Gonzales' Troubling Testimony

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Wed May 16, 2007 at 04:16:22 PM EST
Tags: Alberto Gonzales (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via mcjoan, Sens. Schumer, Feingold, Kennedy and Durbin are concerned about discrepancies in Gonzales' Congressional testimony concerning the objection of then Deputy Attorney General James Comey to the BushCo warrantless surveillance program:

In very dramatic testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified . . . that you and former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card went to Mr. Ashcroft's bedside at George Washington Hospital, where he was in intensive care, in an effort to get him to agree to certify the legality of a classified program that he and Mr. Comey, who was serving as acting Attorney General at the time, had concluded should not be so certified. . . .
. . . You testified last year before both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee about this incident. On February 6, 2006, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, you were asked whether Mr. Comey and others at the Justice Department had raised concerns about the NSA wiretapping program. You stated in response that the disagreement that occurred was not related to the wiretapping program confirmed by the President in December 2005, which was the topic of the hearing.
. . . We ask for your prompt response to the following question: In light of Mr. Comey's testimony yesterday, do you stand by your 2006 Senate and House testimony, or do you wish to revise it?

I have one more for the Senators. During his confirmation hearings in January 2005, Gonzales testified that:

HATCH: OK. As counsel to the president of the United States, is it your responsibility to approve opinions issued by the Department of Justice?
GONZALES: No, sir. I don't believe it is my responsibility, because it really would politicize the work of the career professionals at the Department of Justice.

I know that some have been critical of my actions in not trying to force the opinion a certain way, people that are concerned about certain sections of that opinion, but we have to be very, very careful here. When you use the White House as a shield, it can also be used as a sword. It can be used as a sword to force an opinion to reach out an outcome that would be politically advantageous to the White House, and we don't want that to happen.
And so I take my responsibilities very seriously in respecting the role of the Department of Justice, given to the department by Congress, to decide for the executive branch what the law requires.

In light of Gonzales' role as described by Comey, one where he "tr[ied] to force the opinion a certain way," I believe that Gonzales may wish to revise and correct those remarks as well.

I believe the Senators may wish to consider this testimony from Gonzales as well:

FEINGOLD: First I want to follow up on you answer to Senator Kennedy and Senator Leahy regarding the OLC memo. You told Senator Leahy that you didn't want to politicize the work of career professionals of DOJ, so you couldn't weigh in against the interpretation of the law that was expressed in that memo.
. . . [T]he issue is whether you disagreed with that memo and expressed that disagreement to the president.

You're the president's lawyer. Isn't it your job to express your independent view to the president if you disagree with the opinion of the Justice Department? Or do you just simply pass on the DOJ's opinion no matter how erroneous or outrageous, and just say to the president in effect, "This is what the DOJ says the law is"?

GONZALES: Thank you, Senator, for that question.

Let me try to clarify my comments regarding my role in connection with the memo and my role generally, as I view it, as counsel to the president.

It is, of course, customary, and I think to be expected, that there would be discussion between the Department of Justice and the counsel's office about a legal interpretation of, say, a statute that had never been interpreted before, one that would be extremely emotional, say, if you're talking about what are limits of torture under a domestic criminal statutes. And so there was discussion about that.

But I understand and it's my judgment that I don't get to decide for the executive branch what the law is. Ultimately, that is the president, of course. But by statute, the Department of Justice is given the authority to provide advice to the executive branch.
And so, while I certainly participate in discussions about these matters, at the end of the day, that opinion represents the position of the department and therefore the position of the executive branch.

(Emphasis supplied.)

< Prince Harry Won't Go to Iraq After All | American Idol: Bring Back Melinda >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Gonzales' Troubling Testimony | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Impeach Gonzales. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by nolo on Wed May 16, 2007 at 04:30:21 PM EST

For starters. Comey's testimony about Gonzales and Card racing in the dead of night to Ashcroft's hospital bedside in order to end-run the position Comey took as acting AG was chilling, and should be horrifying to anyone who respects the law.

nolo (1.00 / 0) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:16:13 PM EST

Nonsense.

Comfy was acting AG. He reported to the Pres....
How can the Pres' men be running around the Pres' men??


