and believe that it didn't occur. I am quite certain that at no time did we encourage the AG or anyone else to take such actions. This appears to be another attempt to rewrite history just as they have attempted to do with the war resolution." Daschle's statement bolsters one that his former Gang of Eight colleague, Senate intelligence committee chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), gave to Dan Eggen of the Washington Post: Gonzales is "once again is making something up to protect himself," Rockefeller said. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003768.php

Pelosi:

quote:

That makes three members of the Gang of Eight -- the bipartisan congressional leadership briefed about President Bush's warrantless surveillance -- to dispute Alberto Gonzales's testimony that the Gang demanded the surveillance continue after a March 2004 briefing telling them that acting Attorney General James Comey refused to reauthorize the program. "She made clear her disagreement with the program continuing despite Comey's objection," Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly tells TPMmuckraker. Pelosi was part of the Gang of Eight in her capacity as House Democratic leader in 2004. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003770.php

Jane Harman:

quote:

Two Members of Congress who were part of the Gang of Eight said if Gonzales approached Ashcroft about something that had been part of their discussions, it could only have been the terrorist surveillance program, whose existence the president confirmed in December. “That doesn’t make any sense to me,” Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) said of Gonzales’ testimony. She said the TSP was “the only program we were ever briefed about.” Harman was ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee at the time, and confirmed that she attended the March 10 meeting referenced by Gonzales. Similarly, Senate Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said there was only one program that the Gang of Eight was briefed on, and it was the program the president already has confirmed. Plus, both Harman and Rockefeller said the Congressional briefings were limited in scope. “We were briefed on the operational details — period — not the legal underpinnings,” Harman said. http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_1...tml?CMP=OTC-RSS

And just to cap that off, here's the AP with the documents to show his bullshit:

quote:

Documents show that 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. [...] 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 shows that the White House briefing with the eight lawmakers on March 10, 2004, was about the terror surveillance program, or TSP. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725...ODn8_wPn_as0NUE

So again, if there was another program, it directly contradicts both the documents given to the AP, the 4 gang of 8 members, FBI director's testimony, Comey's testimony, and Gonzales' own testimony. That's kinda a lot of witnesses, documents, and sworn statements (esp. by Gonzo himself) to be saying there's no lie and perjury involved.

And even if there was another uber-secret program here, does it not have to receive approval on some given level by the Legislative branch? If not approval, then acknowledgement of some sort to selected intelligence committee members? I thought there was a law somewhere pertaining to that, but I'm too tired to find that right now.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo there was another program. one far more secret and far more controversial. i've been telling you guys from the last thread about that night. there's something about these programs that is just not being made public.

But here's the thing.

There's only so many scenarios we can imagine up, with our current technology and potential technology.

What could be worse than monitoring the phone lines?

Monitoring the internet?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby But here's the thing. There's only so many scenarios we can imagine up, with our current technology and potential technology. What could be worse than monitoring the phone lines? Monitoring the internet?

They already do that....

what is really sad about you people is that you fall so easily for the Donkey Party's spin worse than anything yall can come up with from the other side.

everything has been a gotcha game overplayed by the Democraps

the AG should sue the Democraps for harassment.

this is over now. everything else is spin. next.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And you know that because you have knowledge of this super-duper secret program how again? Or is that the only logical answer to be given shy of outright lying? Because to think of our dear AG blatantly lying to Congress is just unfathomable? But that's not even a logical conclusion to draw, because his testimony of this program discussed at Ashcroft's hospital bed was NOT the same program that Mueller is referring to DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS Gonzales' own testimony to Congress on June 5, 2007. He states then: You see, back in June he was confirming that this was the same program Mueller was talking about - the same program that was "confirmed to the American people sometime ago" by Bush. But that's not what Gonzo said 3 days ago now, was it? Nope, he said this: Now that's what you call a slight little, uhh, big fat fucking no-no. That's a direct contradiction, so whether or not there is another program involved (and there very well may be) is irrelevant. The problem lies into Gonzales conflicting testimony not just with Mueller, but with himself. But let's be sure it's not just our FBI director Mueller and Gonzo where we see the contradiction. Members of the "Gang of Eight" - those 8 congressional members who were briefed on the program are also contradicting Gonzales too. John Rockefeller, who at the time was the ranking minority member of SSCI: Tom Daschle: Daschle's statement bolsters one that his former Gang of Eight colleague, Senate intelligence committee chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), gave to Dan Eggen of the Washington Post: Gonzales is "once again is making something up to protect himself," Rockefeller said. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003768.php Pelosi: Jane Harman: And just to cap that off, here's the AP with the documents to show his bullshit: So again, if there was another program, it directly contradicts both the documents given to the AP, the 4 gang of 8 members, FBI director's testimony, Comey's testimony, and Gonzales' own testimony. That's kinda a lot of witnesses, documents, and sworn statements (esp. by Gonzo himself) to be saying there's no lie and perjury involved. And even if there was another uber-secret program here, does it not have to receive approval on some given level by the Legislative branch? If not approval, then acknowledgement of some sort to selected intelligence committee members? I thought there was a law somewhere pertaining to that, but I'm too tired to find that right now.