Perjury (5.00 / 6) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:21:29 PM EST

Look it up.


insane BS (5.00 / 7) (#7)
by Sailor on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:27:26 PM EST

Comfy was acting AG. He reported to the Pres....
How can the Pres' men be running around the Pres' men??

The went to ashcroft, not comey. comey was acting AG. ashcroft was indisposed.

Even the fbi was so worried that they told the agents assigned not to let comey be removed from ashcroft's room for any reason.

And comey was so worried that he refused to meet with the WH w/o a witness.

In south american countries this is called a 'coup.'

In bushco it's just another day at the office ... issuing 'signing statements.'

And then the WH ignored both of them and instituted an unconstitutional, illegal program.

Geez, why even bother, the troll will just make a personal attack, some will respond, and we're back to yet another psychotic episode of all about jim.


sailor (1.00 / 1) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 06:02:52 PM EST

Even for you that is a laugher.

The Presidents men went to see the AG. That pis*ed off the acting AG, another of the Pres' men.
The AG was perfectly capable of listening to them and tell the first group no. The second group remained pis*ed... nothing like a turf war..
A few days later the Pres and the real AG got together and worked the issues out..

Wow... What happened to the sandbagged machine gun nests?? Where was Che to shoot some teenagers??


Bloodless Coup (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 06:08:54 PM EST

Sounds like an attempted Coup d'Etat to me too, that is if you are not counting the one we had after 9/11.

Same mechanics. Good think Comey believes in the US system of government. That is why he resigned.


Even Ashcroft (5.00 / 4) (#11)
by Molly Bloom on Wed May 16, 2007 at 07:55:54 PM EST

pointed out that he had turned over the office to Comey while he was in the hospital. Jeez, even for you, this denial of reality is breath taking.

This gets back to my usual point about you. For you Bush can do no wrong. Divine right of Bush. You are a monarchist. This is a democracy. Its the only explanation that fits.

MB (1.00 / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:29:24 AM EST

Molly..... Ashcoft reported to Bush.... Comfey was acting.... Ashcroft could have, and did a few days later, say: "I'm bacccckkkkkkk," and Comfey becomes just one of the guys.

Either Bus wanted Gonzales to see Ashcroft, or else Gonzales and his gang wanted to see Ashcroft on their own... They probably knew Comfey's position and wanted to talk to Comfey's "boss."

Now. Let's assume that Ashcroft had agreed with Gonzales. What would he have had to do? He would have had to reassume his duties as AG and sign whatever needed to be signed.

There is nothing illegal in any of that, as Comfey has admitted.

You know, I have seen "the boss" called while on vacation, while in the hospital, while on a business trip... all because someone believed that the acting boss was wrong on some issue.

There is nothing illegal, immoral or fattening in any of this.

Please repeat after me:

If you don't like what you are told by any acting boss you are perfectly free to go see the real boss.


In an alternative universe (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Molly Bloom on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:19:18 AM EST

somewhere laws don't matter. They also don't matter in a monarchy where Kings rule by divine right.

The USA is not in an alternative universe. This isn't a monarchy. Laws matter.

lovely folks ppj supports (5.00 / 0) (#23)
by Sailor on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:30:40 AM EST

James B. Comey, then the acting U.S. attorney general, was on his way home one night in March 2004 when he got an urgent call from the office on his cellphone.
The distraught wife of Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, who was recovering in the hospital from gallbladder surgery, had called the Justice Department to report that her husband was about to get two uninvited guests. The visitors were two top aides to President Bush, and they wanted Ashcroft's signature on a secret national security directive that Comey had rejected only a short time before.
[...]
Mrs. Ashcroft was upset because she had forbidden visitors and phone calls; her husband was recuperating from surgery the previous day.
Suspecting an end run was in the works, Comey ordered his security detail to head for George Washington University Medical Center; he called FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and several top aides to meet at the hospital to protect Ashcroft from any effort at coercion.
"I raced to the hospital room, entered, and Mrs. Ashcroft was standing by the hospital bed. Mr. Ashcroft was lying down in the bed, the room was darkened," Comey said. "And I immediately began speaking to him, trying to orient him as to time and place, and try to see if he could focus on what was happening, and it wasn't clear to me that he could. He seemed pretty bad off."

and after being told to FO, the WH occicials implemented the program anyway.

Clearly illegal.


Sailor (1.00 / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:10:02 AM EST

This strikes me as the information that is vital to understand what likely happened. Attorney General John Ashcroft had certified, over and over, that the NSA program was legal. Suddenly, Ashcroft was taken ill. The next thing that happened, according to Comey, was that Comey notified the White House that he would not sign the certification that Ashcroft had signed some 20 times. Comey did not say--amazingly, no one asked him--whether he ever told the White House that Ashcroft had agreed with this conclusion on the very day when he was taken to the hospital

And why wouldn't the WH have been concerned enough to want to see Ashcroft???

This looks like a deliberate attempt by Comey to provoke an incident. Or, at the least, show an amazing lack of concern for the other players on the team. But maybe not... Who cares??

And thennnn.. along came Jones.... nope, the rest of the story...

So it is hardly surprising if, confronted with sudden intransigence from a brand-new, acting attorney general, Alberto Gonzales and Andy Card thought that the problem lay with Comey's staging a sort of palace coup. It may well have been reasonable for them to go to see Ashcroft to get the same certification they had gotten many times before.

Shall we cut to the chase?? Let's do.

When they got to the hospital, they found that Ashcroft seconded Comey's legal concerns, based on the review that had just been completed. That caused some confusion, no doubt, but it led to the White House meeting between Comey and President Bush, followed by a meeting between Bush and FBI Director Robert Mueller. The upshot of those meetings was that Bush, apprised of the results of DOJ's legal review, told Comey to do what he thought was right.
Bush reauthorized the NSA program, but immediately thereafter, Comey says, the program was revised in some unspecified way to satisfy the DOJ's new concerns. Subsequently, the program continued to be reauthorized and recertified by DOJ every 45 days.

So what do we have here? Confusion, office politics, obvious turf issues and a WH staff who wanted to talk to the AG who had approved the item of concern 20 times previously...

And then??? After the discussion??? A President who sat down and discussed the issues with Comey, and allowed the program to be revised meet the concerns of Comey... The revised program was recertified every 45 days....

And you folks want to talk about a coup???

Nonsense. That looks like a President who wanted to follow the law, and was willing to talk about changes the new acting AG wanted..and allowed them to take place....

Gesh.

: and that's why . . . (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by nolo on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:43:30 AM EST

our upstanding, law-abiding President didn't implement the changes necessary in order to make the program legal until it was clear that the "alternative was a full-scale resignation of the entire top tier of the Justice Department."

: what's that, another powerlie!? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Sailor on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:36:05 PM EST

Ashcroft and the Justice Department initially had approved the program but had second thoughts after a new head of its office of legal counsel, Jack Landman Goldsmith, began raising concerns about whether it violated the law, Comey said Tuesday.
A week before the attorney general fell ill, Comey said, he and Ashcroft decided that there were legal problems with the program and that they would oppose recertifying it.
ashcrack wasn't AG at the time, comey was.
and if it was so above board why did the fbi give personal protection to comey while the WH thugs were trying to pressure a sick, doped up man to sign it?

If you think that was just a "turf war" (5.00 / 5) (#12)
by nolo on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:29:28 PM EST

you have no comprehension of the rule of law. Clearly, for you, it's just about politics and power, and whoever has the power has the right. Or as Nixon so succinctly put it, "if the President does it, it's not illegal."

Unless, I suppose, we're talking about blowjobs.


nolo (1.00 / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:30:03 AM EST

Law??

Comfey himself admitted that no law was broken.


: Oh yeh? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by nolo on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:47:00 AM EST

So what were they fighting over? Who knows. But there's certainly evidence to suggest that the underlying issue was was whether constitutional or statutory protections of civil liberties ought to be binding on the president in a time of war. The entire fight, in other words, was driven by the expansive notion of executive power embraced by Cheney and Addington. And here's the kicker - it certainly sounds as if the program was fairly easily adjusted to comply with the law. It wasn't illegal because it had to be; it was illegal because the White House believed itself above the law.
Read the whole thing here.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I repeat (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Sailor on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:58:05 PM EST

mueller (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by conchita on Wed May 16, 2007 at 04:45:07 PM EST

anyone else here wondering why mueller was so deeply involved? why would mueller be involved if it was an nsa program as opposed to an fbi program? is the program in question a domestic spying operation?