keep spinnin Opus.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what is really sad about you people is that you fall so easily for the Donkey Party's spin worse than anything yall can come up with from the other side. everything has been a gotcha game overplayed by the Democraps the AG should sue the Democraps for harassment. this is over now. everything else is spin. next.

whats really sad about you people is you actually enjoy the world these ******s are trying to create. you get off on it you enjoy it so much

quote:

Editorial Mr. Gonzales’s Never-Ending Story Published: July 29, 2007 President Bush often insists he has to be the decider — ignoring Congress and the public when it comes to the tough matters on war, terrorism and torture, even deciding whether an ordinary man in Florida should be allowed to let his wife die with dignity. Apparently that burden does not apply to the functioning of one of the most vital government agencies, the Justice Department. Americans have been waiting months for Mr. Bush to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who long ago proved that he was incompetent and more recently has proved that he can’t tell the truth. Mr. Bush refused to fire him after it was clear Mr. Gonzales lied about his role in the political purge of nine federal prosecutors. And he is still refusing to do so — even after testimony by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, that suggests that Mr. Gonzales either lied to Congress about Mr. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping operation or at the very least twisted the truth so badly that it amounts to the same thing. Mr. Gonzales has now told Congress twice that there was no dissent in the government about Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize the National Security Agency to spy on Americans’ international calls and e-mails without obtaining the legally required warrant. Mr. Mueller and James Comey, a former deputy attorney general, say that is not true. Not only was there disagreement, but they also say that they almost resigned over the dispute. Both men say that in March 2004 — when Mr. Gonzales was still the White House counsel — the Justice Department refused to endorse a continuation of the wiretapping program because it was illegal. (Mr. Comey was running the department temporarily because Attorney General John Ashcroft had emergency surgery.) Unwilling to accept that conclusion, Vice President Dick Cheney sent Mr. Gonzales and another official to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room to get him to approve the wiretapping. Mr. Comey and Mr. Mueller intercepted the White House team, and they say they watched as a groggy Mr. Ashcroft refused to sign off on the wiretapping and told the White House officials to leave. Mr. Comey said the White House later modified the eavesdropping program enough for the Justice Department to sign off. Last week, Mr. Gonzales denied that account. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee the dispute was not about the wiretapping operation but was over “other intelligence activities.” He declined to say what those were. Lawmakers who have been briefed on the administration’s activities said the dispute was about the one eavesdropping program that has been disclosed. So did Mr. Comey. And so did Mr. Mueller, most recently on Thursday in a House hearing. He said he had kept notes. That was plain enough. It confirmed what most people long ago concluded: that Mr. Gonzales is more concerned about doing political-damage control for Mr. Bush — in this case insisting that there was never a Justice Department objection to a clearly illegal program — than in doing his duty. But the White House continued to defend him. As far as we can tell, there are three possible explanations for Mr. Gonzales’s talk about a dispute over other — unspecified — intelligence activities. One, he lied to Congress. Two, he used a bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public: the spying program was modified after Mr. Ashcroft refused to endorse it, which made it “different” from the one Mr. Bush has acknowledged. The third is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush cover it up. Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales’s words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request. If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/o...&hp&oref=slogin

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what is really sad about you people is that you fall so easily for the Donkey Party's spin worse than anything yall can come up with from the other side. everything has been a gotcha game overplayed by the Democraps the AG should sue the Democraps for harassment. this is over now. everything else is spin. next.

And this is how the 26% responds to an argument nowadays ... "donkey party" ... "Democraps" ... nobody takes you seriously anymore except for fellow 26%ers. This is what happens when facts become meaningless and you have to desperately resort to fantastical conjecture to defend unethical/criminal behaviour.

Hey, your presence is missing at the Pat Tillman thread to tell us why the Bush administration should exert executive priviledge denying the Tillman family closure of this issue by setting the facts straight.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Jul-29-2007 at 04:00

Gonzalez didn't lie. if you would have listened to me about more than one classified program (one of which that was incidentaly created under the Clinton administration) and not this Democratic party character assasination boondoggle then you would understand.

this is no longer about Gonzalez lying.

if you want to make another thread about the conflicts and legalities of former NSA and DoJ spying programs then be my guest.

this thread is now over.