: Domestic, per NPR this a.m.: (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by oculus on Wed May 16, 2007 at 04:59:56 PM EST

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10204560

The problem so many of you seem to be having (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by scribe on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:07:19 PM EST

is that you are holding to the idea that there is only one domestic wiretapping/electronic information-gathering program which violates FISA.

This is the Bush Administration. Why do you limit your thinking to believe they would only have one secret program?

Once you accept the idea there is more than one secret program, Gonzo's testimony is not a lie - he's just talking about a different program.

If the Senators were decent trial lawyers and therefore better questioners, we might be getting to the bottom of this rather than bouncing around the edges.

exactly my point below on nsa vs. fbi (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by conchita on Wed May 16, 2007 at 07:17:01 PM EST

and why mueller was involved. if i understand correctly, isn't nsa supposed to be surveillance of non-americans?


Comey (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by JanL on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:01:30 PM EST

The whole hair-raising testimony he gave yesterday is a give-away if one listens carefully. There is/was a domestic spying program that was so bad that even Ashcroft wouldn't sign off.
Also very troubling, Gonzo is not responding to subpoenas at this point.


JanL (1.00 / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:49:38 AM EST

I have no idea what it was...

But Ashcroft and Bush got together and worked the details out a few days later.


: Not Comey and Mueller? (none / 0) (#32)
by conchita on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:51:16 PM EST

I thought it was meetings with Comey and Mueller that got it worked out? I might have read wrong, will go back and look.

Come back.... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by desertswine on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:03:11 PM EST

Shane.

Gonzo aka ppj. (4.00 / 0) (#19)
by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:25:49 AM EST

If bush says it, it must be right?

Those last two pargraphs you quoted from Gonzo say it all, Big Tent.

it's my judgment that I don't get to decide for the executive branch what the law is. Ultimately, that is the president, of course.

Since when does the president, or any lawyers client (unless the client is the Congress) write law?

Edger (1.00 / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:36:36 AM EST

Actually you make a point for Gonzales that you probably didn't intend.

Any lawyer's client gets to decide what the law is.

We have police, courts and lawyers to decide if the client is correct.

Now I know this is a subtle point. But if this was not true, then the lawyers would be in complete control.


Ahh. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:00:12 PM EST

You think that bush should be sitting in the defendants chair in a prisoners dock in a courtroom.

Sure. Works for me.


: ppj has always done more (none / 0) (#38)
by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:40:19 PM EST

than anyone to help bury bush and the rethugs.
He may have finally hit on a way to put bush and cheney and gonzales and all of them in prison.

uh . . (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by nolo on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:22:16 PM EST

No. As Elihu Root famously said, "About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists in telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop." A competent lawyer's job, in the first instance, is to tell the client whether the client's intentions and goals comport with the law. When they don't, it's the lawyer's job to let the client know this in no uncertain terms. If the client persists in an illegal course of conduct, the lawyer cannot assist, and may actually have an obligation to alert the appropriate authorities.


Good point, nolo (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:36:53 PM EST

If the client persists in an illegal course of conduct, the lawyer cannot assist, and may actually have an obligation to alert the appropriate authorities.

And is himself breaking the law if he doesn't, no?


: In certain instances, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by nolo on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:03:24 PM EST

absolutely.

DA (1.00 / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:54:37 AM EST

yadda yadda DA. You are so predictable.. Now let's see...

Even Comey says no law was broken.

BTW - Your wilfull claimed inability to see my point in respect to what Edger wrote is well, typical and boring... Gonzales'comment had nothing to do with anything in your response, but was an admittedly subtle comment that anyone... that would include the President... has the right to decide on the legality of counsels advice....

Or would you claim that the President (or anyone) should accept advice that he thought improper/illegal/wrong?

And of course you totally ignore my point that we have police officers, lawyers and courts to decide who was right. Be it a robber or a President.

Ta Ta


According to NPR, Ashcroft was in intensive care (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:10:04 PM EST

but, according to Comey, understood what was being asked of him and sd. "no" and that Comey was the acting AG.

powerlie ... (none / 0) (#31)
by Sailor on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:36:48 PM EST

... is not a respectable source.